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: 15157 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject:
Quote:
...a file of pending cameras be included with the database so that users know which cameras need verifying and so can help in that process...
my issue with this is how many people would actually report them? how many sat nav units have the capability to display that this particular camera is from this particular file? therefore how many people would just see the warning as a mobile camera and leave it as that and not report anything?
i honestly don't think that a pending file would make any difference. hence it's not been offered.
the stance is: we will release a database of confirmed cameras.
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject:
Quote:
the stance is: we will release a database of confirmed cameras.
This I understand and reluctantly accept.
My main personal concern is with the process of confirmation/verification. I get the impression that there has apparantly been issues in the past with the length of time it has taken to verify static camera submissions, and I accept that with your team of 27 approved verfiers you are taking steps to tackle this, although 27 seems a relativly small number for the whole of the country.
With mobile cameras the process seems to be even more difficult, bearing in mind some sites seem to be in use less than once a month, and I have personally seen a site which varies in position along a 2/3 mile stretch of road. I posted earlier in this thread links to a couple of websites which show mobile units in use in the most unlikely sites, which can also cause problems if verification is dependant on somebodies opion as to whether a site 'looks' valid.
I know it's more work, but if you could post a detailed report as to how the verification process for mobiles takes place, and the guidance given to the verifiers, perhaps some of the steam could be taken out of this thread. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15157 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject:
emjaiuk wrote:
I know it's more work, but if you could post a detailed report as to how the verification process for mobiles takes place, and the guidance given to the verifiers, perhaps some of the steam could be taken out of this thread.
it has already been mentioned.
if it looks ok it gets added, if not then it stays as pending until we get another submission.
the second and fifth pictures both show sites where at first glance you couldn't put a camera/van. What would be their opion on sites like that? _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject:
Quote:
the stance is: we will release a database of confirmed cameras
MaFt,
Thats fine for static cameras, genuine ones are very likely to be reported a second time - and thus verified - in a short time frame. But a mobile may only be there for a few hours, and then not reappear for many weeks or even months. And, only being there a few hours, may not be spotted and reported again i.e. verified. So how would you treat this camera. Clearly it is a genuine mobile with the potential to reappear. Are you saying we would not receive its details? _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
the stance is: we will release a database of confirmed cameras.
MaFt
Accepted, reluctantly.
As I have said previously - I know of cameras (which I submitted) which have been removed from the database hence PGPS subscribers wont have the advantage of my time and effort submitting the camera position. I therefore view the database as incomplete. Secondly - is there any point in me submitting camera positions when after 5 months they don't appear on the database? How can anyone expect PGPS verifiers to verify each position when the mobile unit may only be there once in a blue moon and even then for 30 minutes or so.
PGPS have made there decision, proceed with caution seems to be appropriate, and as a few users have said - within the speed limits. Although I am puzzled why they are even bothered to read and comment on this thread if they are indeed more holy than....
the second and fifth pictures both show sites where at first glance you couldn't put a camera/van. What would be their opion on sites like that?
Well, of course you could always put the details in the comments section when you make the submission. Something like "Very sneaky - van behind fence." would probably do for them.
alan_dr wrote:
Clearly it is a genuine mobile with the potential to reappear.
How is it "Clearly" genuine though? When it arrives as a submission, it won't look any different from all the ones that are not - all the Trafficmaster cameras, CCTV cameras, Camera warning signs, and even trees that MaFt says get reported endlessly?
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject:
a wrote:
Secondly - is there any point in me submitting camera positions when after 5 months they don't appear on the database? How can anyone expect PGPS verifiers to verify each position when the mobile unit may only be there once in a blue moon and even then for 30 minutes or so.
MaFt said (somewhere) above that the position only has to be verified as "possible" to be passed and included. The actual camera doesn't have to be seen again!
Secondly - is there any point in me submitting camera positions when after 5 months they don't appear on the database? How can anyone expect PGPS verifiers to verify each position when the mobile unit may only be there once in a blue moon and even then for 30 minutes or so.
MaFt said (somewhere) above that the position only has to be verified as "possible" to be passed and included. The actual camera doesn't have to be seen again!
But isnt on the database which some poor whitevanman got done at. So obviously the fact that the verifiers dont think it a credible position outweighs an actual sighting. So we have to rely on the subjective assessment of the verifiers who werent actually there to witness the camera. Subjective is never as good as Actual.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject:
This just goes round in circles!
"the fact that the verifiers dont think it a credible position outweighs an actual sighting."
No it doesn't! All it needs is either a second sighting from anyone else OR a verifier's "It's possible"
The simple fact remains that there seem to be hundreds of "sightings" that are simply WRONG.
PGPSW have decided they don't want these in their database. Simple as that.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion as is the principal of free speech. What I have indicated is I am not going to bother myself by submitting cameras or correcting eroneous ones. I have tried that and for me it doesnt work. This only increases the problem with verification and ultimately may reduce membership as like many of my colleagues who only buy a database every 6 months.
On the other hand - if I passed a camera and the displayed ICON came up in a different colour for example (from an unverified database Ov2 file) then I would confirm it when I logged into PGPS. But it seems we are to be deprived of the unverified mobiles. Being an unverified camera file, it can be allocated its own icon and sound or deselected if unrequired. But hey - it isnt my decision.
If I report a mobile - it gets ignored. I dont know it is unconfirmed because it isnt on the database - so I cant be bothered reporting it - because reporting hasnt worked for me...catch 22 anyone?
If you had stayed on topic from the start, and said why you didn't want the new catagory, without resorting to calling me a blind speed freak, none of this would have happened, you opened this door,
And i'm taking it personally
I will do something now that you have failed to do in your previous posts, the facts!
I have never said you can't have the database.
I have never said you shouldn't have or want the database.
I have said why you are not getting it. (The site owners are not supplying it)
I have said why you should not be getting it. ( You have no right to make such demands once that decision was made)
I did offer an alternative solution. (Drive legally and stay within the speed limit)
Your reason for wanting it is beyond belief, correct me if I am wrong, you don't like driving in a line of traffic, you want to keep up with the flow of traffic, but not if that traffic is flowing at 30mph? and if somebody wants to overtake you, then going faster to prevent them is your solution?
Quote:
the fact is how I drive is my concern,
How wrong you are, do you have total disregard for other road users?
Quote:
Didn't you infact say at one point 'if you want to have false alerts every 10 miles, so be it'
No.
Look I have made my position very very clear, I can't make it any clearer for you, people are getting sooooo bored of this and it is not helping those that do want the database when all the time you are trying to argue against facts that have been put before you by a few people now (not just me) people are STILL asking for an official explanation which I believe was given on the first page of this topic, and still they are asking for it on page 11 !!!!
I am not going to go on and on, and going over old ground time after time again. Even I am bored of it now _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject:
One thing I see overlooked in this thread is the mention of actual reporting of cameras, be they fixed, mobile; or any other speed trap, capture the location (if/ where possible) or use the Camera submission page to add your findings, the more people do this the better quality of the end product.
If it’s an existing mobile location and you know from local knowledge add it again, even consider refining the position if it’s slightly out of place. If you don't know the area but observe a mobile trap in operation simply record and/or report it, this is the only way to keep the database upto date, verification has its place in this refining of data, but local knowledge and actual submissions can count at the same time.
Lets cut the sniping at each other and get this thread back on track (if there is one) - Mobile locations will always be difficult to check (for obvious reasons) but if everyone participating in this thread were to submit local knowledge the database will improve, the explosion in mobile camera locations will make this section of the database un-trustworthy unless a check is made on additions (Cry wolf etc - so people don't trust the data) it needs to be accurate, yes 100% accuracy would be nice - food for thought? - Mike
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:29 am Post subject:
Quote:
PGPS have made there decision, proceed with caution seems to be appropriate, and as a few users have said - within the speed limits. Although I am puzzled why they are even bothered to read and comment on this thread if they are indeed more holy than....
:P _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
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
a wrote:
:P
