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 05, 2006 Posts: 407 Location: Alconbury - UK
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject:
Hello MaFt, I have sent you an update by PM. I have only managed to open this thread!
I know that you don't do PM's, but can you look this time please? _________________ TT Go 720 (T)
Firmware 9.430. Map: Western Europe V 875.3613
TT iPhone app
V 1.23 Map: Western and Central Europe 2 GB V 965.7286
TT iOS Go Mobile
V 1.1 Map: Western Europe 965.7248
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 12:54 am Post subject:
Tom59 wrote:
Hello MaFt, I have sent you an update by PM. I have only managed to open this thread!
I know that you don't do PM's, but can you look this time please?
Does this mean that you are having difficulty using or finding the place to submit camera updates? It's the same page as where you download the cameras from, just a bit further down the page. If you need help, start a new topic (not in this thread) asking and zillions of us will come in to help you. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15158 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 1:08 am Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
Tom59 wrote:
Hello MaFt, I have sent you an update by PM. I have only managed to open this thread!
I know that you don't do PM's, but can you look this time please?
Does this mean that you are having difficulty using or finding the place to submit camera updates? It's the same page as where you download the cameras from, just a bit further down the page. If you need help, start a new topic (not in this thread) asking and zillions of us will come in to help you.
he's away from home and only had his pda on him - internet explorer wont open the google map in the submisison form so he pm'd me with the details of the change
Admin Edit: Some unrelated text removed by Darren - as per member's original wishes.
MaFt, you asked the Camera number.
It is:
1334. On Prestwick Road in Ayr, 30 mph Fixed GATSO.
Original Entry has it located on RIGHT hand side of carriageway by a clear margin, and being Single Direction, thus for catching SOUTH-bound traffic, as well as slightly north by a few feet, but the North bit being off is mere feet, and pedantic, and NOT a true location change. It also had no actual real Direction of catch indication.
As a result of all these errors and wrong location, there was no proper way to know Catch direction, but worse, even on TomTom, it appears to indicate it catches traffic travelling SOUTH, due to it's location.
My correction therefore was to place it in the correct co-ordinates, on the correct side of the carriageway, thus a proper location correction, NOT a "moved five foot south", and additionally to report the correct, currently omitted, direction of catch information.
Award criteria simply says that:
"The first person to accurately report a change to an existing fixed site i.e. change of type, correction of location, move etc"
I've done a PROPER correction of location (not a mere shift it five feet up), as well as now adding the missing Direction of Catch Data"
So I am assuming, this qualifies for the paragraph above.
Most importantly however, as stated, this was added to the Submission Page the second I first spotted it, so DataBase accuracy, again, is the key aim.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by shadamehr on Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 pm; edited 3 times in total
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject:
shadamehr wrote:
As a result of all these errors and wrong location, there was no proper way to know Catch direction, but worse, even on TomTom, it appears to indicate it catches traffic travelling SOUTH, due to it's location.
I would NEVER take the location on the TomTom display as an indication of direction of catch. See the previous page of this thread for strumble's demonstration of the variation between the google map and different device maps. Not only that there are other situations where depending on the site even if the positioning is spot on it can be misleading. There are sites near me where there are pairs of cameras on opposite sides of the road, or in the central reservation, where it's impossible to tell direction of catch from the position on the TomTom map when the alert pops up. Or a reversible camera where the direction can be reversed from week to week. I put in a heading update for one of those recently.
shadamehr wrote:
Most importantly however, as stated, this was added to the Submission Page the second I first spotted it, so DataBase accuracy, again, is the key aim.
As I've said to someone else before, if database accuracy is the key aim, why are you making all this fuss about whether it qualifies for a lifetime sub? If it qualifies you'll get it, don't worry. If it doesn't, if you keep your eyes open there are plenty of other opportunities. Just keep making submissions and it will come.
As a result of all these errors and wrong location, there was no proper way to know Catch direction, but worse, even on TomTom, it appears to indicate it catches traffic travelling SOUTH, due to it's location.
I would NEVER take the location on the TomTom display as an indication of direction of catch. See the previous page of this thread for strumble's demonstration of the variation between the google map and different device maps.
In the absence of support for Direction data on a TomTom, such as other devices have, there is nothing else to take as indication of direction of catch, other than icon placement. Whilst ZERO guarantee is made by ANYONE as to the value of that method, me included, in REAL terms, in five months use of a TomTom, the icon placement on my screen has pretty much ALWAYS been spot on, for giving the idea of direction of catch - if on your side, it's your way, if other side, the other way. If in middle on dual carriageways, usually reversible.
As stated, ZERO guarantee is made about the reliability of this method. I merely point out that 'til now, it's always been a good indicator for me, and this camera was wrong.
Aside from which, playing along with what you say... the location WAS wrong in the database by a fair margin, sufficient to have led to the entire wrong carriageway placement (that is to say, it's not TomTom 'jumping' it to the side of the road, the Database itself has it on the wrong side of the road). In short, it has been wrongly submitted, and thus this is a proper location correction. So there WAS reason and need for correction and this HAS been done. And once corrected, when the icon is re-located, I have little doubt that my TomTom will then show it on the correct side, and the same method I have always used reliably, will work again for me at least, if not all.
So, that being the case, why ANY need to berate me? I am entirely aware what you say. It just has no relevance to me, that's all. And rest assured I don't proffer that comment rudely.
shadamehr wrote:
Most importantly however, as stated, this was added to the Submission Page the second I first spotted it, so DataBase accuracy, again, is the key aim.
bmuskett wrote:
As I've said to someone else before, if database accuracy is the key aim, why are you making all this fuss about whether it qualifies for a lifetime sub? If it qualifies you'll get it, don't worry. If it doesn't, if you keep your eyes open there are plenty of other opportunities. Just keep making submissions and it will come.
I wasn't aware that at the point of asking my clarification post, there WAS any 'fuss'.
The many words typed by others, and many of them deleted, since then, have led this to become an almighty INCREDIBLE fuss, for the simple question that it was, I readily agree.
But there WAS no fuss at the point of asking.
And as one of the deleted posts stated, there was absolutely NOTHING wrong in asking, given the useful debate it engendered.
So my question is why the all this fuss about such fuss, if you understand my meaning.
Indeed, it seems it WAS worthy of asking, as some schools of thought infer this WON'T qualify for award, despite it clearly adhering to what the criteria states, so if that does prove the case (and I trust it doesn't) then it will have helped demonstrate the need for the criteria to be amended more clearly if so.
I trust that sums up the position, and that I don't need get dragged into more fighting - as 'provoking' as some of my posts sometimes are (and there are plenty of posts by me doing nought but give detailed technical support to other users, rest assured), there is absolutely ZERO need for some of the conduct shown by some senior people on here of late - so the last thing I want is to stir this debate up any more.
Best leave things there, and allow MaFt to correct it in due time and confirmation, and in so doing, as repeatedly said, help make the Database as reliable as can be.
I just feel the need to add something here........
I dont post here much but I do visit at least 2 or 3 times a night..
Reading the first post, this to an onlooker seems like another thread questioning the rewarding of the Lifetime Subscriptions.
Just go ahead and submit the relevent changes you feel are incorrect, if they are used you will be rewarded.
If you qualify for Free Lifetime Membership you will get it.
The guys here aint out to rip you off.......
I got mine after 4 months with a mobile and I was grateful, but its the luck of the draw.
I hope I didnt offend anyone as it wasnt my intention, it was just the way I viewed this thread from the start.
I just feel the need to add something here........
I dont post here much but I do visit at least 2 or 3 times a night..
Reading the first post, this to an onlooker seems like another thread questioning the rewarding of the Lifetime Subscriptions.
Just go ahead and submit the relevent changes you feel are incorrect, if they are used you will be rewarded.
If you qualify for Free Lifetime Membership you will get it.
The guys here aint out to rip you off.......
I got mine after 4 months with a mobile and I was grateful, but its the luck of the draw.
I hope I didnt offend anyone as it wasnt my intention, it was just the way I viewed this thread from the start.
I think you stated that excellently mate - nothing at all attacking about that, rest assured - indeed I wish all could be so intelligent in their responses.
My only purpose in posting, was to ascertain whether such a change means a lifetime award as the criteria was not too clear.
From posts since then, it's actually relevant as it's starting to sound like the criteria might not be clear enough indeed.
Hope that helps too, but rest assured, if some other people on here were as reasoned in their posts as you, God what a great place this would be, so please, have no fear you were being controversial (though personally, I more than know why that would worry you).
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject:
shadamehr wrote:
As stated, ZERO guarantee is made about the reliability of this method. I merely point out that 'til now, it's always been a good indicator for me, and this camera was wrong.
In which case, if you govern your speed by those criteria, you've been very lucky. There are a pair of cameras near me, 40 and 42389, on opposite sides of the road, and accurately positioned on the map. But as you head north, the southbound camera is nearest you and alerts first. The northbound camera doesn't show up until you pass it. And vice versa as you head south, the "wrong" camera shows up first.
shadamehr wrote:
In short, it has been wrongly submitted, and thus this is a proper location correction. So there WAS reason and need for correction and this HAS been done.
And I have no problem with that.
shadamehr wrote:
And once corrected, when the icon is re-located, I have little doubt that my TomTom will then show it on the correct side, and the same method I have always used reliably, will work again for me at least, if not all.
I'm genuinely curious, exactly what is your thinking? Are you speeding along and a warning sounds, so you look at the display and see the camera apparently on the other side of the carriageway, so you think you're ok because the catch direction is the other way, so you carry on speeding?
shadamehr wrote:
So, that being the case, why ANY need to berate me? I am entirely aware what you say. It just has no relevance to me, that's all. And rest assured I don't proffer that comment rudely.
I'm sorry, but where did I berate you? I was just pointing out what I saw as a dangerous flaw in your method. I was trying to help you. I didn't know you were aware of this but didn't consider it relevant.
As stated, ZERO guarantee is made about the reliability of this method. I merely point out that 'til now, it's always been a good indicator for me, and this camera was wrong.
In which case, if you govern your speed by those criteria, you've been very lucky.
Good job I don't then, isn't it? But as you again bring this up later, I'll respond better there.
shadamehr wrote:
In short, it has been wrongly submitted, and thus this is a proper location correction. So there WAS reason and need for correction and this HAS been done.
bmuskett wrote:
And I have no problem with that.
Well at least that's one thing.
shadamehr wrote:
And once corrected, when the icon is re-located, I have little doubt that my TomTom will then show it on the correct side, and the same method I have always used reliably, will work again for me at least, if not all.
bmuskett wrote:
I'm genuinely curious, exactly what is your thinking? Are you speeding along and a warning sounds, so you look at the display and see the camera apparently on the other side of the carriageway, so you think you're ok because the catch direction is the other way, so you carry on speeding?
Nope. But it's nice to know which DIRECTION to LOOK in, to see if a camera still exists, in terms of keeping this database up to date where fixed sites may have been removed or re-located, don't you think?
I trust it's beginning to become clear my methodology and reason now - and indeed is the very way I spotted this error in the first place - by looking where it was supposed to be to see if it still exists, and seeing none. Then looking where it was NOT supposed to be, and seeing it.
Ah, maybe it dawns now, hopefully?
shadamehr wrote:
So, that being the case, why ANY need to berate me? I am entirely aware what you say. It just has no relevance to me, that's all. And rest assured I don't proffer that comment rudely.
bmuskett wrote:
I'm sorry, but where did I berate you? I was just pointing out what I saw as a dangerous flaw in your method. I was trying to help you. I didn't know you were aware of this but didn't consider it relevant.
Then apologies, your tone seemed to convey other meaning, but I myself am only too aware words are terrible to convey tone and inference, so your clarification now, is what I will take as the case, rest assured.
shadamehr wrote:
A lot of words
bmuskett wrote:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Alas, the poor choice of snipping so early, is such that I genuinely do not know what you mean by this comment, and that's not being naive or evasive.
If I had to have a guess as to your meaning, I'd say it would then simply mean you are not aware of other things ongoing, if so. But as I say, poor use of snipping merely leaves me confused, rather than with a response to that.
Thanks for your comments and suggestions so far too, rest assured, and genuinely meant - I would only ask that we leave it there perhaps, if you are agreeable, as if we drift too far O/T, this thread is, pardon the pun, hanging by a thread in terms of deletion by Mods, and it would be a shame, as it came nicely back on track, with your help. So cheers again mate.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15158 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject:
shadamehr wrote:
MaFt, you asked the Camera number.
It is:
1334. On Prestwick Road in Ayr, 30 mph Fixed GATSO.
Original Entry has it located on RIGHT hand side of carriageway by a clear margin, and being Single Direction, thus for catching SOUTH-bound traffic, as well as slightly north by a few feet, but the North bit being off is mere feet, and pedantic, and NOT a true location change. It also had no actual real Direction of catch indication.
only just had chance to look at this (after it was locked) but here goes anyway:
the camera in question is very old and was not 'matched' against google maps as this was not implemented at the time. even so, the location on the google map is pretty much central on the road (give or take 2 pixels) and therefore your submission is really only submitting the heading data which does not qualify for lifetime subscription - distance for location change is only a matter of a few meters which is not detectable on a sat nav.
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
