How long

[tigger955]

Im still waiting to here if I have free membership, I reported two new camera locations as the cameras were being delivered to the sites.

Im not sure how much quicker I could have been, otherwise I would have been reporting holes in the pavement,

[SpikeyMikey]

Main camera page says lifetime memberships to be awarded by 17:00 today

See here http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/modules.php?name=Cameras
_________________
Mike
TT GO6000 (Europe); iPhone and iPad Pro with iOS TT GO & MyDrive + CamerAlert

[PaulB2005]

[MaFt]

the 2 submissions you made on 20th june were not the first hence you've not got a free membership.

MaFt

[tanda]

Looks like someone DID report holes in the pavement. Someone could have been in a car behind you, but got to a computer before you did, you have to be realy quick.
_________________
Audi A3 Sline sat nav

[GPS_fan]

I've had two cameras (36982 & 37382) showing as 'awaiting verification' for some time now, they weren't included in the July update and they don't appear to have been included in the August update.

I'm not trying to chase free membership, but I was wondering how long the verification process usually takes beacuse these submissions have been waiting for several weeks now.

One submission (36982) was a position change.

The other submission (37382) was a deleted camera which has been reinstated

I would have thought that the second of these two would have been of particular interest to members since they may have been lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the camera was no longer there
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here

[MaFt]

[GPS_fan]

Thanks for the prompt response.

A watched pot never boils

I'm kind of surprised though that nobody else had submitted the resurrection one because I was beaten to it when I reported the removal of 2520 a few weeks previously.

Mind you, with all the cameras along that road, I'm not surprised that people might not have driven along it when there's a 60mph limit running almost parallel and without cameras

I wasn't really expecting anybody to notice the reposition submission because it's only about 20 yds - but I submitted this because it's 20yds closer than you think.

Camera 3154 is also slightly wrong, but the database thinks this camera is closer than it really is when you approach - so I left that one alone.

Keep up the good work!!
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here

[GPS_fan]

I had a camera (37382) pending verification and now 2520 is showing at that location, which was previously listed as a deleted camera

Despite being told on 22 August that my submission had been the first, it looks like I've missed out on free subscription

[MaFt]

[Andy_P]

But isn't GPS fan saying that when he reported
camera 37382 there was no camera listed at that position?

(because 2520 had been deleted)

[GPS_fan]

Yes, it looks like there might have been some confusion

Camera 2520 had been physically removed and was showing as deleted from the database.

Then the camera was resurrected and reinstated and I reported that it was back in use.

This reported change was apparently verified and the camera is now showing as 'active' again on the speed camera page when I look at it, which it shouldn't if no change was made to the status on the database.

I think that what is confusing the issue here is that this was an active camera, then it was deleted and now it's back again.

...but:

1) I was informed that I was the first to report this change

2) if you're saying that the camera is fine as it was, then why has it's status changed from 'deleted' to 'active' when I look at the speed camera map? It should surely still be showing as 'deleted' if no changes have been made. I walked past 37382 (or 2520 depending on which number you'd rather use) the other day and you can see that the tarmac is a different colour where it has been recently added around the camera which has been reinstated

3) what might be confusing this even more is that before MostDom drove to this area he looked at Google Earth and said that he could see the lines in the road for that camera, but Dennis replied that the maps are somewhat out of date and this should be verified in person. One of the camera changes was a location change of about 20 yards, to which MostDom said his GPS had indicated it to be correct - so one camera was 'fine as it was' whilst the other should perhaps have been 'fine as it was reported' and to mis-quote the marketing of a well known sweet, "only MostDom has the answers"

4) I don't mean to start a whole debate about this, just so long as the database is correct and it has the camera I reported labelled as active rather then deleted

The conversation between MostDom, Dennis and I started on page 4 of the Lifetime Membership Criteria Expanded thread, but here's a summary:

[DennisN]

Remember I said "It doesn't work like that"? No offence intended, but Mostdom is not a verifier, so him saying it's OK isn't the way. He needed to go out and submit a camera or a change in the proper way, not report that you are right. I imagine we really can't get into open discussions in threads to check camera reports - anarchy perhaps.

Hairs being split? I dunno, but I think that's the way non verifier things work - multiple independent submissions by ordinary members (even Audi drivers) (especially Audi drivers). It struck me at the time that the exercise was sailing very close to the "collusion" wind - who's got any thoughts on the subject of posting a thread saying "I found a camera at xxx, can anybody else go look for it too"? I don't know why, but I don't like the sound of that. Now I suppose I'm going to have to look back through to find where it was and make a special effort to divert there next time I'm in the area. Just in passing - should a resurrection count? For awards, I mean? Is there a space on the submission form to declare whether you're driving a VW or an Audi?

Having said all of which, database accuracy is paramount, so we shouldn't feel bad about you and mostdom trying your best to put it right, on the contrary it's a good thing.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

[GPS_fan]

My main concern is that the database is correct.

What happened about the submission and verification is secondary and MaFt has more than enough on his plate at the moment.

However, I did submit a change - which I was told was the first submission - and although this was apparently reported as 'fine as it is' the status of this camera has changed on the map when I look at it:

1) first it changed to 'pending'

2) now it's changed to 'active'

so clearly something appears to have changed and I submitted this change way back in July.

If somebody else has got a free subscription from it, then so be it, but at the moment there seems to be some confusion over whether something has changed and this is what needs sorting out.
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here

[MaFt]

gps_fan - you WERE the first and you SHOULD have been given the lifetime sub...

just checking in my list now for your username and noticed it wasn't fully confirmed until 27th august - therefore you're in the list for this next set of new lifers!

MaFt

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!