View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
willmow Regular Visitor
Joined: Mar 14, 2010 Posts: 167
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:56 am Post subject: Two cameras shown where only one exists |
|
|
I've recently submitted corrections to three (well-known) sites where the PGPSW map incorrectly shows two cameras where, actually, one reversible camera exists. Am I right to do this - after all, the map correctly shows other sites as having a reversible camera, so should this principle not apply throughout the system?
And do I get a life membership for my efforts? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is deliberate. If the reversible cam is on a dual carriageway, TomTom will sometimes not alert if the reversible cam is shown on the 'other' track, so its 'mate' is included 'on the oither carriageway' so that it will alert. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
willmow Regular Visitor
Joined: Mar 14, 2010 Posts: 167
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, ok. And I though I was being clever |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
willmow wrote: | Oh, ok. And I though I was being clever |
You were being clever. Please don't be discouraged, we'd much rather have reports than none. Hopefully next time you'll fare better. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
M8TJT wrote: | This is deliberate. If the reversible cam is on a dual carriageway, TomTom will sometimes not alert if the reversible cam is shown on the 'other' track, |
Personally, I reckon this issue is historical (with TomToms at least) and doesn't occur any more, as I always seem to get alerts for normal cameras on the other carriageway these days. I think they increased the "acceptance angle" or something).
However, I've never suggested getting rid of the "duplicates" as 1. it might be a lot of work for MaFt, and 2. I'd be bound to be proved wrong straight after!
The one thing my tidy mind would like to see is that where these "duplicates" exist for only this technical reason, then they shouldn't have totally different ID numbers.
I reckon they should be called something like "Gatso:12345 and "Gatso:12345a", so people might realise they aren't actually two discrete cameras.
Again I haven't dared mention it to MaFt so far... _________________ "Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
willmow Regular Visitor
Joined: Mar 14, 2010 Posts: 167
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.
Dare I say, I'm a bit discombobulated by the fog you experts appear to live in (again, I mean that in the nicest possible way.... ). If even you disagree as to what is fact (directionality, TomTom issues et al) than what hope have we poor foot soldiers? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry... we anoraks do tend to get a bit carried away!
The simple answer is...
We used to add ONE camera location in the middle of the dual carriageway, but people sometimes found they didn't get alerts for them when travelling in one direction or the other.
(presumably this was due to the slight variations of positioning on different brands and different maps).
Re-doing just those problem cameras with TWO markers, one on each carriageway, was a quick and easy "fix". _________________ "Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There certainly is a lorra lorra fog about!
First, it's not really of concern to you if TomTom alerts directionally or not, because you have a Garmin, so that's a bit off topic anyway.
Second, all us "experts" are merely longer experienced users just like you.
Third, Andy is certainly using a different TomTom device from mine and there are differences between them (he's on much more recent firmware than two of mine) and I also use an iPhone running the iOS version of the database.
Fourth, I have a TomTom device which alerts for everything under the sun (pgpsw database), irrespective of direction.
Fifth, I have another TT device which allegedly alerts only for directional TomTom (not pgpsw) camera records, but I have on several occasions been warned by it both ways, or from after I've passed one (making me think it's warniing for reflections!).
Sorry soldier, you got it right about us being at odds with one another, so you don't have a snowball's chance in hell!!!
There is a difference between Garmin and TomTom (and probably others) maps. Don't ask me why - I think it's because GPS coordinates can only give a limited accuracy (5 metres?). But one set of coordinates results in a camera in a layby on a TomTom, but off to the side (5 metres into a field) on a Garmin. To overcome that problem, we try to position our coordinates in the middle of the carriageway so that we get it right for either device. In some cases, this results in a camera being warned for both directions.
One system which gets it right directionally every time is the PGPSW CamerAlert version running on my iPhone.
Maybe to clear the fog - if you get a warning, react as if there's a camera there and you won't be far wrong!! If you can't see a camera, feel free to submit a removal request. And KEEP TAKING THE TABLETS. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
willmow Regular Visitor
Joined: Mar 14, 2010 Posts: 167
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tablets taken. Am now lying down in a darkened room. Thanks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andy_P wrote: | I reckon they should be called something like "Gatso:12345 and "Gatso:12345a", so people might realise they aren't actually two discrete cameras. | I suspect that MaFt's database uses a long integer as the record number for a camera. If the database is set up as such, there is no way that you can have alpha characters in a numeric field.
Andy_P wrote: | Again I haven't dared mention it to MaFt so far... | I've got a sneaky suspicion that you have already done that a couple of years ago. Last post here for one
@ willmow. For goodness sake don't come out of your darkened room for a while and then report all the cams you find missing |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15226 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
M8TJT wrote: | Andy_P wrote: | I reckon they should be called something like "Gatso:12345 and "Gatso:12345a", so people might realise they aren't actually two discrete cameras. | I suspect that MaFt's database uses a long integer as the record number for a camera. If the database is set up as such, there is no way that you can have alpha characters in a numeric field. |
Give the man the clap. Yup, Andy has already mentioned it and yup we use long integer in the back-end database so cannot have alphabetical characters in them. also, the camera ID's are 'auto-increment' meaning each new addition in the database automagically increases by '1' from the previous one so we cannot 'force' any numbers without messing things up. the numbers also auto-increment for every sighting, correction and remove etc so 2 new cameras may not have following numbers if there were other submissions in between them etc.
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
willmow Regular Visitor
Joined: Mar 14, 2010 Posts: 167
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Give the man the clap |
Blimey, you're deviants as well........ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
willmow wrote: | Quote: | Give the man the clap | Blimey, you're deviants as well........ | LIKE!. No. It's quite OK, we have a clinic quite near me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
M8TJT wrote: |
Andy_P wrote: | Again I haven't dared mention it to MaFt so far... | I've got a sneaky suspicion that you have already done that a couple of years ago. |
Correction....
"I haven't dared mention it to MaFt AGAIN... "
OK... how about we get rid of all the doubles and see if anyone complains?
Is there even a way that you can pick them out, MaFt? _________________ "Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kremmen Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Mar 03, 2006 Posts: 7102 Location: Reading
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
A bit cumbersome but I have an option to remove 'duplicate' cameras. I did it to remove the ones on motorways where they are on the same gantries but opposite carriageways:
Unfortunately the HTML checker won't let me post the code _________________ DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3
Car Average MPG :
|
|
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 |
|
|
|