View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
SvenP Lifetime Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2006 Posts: 32 Location: Nottinghamshire, UK
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: Inaccuracy of camera submission page? |
|
|
I recently submitted a new mobile camera that I drove past on my way home from work. I have checked the map on the PGPSW site and there is a new camera shown, but not at the location I reported. I am concerned that the data may be incorrect but the confirmation email from PGPSW was deleted by my new spam filter so I can't check.
The camera in question is MOBILE:27018@30, Heading:160, Reversible. If someone else reported this then there is no problem.
If I reported this camera then there is definately a problem somewhere. The one I reported was 200m further north. Using the input map again gives Latitude: 53.12101052173982 Longitude: -1.1895489692687988. It's in a 30 limit catching people heading south at 160 degrees (not reversable) and it should be just north of Cauldwell Road.
Either:
1) I reported the location incorrectly
2) I reported the location correctly but the coordinates given by the web page were innacurate, or the data has not been corrrectly entered.
3) Someone else reported the camera shown, but gave the wrong data.
4) Someone else reported a different camera location.
5) Something else I can't think of at this time.
In the interests of speed camera database accuracy, I would be grateful if the PGPSW team could give some feedback on this issue. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15155 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
27016 is not your camera. 27016 was submitted in december last year.
i'm sure the person who submitted it is also cerain that their co-ordinates were correct, as are you - so who do we believe? in this instance, instead of having 2 locations within 200m of each other (approx 13seconds at 30mpf) we compromise and put one in the middle.
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SvenP Lifetime Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2006 Posts: 32 Location: Nottinghamshire, UK
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you, but I was referring to camera 27018. Is that the one you mean?
The position of Camera 27018 is actually situated within a 50mph limit so if it is reversible as shown in your database then the speed should more accurately be 50 for those heading north.
200m may not be a long way, but I would have thought that depending on the how the warnings on your GPS system are set, may give you the time needed to brake enough to avoid a speed conviction. In this particular case where the camera is set to catch people in a 30mph limit coming over the brow of a hill as they approach a 50mph limit, even 5 seconds is enough warning. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15155 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
apologies sven, i DID mean 27018 (late night!)
have now relocated it to take into account the fact it was in a 50 zone.
cheers
MaFt |
|
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 |
|
|
|