| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15317
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
 Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 3:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
i've had many submissions that 73020 is reversible (even from NO_MAD) and, as such, it gets shown as 2 distinct camera POIs so that systems that only 'warn on route' will warn for both directions on the dual-carriageway.
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NO_MAD
Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Posts: 71
Location: St Albans Herts
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi MaFt
If a reversible camera in the central reservation has 2 separate icons (marked as single directions on the map) Then why dose gatso 3521 on the A40 in the central reservation only have 1 icon and is marked up as reversible?
Regards
NO_MAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi NO_MAD
Perhaps you would like to go through all the cams in the database and let MaFt know which are reversible on a central reservation.  I'm sure that given the up to date information he might do something about it. There are only about 7,841 non mobile cameras to look through  shouldn't take too long  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14902
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NO_MAD wrote: | | Has it been forgotten? |
No. It is still on our list of reports to be verified when we are in the area. We also have another 1,625 submissions to verify - for simple management of resources, we can only verify when we are in an area. During the last fortnight, I have been to Scunthorpe, Birmingham, Manchester, Letchworth, London, Reading, Salisbury and Plymouth. I haven't had any chance to drive around Swanley. Clearly, neither has any other verifyer.
It is possible that I may get a job in that direction when the emergency budget takes place - I have for the last two years delivered copies of accountancy stuff the day after the budget to various accountants, some of which are in the Swanley area. Same job as I referred to in my post of 8th April, same constraints as always - subject to being able to get to it as part of a day starting at 5am and covering several deliveries and 400 miles. I have now created a Favourite on my maps specially for that report and if I get that job, I promise I'll do my best to get to it.
EDIT Spoke too soon - I've just googled and found that the emergency budget will be on 22nd June, four days after I go on holiday! 
Still a waiting game, I'm afraid, unless you have a whip round to pay me 25 pence a mile (£100 plus VAT) to go check - I can't do it for free and that's my business (whitevanman courier) price for 400 miles.
| NO_MAD wrote: | | Then why dose gatso 3521 on the A40 in the central reservation only have 1 icon and is marked up as reversible? |
Give us a break for goodness sake! It is a comparatively recent innovation putting two cameras where there is a reversible one. It's not long ago that virtually every device was unable to distinguish direction, so a single (reversible) camera in the central reservation would warn us no matter which direction we were travelling. Camera identity numbers are allocated at the time of submission - your removal submission in October 2009 followed 72477 in July and 73020 in August - all date later than our decision about having two for the price of one reversible. Gatso 3521 predates my membership and any involvement in this forum, so it's long before directional ability was introduced. A single camera at 3521 STILL warns the vast majority of members who do not have directional capability. As M8TJT says, there are quite a lot of cameras to go through if we undertake an exercise to identify and change this type.
My best guess from the map is that 73020 and 72477 are about 25 yards apart (there are some people who can tell you precisely by using the coordinates). In an earlier post, you said there are ladder marks on both carriageways, confirming that the camera is reversible. If you have your device set to warn you at a reasonable distance in advance of the camera position, that 25 yards will be entirely unnoticeable. Perhaps you may reconsider and decide that your pursuance of the removal of 72477 is no longer justified.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rockin_plumber
Lifetime Member
Joined: Nov 15, 2007
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DennisN wrote: | | Perhaps you may reconsider and decide that your pursuance of the removal of 72477 is no longer justified. |
Free Lifetime Membership Criteria
3. The first person to accurately report a permanent removal of an existing fixed site.
I shall say no more  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15317
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rockin_plumber wrote: | | DennisN wrote: | | Perhaps you may reconsider and decide that your pursuance of the removal of 72477 is no longer justified. |
Free Lifetime Membership Criteria
3. The first person to accurately report a permanent removal of an existing fixed site.
I shall say no more |
if it's a reversible camera then it's still there so it wouldn't qualify. removal of one of the 'cameras' would, technically, qualify as a change of heading/direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NO_MAD
Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Posts: 71
Location: St Albans Herts
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi All
When I submitted the request for the removal of camera gatso 72477 in Oct.
Camera gatso 73020 was a reversible camera nearby in the central reservation, but only had lines on the road in one direction (northbound). You can see this on the google map. So I read this as a single direction camera, this is why I asked for camera gatso 72477 to be removed, as it was not there.
When I passed this sit in April lines are now on both sides of road, now making gatso 73020 a proper reversible camera.
NO_MAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi NO_MAD.
Now you confirm that the cam is reversible, and it has been explained why there ate 'two' cams there, are you now satisfied that the D/B is correct in accordance with the PGPSW 'rules' regarding reversible cams? Or are you still wanting it removed as per your opening post?
It does not however explain why it was marked as reversible (2 cams) in the first place though.
M8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14902
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, it was registered as 72477 after it was replaced following vandalism - one streetview photo angle shows it headless.
_________________
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: Mon May 24, 2010 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Happy coincidence. Today I got a job delivering to Croydon, so afterwards I drove on to look at Gatso:72477 instead of turning back for home. This picture was taken at 4:15pm today, note shadows on the left confirm I'm looking more or less northbound and the camera is facing south - the direction warned by 72477 on my directional database (iPhone, pgpsw's CamerAlert - would NOT have warned me if it had been removed). It's only the second time in over three years that I've made a special trip to verify a submission - cost me 25 extra fuel miles and 75 extra school run minutes (but I managed to get home just before the kickoff  ). This is why it sometimes takes us a long time to verify a submission - I and other verifiers cannot afford to do much of this at our own expense. I have recommended that the removal submission be rejected. Clearly, the camera is reversible and any small difference in distance between the two is negligible provided members have their camera warnings set at anything like reasonable (e.g. 400 yards for 40mph).
_________________
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: 15317
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
|
| 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
