May database does not use any of my updates

[poacher]

Mike B,

Have just 'jumped across' from the other thread that was developing in a similar vein - Thanks to Robbrady for linking threads

Thank you for your most interesting explanation of your difficulties - the bit about 'explanations' in our submission files probably explains why my recent haven't been added - I added remarks about 'captured on the move / may asist to confirm another submission

Appears there may be merit in 'accepted submitters' supplemented by local / regional verifyers in the case of doubt / confusion

Happy to my bit in this regard in my part of the world

(I like strumble's idea about jpegs to confirm - please don't require it as a matter of course - bad enough trying to drive / input new cameras to Sat Nav / make 'phone call / talk to passengers - taking pictures as well might just attract attention to ourselves

Looking forward to see how this develops

Poacher

[MikeB]

[PaulB2005]

[stuartm]

[Darren]

As there are a number of threads querying why submissions have not been included in the database, can I just re-iterate that our primary aim here is to ensure the database remains a trusted resource and as such, quality and accuracy is paramount.

We have a number of projects and ideas in the pipeline to ensure this is so and wish to re-assure everyone who takes the time to submit data that we both value your input and are working to iron out the problems.

In the past the database was entirely manual which entailed wading through many hundreds of emails every day to extract the data and check for accuracy by comparing with other submissions. Whilst this worked in the early stages it could not cope with the huge number of submissions we now enjoy.

We are now in the midst of a major programme to automate as much of the administration as possible but the nature of the beast is such that human eyes are still needed to make judgment calls on certain reports.

I'm not excusing errors or occasions when data is not incorporated, just trying to explain that this is a complicated project and that we are 100% behind it and will continue to work to improve it

A huge thanks again to all who take the time to report locations.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[Andy_P]

[missing_user]

[Skippy]

[PaperRustler]

have been re-directed to this thread by the powers that be: June database does not update any of the cameras that I have notified the database have been moved, replaced or are new, as well it now includes a new one on the M11 southbound that was deleted two months ago, only the white lines are on the road!!! Comeon guys give us some credit!!! Some idiot obviously thinks that a series of white lines = camera, WRONG. This one was in the roadworks that they had there 2 years ago. I understand that you have mountains of data to trawl through, but how about "LOCKING" camera positions when they have been proved. By the way I have just sent 3 submissions through tonight.

Best regards and keep up the good work!!!

[smstextaddict]

pointed here by the other thread, why not have a poi category called "verify?" and then we can verify it. The amount of times i verify locations that have no speed set on them and then come on here and enter the camera id and the speed for it or even email richard with the speeds etc for each camera location i come across that isnt on the database.

I understand that you get a lot of cameras to verify and add, but come on nothing has been added in months (imho) and it gets quite disheartening to see all the camera locations you have added/removed/updated not being done.

[acmp]

All this talk of 'locking' locations worries me a bit. On the A46 near Cotgrave 2 pairs of SPECS cameras were erected, one pair for each direction. These cameras were all added to the DB and the locations were good. Then before they went live both of the northbound cameras moved.

One pole was removed to allow for a junction widening, the other was just taken down and the camera relocated on the opposite cameras pole (2 on one pole) OK these are not big moves, but they are moves. If the camera locations were locked then updates would not be possible and these changes could not be reflected in the DB.

Better to flag the confirmed locations and apply a weighting system so that they can only be changed after a representative number of submissions. This may be a subtle change from locked but it is significant to a DB I feel.

As for local verifiers. I'll sign up for that. The A52 from Radcliffe to Nottingham is in serious need of verifying. I almost got it right one month, then it all went to crap the next month. I'm working on a 'definitive' submission.

How do people get cameras on the wrong side of a dual carriageway? Don't they check them?

[Andy_P]

[Andy_P]

[Funks]

Just realised I should have posted this here and not on the other thread that links here. Sorry my mistake

Would just like to say:

I dont want to "Knock PocketGPSWorld" but the May 2006 release on the TEMP cameras is missing the M40 J9/J10 changes I notified on the day(s) they changed (or very soon after), and I'd be suprised if others did not do the same; making the changes a "certaintity" .

I was so confident about their inclusion, that I deleted completely the April update that I'd modified on my TomTom! (Note to self, make a back-up next time!!)

Reading the other posts here, I'm certain that the guys "at the sharp end" maintaining the database will have things sorted for the June release. Have a little faith guys, it will be perfect one day! :D

[Darren]

Trust me, there's a lot of midnight oil being burnt here
_________________
Darren Griffin

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!