Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15388 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:30 am Post subject:
ok then, here's the plan:
tomo can you resubmit the camera with a brief description of the actual camera site (i.e. o confirm co-ordinates given match where you say the camera is)
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:14 am Post subject:
GPS_fan wrote:
M8TJT wrote:
One of the things that gets you life membership is:
Quote:
The first person to accurately report a change to an existing fixed site i.e. change of type, correction of location, move etc.
Trevor
Trevor, you're right here and I was going to point this out - but the one point that you missed is that an individual needs to be a subscribed member at the time of making the submission in order to qualify for free lifetime subscription:
Darren wrote:
As before, you must be a current subscriber to benefit from this offer.
Oops Sorry
But Why? Surely wee need as much accurate data as we can get. I would have thought that to insist that someone first pays £19 so that he/she can make a contribution to the database is counter produc tive. I would certainly not pay someone £19 to tell them that they had an ommission in their database. Or have I missed something here yet again.
Trevor
Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 10644 Location: Suffolk, UK
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:42 am Post subject:
To put it another way - you have to pay £19 to get the database, legally, before you would know what was, or wasn't, in said database. _________________ Richard
TT 910 V7.903: Europe Map v1045
TT Via 135 App 12.075: Europe Map v1145
So is listing the house No. misleading the verifiers?
The Location [Latitude 54.322904, Longitude -2.742273] is outside No.35 on my Garmin!
Link Edited for clarity - Oldboy
If I understand DennisN correctly, the location that was actually submitted, and presumably visited by the verifier, was here which seems to be quite a distance away? It seems to be a case of mistaken location. _________________ Jock
TomTom Go 940 LIVE (9.510, Europe v915.5074 on SD & 8.371, WCE v875.3613 on board)
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14907 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject:
MaFt wrote:
ok then, here's the plan:
tomo can you resubmit the camera with a brief description of the actual camera site (i.e. o confirm co-ordinates given match where you say the camera is)
dennis: can you get back to verify it ;)
MaFt
I NEVER CHECKED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!! I was making the point that the original coordinates were NOT where the "comments" said. I'm assuming (from 236 miles away!!) that
A - there is no apparently suitable mobile site at coordinates Lat 54.32679, Long -2.74758, which would seem (Google Earth etc) to be slap in the middle of the yellow cross hatching at the cross roads of Strickland Gate, Highgate, Allhallows Lane and Lowther Street.
B - the verifier then consulted the notes and found reference to a road which wasn't any of the roads mentioned in A above.
THEREFORE - because the verifier could not see a suitable site at the coordinates given, the submission was rejected due to coordinates and description not matching. The submission could just as easily have been rejected as being for a totally unsuitable site in the middle of a yellow box junction.
I agree with the new plan, but subject to it having to wait until next time I'm in Kendal (and I haven't been there since about 1955! ) OR until next time another verifier is in that area!
BMW330 I shall sit and prepare a tome about verifying and pass it upwards for consideration as to whether it might be a useful thing to publish for all to see what verifying is like. In the meantime, meeting submitters isn't on - I used the 5 minutes timescale in full confidence that he wouldn't possibly have been able to drop everything and come instantly at my beck and call (shows what a prat I am!). But I verify "in passing", "whilst out whitevanmanning", "on my way home". So if I were to be in a position to call into Kendal (5 miles off the M6?), I'd have already driven at least 240 miles (5 or 6 hours including delivery/collection?), so the last thing on my mind would be passing the time of day chatting to a submitter who I'd have to hang around waiting to turn up whilst I worried about double yellows and getting home before everybody else had gone to bed!
Photos is a terrific idea. BUT how can I look at them when I'm out and about vanning? Do I print them all off and carry around two or three reams of pictures? (there are well over 1,000 sites awaiting verification as I write) or have a digital folder full on a laptop, that I can stop, fire up and consult each time I look at something? Bit impractical.
And then "What's the best way for a submitter to challenge a rejected submission without an argument ensuing?" - You tell me! We have here an example of just one single such case which has now been going on for three days. First work out what's involved in informing submitters that their submissions have been rejected!!
And will everybody please remember that in this case, the debate isn't about whether No 29 shows up in the right place, it's about Aynam Road not being the same as Allhallows Lane.
As for common goal, I'll requote what I've done twice already
Quote:
And I repeat also
Quote:
PLEASE DON'T GET US WRONG. We have no interest in denying "your" camera, quite the opposite - if it's there, we want it desperately.
BUT WE DON'T WANT TO PUBLISH IT IN ALLHALLOWS LANE! _________________ Dennis
If the following idea has already been discussed then i apologize for raising the subject.
Would a forum where members can post brief details of any camera they have submitted, and in which the mods can place a reject or accept post when the camera has been checked by a verifier, be a good idea to try and avoid any of the disagreements which are posted on various threads.
How many verifiers are there to try and keep the database updated?
The co ordinates were typed into the map on this site from my tomtom, and showed the location of where the camera was situated pretty bob on.
(Pardon me, but I've edited your post to compress the url link so that we can see the page easier).
I didn't get through to you, did I?
Let me repeat,
Quote:
The coordinates placed it at the junction of Lowther Street and the A6,[that's nowhere near Aynam Road] so presumably that's where the Verifier went looking. Clearly, either tomo1340 or MaFt input the wrong coordinates - no blame, it happens - again demonstrates why we check.
There's no point in re-hashing it all, or in checking your method of use of the submission page, where you may have typed the coordinates, but then clicked "update" when your cursor was elsewhere.
And I repeat also
Quote:
PLEASE DON'T GET US WRONG. We have no interest in denying "your" camera, quite the opposite - if it's there, we want it desperately.
Edit away if it makes you feel better.
You say you didn't get through to me, but I think I am failing to get through to you. The co ordinates I put into the system to report it WERE took from my tomtom and typed into the submission system as it requests you to, the location that came up was the exact point I thought it was and as such submitted it. Therefore I can't see how I could have typed them in wrong but it could have happened as I am not infallable. The co ordinates I put in originally were in the region of N54.32342 W2.74241 if some one wants to see how that comes up for them. _________________ o2 XDA Stellar
TTN6
MOWE
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
(there are well over 1,000 sites awaiting verification as I write).
This must translate into quite a time backlog. Would it be worth giving punters an idea of how long they can expect to wait for confirmation of their submission?
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject:
They aren't done in time order, they are done more by location - if there are a crop of new ones near a Verifier he/she will go out of their way to check them.
But it is like painting the Forth Bridge, as fast as they are verified the next crop of reports are waiting.
To be honest, the majority of new fixed camera reports that make it to the verifiers files are eventually rejected. If they are correct, they will have already been reported by dozens of users, so never require a Verifier's visit.
The ones that are left are usually the CCTV cameras, security cameras, ANPRS cameras and just about anything else that one person THOUGHT might be a speed camera.
Trouble is, that means that the one that MIGHT be a good report, is most likely to be in a very out of the way place, so has to wait that bit longer.
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject:
It really depends upon where some of the submissions are covering relative to verifier locations and where they regularly drive, however if there are a number of submissions against any given site then the location can be accepted on strength of numbers, thus not requiring a personal visit.
The submission of camera locations is something anyone can do, and this very action can reduce the backlog of pending cameras - in reality they will always increase as the popularity of use increases.
I will be checking out quite a few locations in / around Lancashire, Liverpool and Manchester this weekend, a single circular trip pre planned and programmed into one of the nav units. This trip also enables screen shots to be captured for a review of some other GPS software I am messing around with.
When I look at submissions pending on the West Cumbrian coast which is relatively close (as the crow fly's) it is a heck of a distance to drive, they will be covered at some point as I cannot stay away from the Lakes for too long! - Unless of course one of the others gets there first.
One final consideration from me is the comments that are submitted, we do use these and at times they can make all the difference between an accept or reject call when considering a mobile location (the fixed cameras are easy), but please put as much detail as possible when submitting, at the same time consider it needs to be read rather quickly, short, accurate and concise keep it to the point and it makes things so much easier, reading "war and peace" isn't always possible when out checking - Mike
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!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
Sorry
but subject to it having to wait until next time I'm in Kendal (and I haven't been there since about 1955! 
) OR until next time another verifier is in that area!
