| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bmuskett wrote: | | Why restrict the content to pending mobiles? Why not all pending cameras? One of the benefits that I see of this file is that if I come across a pending site I can report what I find at that site, thus hopefully speeding up improving the accuracy of the database. |
Let me just state for the record now that we have no plans to do this. The mobile issue is unique in that it is a database of potential sites and so there may or may not be a camera there. This makes verification difficult and slower than for fixed sites.
For all other camera types we employ a verification system that is proven and works. There is no need to make a seperate 'pending' file available because any user who comes across a camera that is not in their version of the database is encouraged to report it.
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14906
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MaFt wrote: | this discussion has been about returning the database download to how it was (i.e. including the pending mobiles) which has now been agreed but with a slightly different format, i.e. we will distinguish the pending mobile sites.
MaFt |
Will the new pending file be a permanent feature - always contain any new unconfirmed mobile submissions? Or will it reduce and eventually disappear as and when the current "how it was" pendings get confirmed as accepted onto the main DB (or rejected)?
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15356
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
DennisN
We're changing the software that makes all the format conversions etc so it will likely be permanent.
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I expect a rash of "Why is there no .ogg file for the pending cameras?" questions next, along with demands that "we" produce one pronto.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emjaiuk
Frequent Visitor
![]()
Joined: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 335
Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MaFt
Just a thought, do you want members comments on unverfied sites they pass, and if you do in what format? e.g. using the existing camera reporting form.
| Quote: |
I expect a rash of "Why is there no .ogg file for the pending cameras?" questions next, along with demands that "we" produce one pronto....
|
From my experience of the members on this site, I wouldn't be at all suprised if some kind soul with more technical knowledge than me produces one before long. I don't recall anybody 'demanding' any sort of voice file in the past.
_________________
Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris_UK
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: . |
|
|
| . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15356
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emjaiuk wrote: | MaFt
Just a thought, do you want members comments on unverfied sites they pass, and if you do in what format? e.g. using the existing camera reporting form.
|
yes, please. also if peopl can continue to report mobile sites everytime they are seen.
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trevor.dowle
Lifetime Member
Joined: 16/06/2003 05:22:14
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bmuskett wrote: |
Why restrict the content to pending mobiles? Why not all pending cameras? One of the benefits that I see of this file is that if I come across a pending site I can report what I find at that site, thus hopefully speeding up improving the accuracy of the database. |
There is a difference to 'pending' and 'unverified'.
As I understand it, UNVERIFIED cameras are those that have been reported by a single contributer, and not presenty sunstantiated by a further report.
This does not make these cameras invalid and I would like to know about them. Being UNVERIFIED does not imply that they have yet to be installed (this is what I understand PENDING to mean).
_________________
Regards
Trev Dowle
TomTom 730 T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmuskett
Lifetime Member
Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren wrote: | | bmuskett wrote: | | Why restrict the content to pending mobiles? Why not all pending cameras? One of the benefits that I see of this file is that if I come across a pending site I can report what I find at that site, thus hopefully speeding up improving the accuracy of the database. |
Let me just state for the record now that we have no plans to do this. The mobile issue is unique in that it is a database of potential sites and so there may or may not be a camera there. This makes verification difficult and slower than for fixed sites.
For all other camera types we employ a verification system that is proven and works. There is no need to make a seperate 'pending' file available because any user who comes across a camera that is not in their version of the database is encouraged to report it. |
Fair enough, understood. Thanks again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmuskett
Lifetime Member
Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren wrote: | | bmuskett wrote: | | Quote: |
I won't even comment on the fact you need a database of ANY kind to "remind you to check your speed"  |
So why do you use the database then? |
|
? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmuskett
Lifetime Member
Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bmuskett wrote: | | bmuskett wrote: | | Quote: |
I won't even comment on the fact you need a database of ANY kind to "remind you to check your speed" |
So why do you use the database then? |
? |
Interesting. I posted this in reply to Darren's apparently empty post on page 17 in reply to my original post. I wondered what Darren meant to say. I could have sworn that when I previewed my post it showed an empty quote wrapper for Darren around my original post. I've just tried it again and it does show. But it's gone from this post.
Is there a problem with the BB software, or has someone edited my post? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was about to ask why you were incorrectly attributing the above comments to me until I noticed that I had quoted them in an otherwise empty post one page back!
No idea how that occurred but it was unintentional. They were not my comments btw.
_________________
Darren Griffin
Last edited by Darren on Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmuskett
Lifetime Member
Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm cracking up. Now when I've returned from composing that post, Darrn's quote wrapper is back! What's going on???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bmuskett wrote: | | I'm cracking up. Now when I've returned from composing that post, Darrn's quote wrapper is back! What's going on???? |
Nothing to worry about, I thought you'd mistakenly attributed the comment to me and so edited the post. Then I realised it wasn't your mistake but mine as I had quoted that comment in an otherwise empty post and so re-instated it and posted my explanation above!
I hope that clarifies things!
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Border_Collie
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 2543
Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Lost_Property wrote:
Surely the camera warning signs are a bit of a giveaway, whether there is an unverified camera warning or not.
I think you are mixing up mobile and static sites. You don't often if ever get warning signs for mobile sites. We are only discussing here unverified *mobile* sites.
|
Sorry to disagree but not only are there a number in my area. In fact there are several just along the road I live, 4 each side. Several months ago I was getting a warning every time I passed a warning sign approaching the site where the camera van sits. Usually on a nice sunny day.
I've also had mobile warnings where there has been a flashing Slow Down xxmph, at flood lights where there have been, or is, road works, traffic monitoring cameras etc. All false warnings submitted by people who mistakenly thought they were mobiles, these will of course stay in the unverified camera database, as the chances of people verifying them as mobile sites is pretty remote.
The decision by PGPSW to include unverified mobiles would, I thought, make the 'majority' happy, but no, unverified statics were asked to be included. Maybe it wasn't so silly when I, tongue in cheek, suggested people may want unverified traffic light cameras and unverified laybys and bridges over dual carriageways. Maybe speed humps could go on the list. Where does it all end.
I'm wondering how the 27 verifiers will feel when they are asked to verify the 1000 unverified cameras, on top of new ones being submitted, which are about to go back into the database. Still, not to worry, it's only their extra time and extra fuel they will have to worry about. Plus of course, if they do travel to these sites and believe them to be unlikely, will there have to be an unverified camera database and another showing an unverified verifiers unlikely database?
I have asked several times what the advantages are of having the cameras included and said the reasons I thought it unneccesary, not one person has come up with a positive answer, so I'm still none the wiser. But I'm always willing to be enlightened and learn an alternative kind of logic. :P
_________________
Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
