View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mac-The-Knife Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:42 am Post subject: What counts as the position of a mobile site? |
|
|
I can only see the database working if the "position" of a mobile site is given as the position of the recording device, NOT the aim point (which could be 1000m away!).
Time and time again I see warnings on the database marking an aim point.
I have even submitted to correct this on a site, whose intricate details I know too well (if you follow my drift). Yet now I see the correct position has been deleted (a lay-by) and replaced with one 800m or so down the road at the target/aim point.
Is this correct? Have I misunderstood the meaning of a mobile "site"? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a Verifier. I check for actual location of the camera - van, bike, you name it.
To this end, with our cameras, it is possible to set your own warning distance and you can set that at 1000yds or 100yds, whichever you trust to give best warning.
I have not previously heard a suggestion of setting our camera locations at the point it's aiming at.
Can you give us details of this one you know well - lat/long of layby, camera number for the other one? _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mac-The-Knife Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dennis,
Thanks for your reply and moreover thanks for all the work to verify reports. I can't begin to imagine the task you have.
I concur with everything you say.
The best example (because of my undesired intricate knowledge...) is Swindon and Wilts mobile site AH6.
This is a stretch of the A36 north west of Salisbury.
The Constabulary witness statement describes the location as
"A36 Hanging Langford, in nearside lay-by near to metre post 48/5 approx 470m east of Steeple Langford junction...Site 1043".
In my case the aim point was LAT 51.14056622 LON -1.9605787 (this is the point of the western junction of the Steeple Langford road with the A36) and the laser was 521.8m east in the aforementioned lay-by on the northern side of the A36.
On the current database, mobile 8129@60 is now shown as the valid one and is very close to the aim point.
On the current database, mobile 8128@60, now shown crossed-out, is pretty much the lay-by position.
I realise the site may have moved but, knowing the lay of the land, I really doubt it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ho, Ho. A36 is one of my happy hunting grounds (whitevanman by trade, verifier is "as I go past anywhere that needs checking") and I travel along it quite often.
Looking at that area, Mobile:8129@60 and Mobile:8128@60 are quite old ones - from the ID number and the fact that neither of them give a Heading number. If you reconsider 8129, there IS a layby there - on the south side, so it would be quite feasible as a mobile location (I'm not that good - I'm looking on the web at this point). But you are quite right that the site for (ex)Mobile:8128@60 is a useful layby too.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that sometimes police reports are not quite accurate (my parking fine 45 years ago described my Jowett van as a Ford!), so it may be that the reporting officer was using his database rather than the actual place he was at.
Whatever. It looks to me like a good case for you to make a submission of the site of 8128, commenting that either it should never have been deleted or should be reinstated on the grounds of your "personal" knowledge, giving your above quote from the statement as supporting comments.
I might put a plug in here for the "Comments" box on the cameras submission page. We get comments like "I got nicked here" which don't give much help. The one you've quoted is on the other hand very useful - if submitters describe the location, instead of simply swearing a terrible oath that it's true (when they could easily be giving us coordinates in the middle of a golf course because they got the finger in instead of out!), it would make this science a lot more exact. Mobile cameras are hardly ever there when we go to check a report, so the "good quality" comments are really valuable.
Note - it's down to you now - I have NOT been to this site to look at it from your post. I am NOT reporting it as verified, unless and until there is a new report and I go that way on my travels. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mac-The-Knife Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dennis,
OK.
I can only guess 8129@60 points up the A36 hill (eastwards).
I know 8128@60 points down the A36 hill to the junction and aims at oncoming vehicles that have just left the A36 dual carriageway and taken a very slight left-hand bend (just slight enough to keep the scamera van out of sight).
Thing is, about a month ago I reported this point and since then mobile 8128@60 (on the northern lay-by) has been crossed out!
Are you suggesting I just report it all over again (to get 8128@60 re-instated) ? I'll do that if necessary. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15226 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mac-The-Knife: have got your submissions and they will be proessed by the next update
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mac-The-Knife Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks,
You're all doing an awesome job, I can't imagine it's easy reviewing all the submissions - especially mobile ones.
(and it can be a tadge tricky to submit sightings accurately and in a consistent format) !
I'm very grateful for all your hard work and I'm sure I speak for many, many others. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
neil01 Frequent Visitor
Joined: May 06, 2005 Posts: 902 Location: Leeds
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without getting into the discussion about whether the position should be the camera position, or the position of the trap. One qualification re location of the camera being the camera position is that the actual position may give a false warning if it is nearer to another road. A good example would be from a bridge which is also a road, but there are others.
A more useful definition for the camera location would probably be the appropriate section of road nearest to the camera position - this would apply to fixed cameras too. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
neil01 wrote: | A more useful definition for the camera location would probably be the appropriate section of road nearest to the camera position - this would apply to fixed cameras too. | In fact this is what we (particularly MaFt) do. Look at any mobile sited on a motorway overbridge and you'll find that he actually "falsely" places them on the side of the motorway, not on the bridge where they park up. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mikealder Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DennisN wrote: | I might put a plug in here for the "Comments" box on the cameras submission page. We get comments like "I got nicked here" which don't give much help. | As an example of the comments field being used "in field" when checking camera locations take the following picture as an example of where comments really do make a difference.
I would have rejected this location were it not for very detailed comments, which are displayed on the PDA/ Phone when moving around, the nearest camera to the current position is automatically displayed.
As it was I was quite happy to accept Mobile 34590 based on seeing the location and checking the comments, as DennisN has said:
Please use the comments box for making informative submissions
- it makes the choice presented to the verifier so much easier
I must apologise for the quality of the image but I only had the basic camera built into the Artemis phone to capture this shot a few months ago. - Mike |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BMW330 Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: May 20, 2006 Posts: 389 Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mac-The-Knife wrote: | ...the laser was 521.8m east in the aforementioned lay-by... |
Wow, never considered that they'd be targeting from that far! Do they need a tripod to take longer distance shots like this (handheld would be way too unsteady, right?) |
|
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 |
|
|
|