Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
Read the current newsletter! Weekly
Newsletter
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Pocket GPS World - SatNavs | GPS | Speed Cameras: Forums

Pocket GPS World :: View topic - Key Re speed camera database
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in for private messagesLog in for private messages   Log inLog in 

Key Re speed camera database

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Database
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
The Other Tired Old Man


Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:17 am    Post subject: Key Re speed camera database Reply with quote

What's going on in the original thread of this name?
I was going to post this in that thread but found it locked by someone who seems not to agree with the original poster's sentiments.
JimPrice appears to be trying to get a camera located in the right place, a sentiment that I think most of us would agree with, and a moderator is getting a snot on about it.

I think that JimPrice realises the fact that we all put in our services to get the database as accurate as possible, so why the .... are some of us just critisizing this bloke instead of holding up out hands and we might have been wrong on this one, let's get it fixed.
It is this sort of high handed behaviour that is realy hacks people off, and has done in several previous locked threads.

I'm with Jim who has been both polite and non confrontational throughout this thread. So now perhaps someone we can work together to get the position of this cam sorted.
Or perhaps I should just STFU and always agree with the moderators.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
missing_user



Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Posts: -7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having just re-read the two threads, I feel as M8TJT

Quote:
It is this sort of high handed behaviour that is realy hacks people off, and has done in several previous locked threads.


It would be a good policy if all 'locked' threads were signed by the person involved and reasons given!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sallyann
Lifetime Member


Joined: Jun 23, 2006
Posts: 768

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:09 am    Post subject: Re: Key Re speed camera database Reply with quote

M8TJT wrote:

I'm with Jim who has been both polite and non confrontational throughout this thread.


Yes.
Locking the thread was unnecessary and heavy-handed.

Sal
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mullet
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think someone simply hit the wrong button and will rectify the mistake. Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darren
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wasn't my mistake but I agree and have unlocked the thread.
_________________
Darren Griffin - Editor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 14797
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

no idea who locked it either but we do ask all mod's to 'sign' any edits or lockage etc

MaFt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JimPrice
Lifetime Member


Joined: Mar 06, 2006
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I said previously I was not being critical of anybody.

It certainly was not my intention to offend anybody and if I did then I apologise.

For my part I have not taken any offence either as I relaise how difficult it can sometimes be to word a post that accurately reflects what a person would have said in normal conversation but with out the benefit of non verbals, tone, emphasis and other nuiances etc.

The important thing as far as I am concerned is accurate locations of these cameras in the interest of road safety and the sooner they make it onto the database the better no matter who initially reports them
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 14797
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

further discussion in the original thread please :D

http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=69640
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
falkirk81
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: Jul 07, 2006
Posts: 1649
Location: Newcastle, England, UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes you have certainly been polite throughout the debate. I am a verifier and sometimes it can be a bit difficult to verify certain locations. My advice to you and anyone else who notices a discrepancy in the database, is to report it.

From your earlier posts, i gather that a specific gatso that you reported has now been included but in an incorrect location. I would suggest that you report this so that the next time a verifier is nearby, the location becomes more accurate. You could do this in two ways, im not sure whats the easiest in terms of the website, but a simple change of location report could be submitted, OR (my preferred choice) would be to submit a remove request and a new gatso request for the camera.

I may be wrong, but this is just my opinion of what would work best.
_________________
Tomtom GO 1005 LIVE

iPhone 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14871
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Key Re speed camera database Reply with quote

M8TJT wrote:
a moderator is getting a snot on

Strumble & Sallyann agreed.

Only two Moderators contributed to that thread, so it's not hard to guess who might be the target of that malicious comment.

I can see no sign of snot. So let's be having your grounds for that statement, which seems to me to be entirely unfounded, undermining and mischievous. Point out for me where I was impolite, and/or confrontational, where I criticized this bloke and/or where I did NOT hold up our hands and admit we might have been wrong on this one.

Or hold up your hands and admit you have completely misunderstood it.

I have no quibble with the descriptions of unnecessary, high-handed and heavy handed - it was indeed I who originally suggested that locking the thread for prolonging the subject would be exactly that and it seemed a reasonably gentle warning to desist from a topic which was heading towards another 19 pages.

This is the very first time I have ever challenged another team member in public. Take that as a measure of my disquiet on this occasion.

One final word to whomsoever chooses to administer in this matter. The malicious comment and support posts have rested on the internet for over 10 hours, having over 140 views, before I've had chance to respond. At least allow me the same.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
The Other Tired Old Man


Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To those of you that did. Thanks for the support.
@DennisN
I fully accept your statement that my comment (as highlighted by you above) was unfounded, undermining and mischevious. I unreservedly apologise for it. However I can see no reason for the thread being locked. There was no arguing or confrontation and if people are prepared to go to 19 pages on a subject surely they are entitled to. Possibly not???
I did NOT say that you were impolite or confrontational. What I did say was that the OP was neither.

The implied critisism was that the thread was just locked without giving the OP a really valid reason, which you now seem to agree with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
missing_user



Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Posts: -7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Point out for me where I was impolite, and/or confrontational, where I criticized this bloke...


'Bloke'----I thought the lifetime member was JimPrice.
He certainly had valid points and his thread was degraded by the 'banter' between team members.

The decision to lock the thread was wrong as it did not contain the Moderators name or his/her reasons.

So a good result JimPrice, I see the Camera location moved on Google and the thread was re-opened.
The screenshot shows the changes you deemed important 266feet on Garmin.



Last edited by missing_user on Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14871
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

M8TJT that's rubbish!

You did NOT indeed say I was impolite and/or confrontational. You DID say
Quote:
I'm with Jim who has been both polite and non confrontational throughout
which means you are NOT with me and clearly infers, therefore, that I was both.

You also said
Quote:
why the .... are some of us just critisizing this bloke instead of holding up out hands and we might have been wrong on this one, let's get it fixed.
It is this sort of high handed behaviour that is realy hacks people off, and has done in several previous locked threads.
which you have still not supported by a single shred of evidence. I asked you to demonstrate where I was criticising and where I was NOT admitting we got this one wrong and you haven't answered that. You also state this is a practice of which I make an objectionable habit (I presume "hacks off" means objectionable and "several" means habit, or at least many more than once), so lets have your evidence of that too.
I do NOT agree with your implied criticism that the thread was just locked without giving the OP a really valid reason - firstly because you made no such implication and secondly because my post said
Quote:
I would prefer not to lock this thread which is a heavy handed approach.
and then
Quote:
Can we then just leave this as being an instance of a Verifier getting one wrong? Please?
In the middle I said
Quote:
Anita gave a reasonable comment and a link.
Is there any more clear way of saying it? And of saying it before the thread was locked?

In my opinion, this was an occasion when you should have asked yourself the question first and answered YES.
M8TJT wrote:
Or perhaps I should just STFU

_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14871
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strumble you're wrong too.

First, the terminology "Bloke" was introduced, not by me, but by M8TJT, so don't go finding fault with me for that!!

Secondly, the "degrading team banter" was apologised for and his response was
Quote:
Definately not a problem

I understand that a number of you used to be "Old Bill"

Same here, so I am quite used to the banter

In fact in the days of so much political correctness it's good to see it still exists


Thirdly, I have already commented above on thread locking after the reasons were already given in advance.

Finally, the "Result" which you applaud, was already in hand long before any hint of locking.

You said you had read both threads, but it looks as though you did so with your eyes closed to much of their contents.

I hate this public rowing. I'm only responding because I'm fed up of seeing people get away with ill-considered criticisms (not just of me).

Edit To deal with your edit after my post by adding the valuable information that the correct location was 266 feet further up the road - we are well aware that to you 24 feet is intolerable, yet for this one, anybody who uses our recommended warning distance of 300 yards, will get his warning 88 yards early, so should find the camera in view by the time the countdown expires. Certainly we want accuracy, but we don't need you adding weight to criticism of a genuine mistake which has already been corrected.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 14797
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

indeed, dennis did state that there was an error on this occasion and that it would be dealt with. which it has been.

it was announced a while back that we would not go into discussions about individual submissions. while on this occasion both anita and dennis pointed this out and this is the reason, i believe, why dennis asked for discussion to cease but not wanting to lock the thread. discussion continued and the thread was subsequently locked. my only criticism being that it wasn't "signed off" so to speak - but again, a genuine mistake that anyone could make.

this 'rule' was brought about by the sheer number of users who are adamant that there submission is correct and take up our time via the forum, email or private message. one such instance involved dennis and another verifier visiting a site at least 4 or 5 times between them (at their own cost) at the 'demands' of the submitter who was 1000% certain that their submission was correct. after a lot of wasted fuel, time and effort the user subsequently withdrew their certainty and resubmitted at the correct location...

hopefully now you might see why the thread was locked for fear of a reprisal of that particular incident.

i think the saddest part is that while JimPrice was happy it was an error on our part and resubmitted the coordinates for review it was the team that had the 'problems' with the thread being locked.

anyway, let's just chill out. the error has been resolved. both myself and dennis have explained why the thread was initially locked. end of story.

MaFt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website







Posted: Today    Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Database All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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

Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group
phpBB port v2.1 based on Tom Nitzschner's phpbb2.0.6 upgraded to phpBB 2.0.4 standalone was developed and tested by:
ArtificialIntel, ChatServ, mikem,
sixonetonoffun and Paul Laudanski (aka Zhen-Xjell).

Version 2.1 by Nuke Cops 2003 http://www.nukecops.com

Make a Donation



CamerAlert Database

Click here for the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database

Download Speed Camera Database
20.065 (29 Jun 22)



WORLDWIDE SPEED CAMERA SPOTTERS WANTED!

Click here to submit camera positions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database


12mth Subscriber memberships awarded every week for verified new camera reports!

Submit Speed Camera Locations Now


CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







Terms & Privacy


GPS Shopping