| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: Key Re speed camera database |
 |
|
What's going on in the original thread of this name?
I was going to post this in that thread but found it locked by someone who seems not to agree with the original poster's sentiments.
JimPrice appears to be trying to get a camera located in the right place, a sentiment that I think most of us would agree with, and a moderator is getting a snot on about it.
I think that JimPrice realises the fact that we all put in our services to get the database as accurate as possible, so why the .... are some of us just critisizing this bloke instead of holding up out hands and we might have been wrong on this one, let's get it fixed.
It is this sort of high handed behaviour that is realy hacks people off, and has done in several previous locked threads.
I'm with Jim who has been both polite and non confrontational throughout this thread. So now perhaps someone we can work together to get the position of this cam sorted.
Or perhaps I should just STFU and always agree with the moderators. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
missing_user
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Posts: -7
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Having just re-read the two threads, I feel as M8TJT
| Quote: | | It is this sort of high handed behaviour that is realy hacks people off, and has done in several previous locked threads. |
It would be a good policy if all 'locked' threads were signed by the person involved and reasons given! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sallyann
Lifetime Member
Joined: Jun 23, 2006
Posts: 768
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: Re: Key Re speed camera database |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: |
I'm with Jim who has been both polite and non confrontational throughout this thread. |
Yes.
Locking the thread was unnecessary and heavy-handed.
Sal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mullet
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Posts: 1051
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think someone simply hit the wrong button and will rectify the mistake.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wasn't my mistake but I agree and have unlocked the thread.
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15311
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
no idea who locked it either but we do ask all mod's to 'sign' any edits or lockage etc
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimPrice
Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 06, 2006
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I said previously I was not being critical of anybody.
It certainly was not my intention to offend anybody and if I did then I apologise.
For my part I have not taken any offence either as I relaise how difficult it can sometimes be to word a post that accurately reflects what a person would have said in normal conversation but with out the benefit of non verbals, tone, emphasis and other nuiances etc.
The important thing as far as I am concerned is accurate locations of these cameras in the interest of road safety and the sooner they make it onto the database the better no matter who initially reports them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15311
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
falkirk81
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Jul 07, 2006
Posts: 1651
Location: Newcastle, England, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes you have certainly been polite throughout the debate. I am a verifier and sometimes it can be a bit difficult to verify certain locations. My advice to you and anyone else who notices a discrepancy in the database, is to report it.
From your earlier posts, i gather that a specific gatso that you reported has now been included but in an incorrect location. I would suggest that you report this so that the next time a verifier is nearby, the location becomes more accurate. You could do this in two ways, im not sure whats the easiest in terms of the website, but a simple change of location report could be submitted, OR (my preferred choice) would be to submit a remove request and a new gatso request for the camera.
I may be wrong, but this is just my opinion of what would work best.
_________________
Tomtom GO 1005 LIVE
iPhone 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14902
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: Key Re speed camera database |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: | | a moderator is getting a snot on |
Strumble & Sallyann agreed.
Only two Moderators contributed to that thread, so it's not hard to guess who might be the target of that malicious comment.
I can see no sign of snot. So let's be having your grounds for that statement, which seems to me to be entirely unfounded, undermining and mischievous. Point out for me where I was impolite, and/or confrontational, where I criticized this bloke and/or where I did NOT hold up our hands and admit we might have been wrong on this one.
Or hold up your hands and admit you have completely misunderstood it.
I have no quibble with the descriptions of unnecessary, high-handed and heavy handed - it was indeed I who originally suggested that locking the thread for prolonging the subject would be exactly that and it seemed a reasonably gentle warning to desist from a topic which was heading towards another 19 pages.
This is the very first time I have ever challenged another team member in public. Take that as a measure of my disquiet on this occasion.
One final word to whomsoever chooses to administer in this matter. The malicious comment and support posts have rested on the internet for over 10 hours, having over 140 views, before I've had chance to respond. At least allow me the same.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To those of you that did. Thanks for the support.
@DennisN
I fully accept your statement that my comment (as highlighted by you above) was unfounded, undermining and mischevious. I unreservedly apologise for it. However I can see no reason for the thread being locked. There was no arguing or confrontation and if people are prepared to go to 19 pages on a subject surely they are entitled to. Possibly not???
I did NOT say that you were impolite or confrontational. What I did say was that the OP was neither.
The implied critisism was that the thread was just locked without giving the OP a really valid reason, which you now seem to agree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
missing_user
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Posts: -7
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Point out for me where I was impolite, and/or confrontational, where I criticized this bloke... |
'Bloke'----I thought the lifetime member was JimPrice.
He certainly had valid points and his thread was degraded by the 'banter' between team members.
The decision to lock the thread was wrong as it did not contain the Moderators name or his/her reasons.
So a good result JimPrice, I see the Camera location moved on Google and the thread was re-opened.
The screenshot shows the changes you deemed important 266feet on Garmin.
Last edited by missing_user on Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14902
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
M8TJT that's rubbish!
You did NOT indeed say I was impolite and/or confrontational. You DID say | Quote: | | I'm with Jim who has been both polite and non confrontational throughout |
which means you are NOT with me and clearly infers, therefore, that I was both.
You also said | Quote: | why the .... are some of us just critisizing this bloke instead of holding up out hands and we might have been wrong on this one, let's get it fixed.
It is this sort of high handed behaviour that is realy hacks people off, and has done in several previous locked threads. |
which you have still not supported by a single shred of evidence. I asked you to demonstrate where I was criticising and where I was NOT admitting we got this one wrong and you haven't answered that. You also state this is a practice of which I make an objectionable habit (I presume "hacks off" means objectionable and "several" means habit, or at least many more than once), so lets have your evidence of that too.
I do NOT agree with your implied criticism that the thread was just locked without giving the OP a really valid reason - firstly because you made no such implication and secondly because my post said | Quote: | | I would prefer not to lock this thread which is a heavy handed approach. |
and then | Quote: | | Can we then just leave this as being an instance of a Verifier getting one wrong? Please? |
In the middle I said | Quote: | | Anita gave a reasonable comment and a link. |
Is there any more clear way of saying it? And of saying it before the thread was locked?
In my opinion, this was an occasion when you should have asked yourself the question first and answered YES. | M8TJT wrote: | | Or perhaps I should just STFU |
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14902
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strumble you're wrong too.
First, the terminology "Bloke" was introduced, not by me, but by M8TJT, so don't go finding fault with me for that!!
Secondly, the "degrading team banter" was apologised for and his response was | Quote: | Definately not a problem
I understand that a number of you used to be "Old Bill"
Same here, so I am quite used to the banter
In fact in the days of so much political correctness it's good to see it still exists |
Thirdly, I have already commented above on thread locking after the reasons were already given in advance.
Finally, the "Result" which you applaud, was already in hand long before any hint of locking.
You said you had read both threads, but it looks as though you did so with your eyes closed to much of their contents.
I hate this public rowing. I'm only responding because I'm fed up of seeing people get away with ill-considered criticisms (not just of me).
Edit To deal with your edit after my post by adding the valuable information that the correct location was 266 feet further up the road - we are well aware that to you 24 feet is intolerable, yet for this one, anybody who uses our recommended warning distance of 300 yards, will get his warning 88 yards early, so should find the camera in view by the time the countdown expires. Certainly we want accuracy, but we don't need you adding weight to criticism of a genuine mistake which has already been corrected.
_________________
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: 15311
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
indeed, dennis did state that there was an error on this occasion and that it would be dealt with. which it has been.
it was announced a while back that we would not go into discussions about individual submissions. while on this occasion both anita and dennis pointed this out and this is the reason, i believe, why dennis asked for discussion to cease but not wanting to lock the thread. discussion continued and the thread was subsequently locked. my only criticism being that it wasn't "signed off" so to speak - but again, a genuine mistake that anyone could make.
this 'rule' was brought about by the sheer number of users who are adamant that there submission is correct and take up our time via the forum, email or private message. one such instance involved dennis and another verifier visiting a site at least 4 or 5 times between them (at their own cost) at the 'demands' of the submitter who was 1000% certain that their submission was correct. after a lot of wasted fuel, time and effort the user subsequently withdrew their certainty and resubmitted at the correct location...
hopefully now you might see why the thread was locked for fear of a reprisal of that particular incident.
i think the saddest part is that while JimPrice was happy it was an error on our part and resubmitted the coordinates for review it was the team that had the 'problems' with the thread being locked.
anyway, let's just chill out. the error has been resolved. both myself and dennis have explained why the thread was initially locked. end of story.
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 |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
