View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject: (In)accuracy of camera database |
|
|
We keep saying how the pgpsw database is better than the TomTom one, but with not a lot of concrete evidence presented. So for a few weeks now I've been running TT cameras on my GO550 Live, alongside pgpsw CamerAlert on my iPhone, looking for a decent comparison set. Here are some findings just for today, a run from Bristol to Newmarket and back, via Swindon and Bicester.
A14 Junctions 31 to 34, TomTom has no average speed cameras. Anybody know how long they've been there?
On one single road, the A420 between Swindon and Oxford, TT has several cameras which no longer exist - they were done away with a long time ago - I think in 2009!!!
This one lost its head with the dinosaurs!
There are several like this which have been bagged since 2009....
BUT they DO have one here - on a farmer's cow bridge over the M4!!
_________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DEANO3528 Lifetime Member
Joined: Jan 22, 2011 Posts: 130
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those Camb's one's have probably been there three years, since some roadworks were done. For some strange reason the Specs stayed after the roadworks went! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PiaggioMP3 Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 19, 2008 Posts: 26
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The A14 cameras have been there quite awhile, as Dean said. They have worked, the A14 is a road from hell, and these cameras have helped on that stretch of road.
As to the subject of the post - Inaccuracy - I do have a comment.
Last Wednesday I had to drive from J10 on the M11 to Birmingham (Snow Hill area) via the A14 / M6 and, as usual, used the camera software as an assist. What completely spoilt the journey was the amount of "mobile" warnings, sometimes three straight after each other with different speed warnings on an unrestricted stretch of road. It made me wonder if (a) some people record a mobile camera to get a free subscription, or (b) are mobile warnings worth anything as at the warning sites, I never even saw a camera unit / van etc.
I am not going to be a goody twoshoes and say I never speed, but meaningful camera alerts have undoubtedly saved me before; sometimes I have either still been over the limit when leaving one speed limit for another and the warning has made me check my speed and saved the points.
Would be interested to hear, Dennis, if you also had a lot of mobile warnings?
Jeff |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PiaggioMP3 wrote: | Last Wednesday I had to drive from J10 on the M11 to Birmingham (Snow Hill area) via the A14 / M6 and, as usual, used the camera software as an assist. What completely spoilt the journey was the amount of "mobile" warnings, sometimes three straight after each other with different speed warnings on an unrestricted stretch of road. | Depending on your system, it may be alerting for cameras on nearby roads. Quote: | It made me wonder if (a) some people record a mobile camera to get a free subscription, or (b) are mobile warnings worth anything as at the warning sites, I never even saw a camera unit / van etc. | a) undoubtably, but it is unlikely to work as the site has to have multiple independent sightings and verified as an 'ok' site.
b) Are you expecting mobile cameras to be there when you go past then? You have to be extremely (un)lucky to see a mobile in situ. You can download the databse without mobiles if you want to, but at your own risk. It's the mobiles that you don't know about that are likely to catch you. Quote: | Would be interested to hear, Dennis, if you also had a lot of mobile warnings? | Of course he does, just like the rest of us who actually use the mobiles as a warning, you could also try downloading the unverified mobiles if you want to be annoyed even more but more LESS likely to be caught out
Edit to change 'more' to 'less'
Last edited by M8TJT on Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:42 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005 Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 9323 Location: Durham, UK
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As well as the above don't forget to stop the database being cluttered with Out of date mobile cameras any NOT reported as being Seen Again after certain period of time will be removed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As M8TJT says, I DO get false warnings for cameras off road - I can see I'm on a motorway, so any camera at less than 70mph is obviously inapplicable.
And I DO get warnings for mobile cameras which aren't there. Because they aren't there all day, every day. But the day I ignore them, there'll be one there. Remember as previously stated, to report any mobiles actually seen (again) operating. I went for months not seeing one on our ring road, then went a fortnight with it there every day around mid day, just because for some strange reason my work took me in that area almost every day.
However, the point of this thread was to compare TomTom cameras with those of PGPSW. We have average speed cameras around the M4/M5 junction, have had them since before January I think, and the roadworks are signed to last until 2014. My GO550 does not warn me of them. On M4 at Newport, average speed cameras were taken down when the new variable speed cameras were put into commission - April last year maybe? TomTom still warns of average speed cameras.
I have been in contact with TT over those three sites (Cambridge, Newport and Bristol), not to put their database right, but to complain that they charge me for Live Services but the database they supply is woefully wrong. They claim that my database isn't up to date and that all three sites are correct in their database. So could other people with Live devices, both Nav2 and Nav3, please run demo routes along those areas to see what they get. PGPSW database is completely accurate in respect of the above three sites. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bmuskett Lifetime Member
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
M8TJT wrote: | you could also try downloading the unverified mobiles if you want to be annoyed even more but more likely to be caught out |
I don't follow. Why are you more likely to be caught out using the unverified mobiles? Surely with more sites in your database you're less likely to be caught out? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bmuskett Lifetime Member
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
PaulB2005 wrote: | As well as the above don't forget to stop the database being cluttered with Out of date mobile cameras any NOT reported as being Seen Again after certain period of time will be removed. |
Are mobiles still being purged? What are the time periods for verified and unverified mobiles? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
bmuskett wrote: | Why are you more likely to be caught out using the unverified mobiles? Surely with more sites in your database you're less likely to be caught out? | Of course. Faulty logic or typo? I've edited the post. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005 Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 9323 Location: Durham, UK
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
bmuskett wrote: | PaulB2005 wrote: | As well as the above don't forget to stop the database being cluttered with Out of date mobile cameras any NOT reported as being Seen Again after certain period of time will be removed. |
Are mobiles still being purged? What are the time periods for verified and unverified mobiles? |
Yes they are. Not sure about time scales. I'll leave to those that know to comment. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bmuskett Lifetime Member
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
M8TJT wrote: | bmuskett wrote: | Why are you more likely to be caught out using the unverified mobiles? Surely with more sites in your database you're less likely to be caught out? | Of course. Faulty logic or typo? I've edited the post. |
Typo. My brain does that sometimes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bmuskett wrote: | Are mobiles still being purged? What are the time periods for verified and unverified mobiles? |
It is mentioned each week, that the mobiles are purged.
Technically, the limits are verified, 12 months, unverified, six months. MaFt often leaves them a bit longer, so it's not graven in stone. Probably something to do with his workload - it's more important to get cameras in than get them out when he's extra busy. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterjhill Occasional Visitor
Joined: Apr 05, 2006 Posts: 42 Location: Cumbria
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
DennisN wrote: | bmuskett wrote: | Are mobiles still being purged? What are the time periods for verified and unverified mobiles? |
It is mentioned each week, that the mobiles are purged.
Technically, the limits are verified, 12 months, unverified, six months. MaFt often leaves them a bit longer, so it's not graven in stone. Probably something to do with his workload - it's more important to get cameras in than get them out when he's extra busy. |
This might explain why so many well known ones are missing in Cumbria. With few members with CA using parts of the County, it could easily go 12 months without a report, but still be valid.
I'll keep my old database to be on the safe side. _________________ Cheers
Peter
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 running old version of Sygic GPS Navigation
Replaced TomTom GO920 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterjhill wrote: | This might explain why so many well known ones are missing in Cumbria. With few members with CA using parts of the County, it could easily go 12 months without a report, but still be valid.
I'll keep my old database to be on the safe side. |
This is an interesting comment. From your other thread, it would seem you only just subscribed to the pgpsw database on 9th December, the day before you offer this wisdom - how does that gel with your comment that the database has many well known ones missing? How many mobile sites have you been able to check in the one day you've been using CA? How few members with CA use parts of Cumbria? _________________ 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: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
When you say "with few members with CA using parts of the county"?
...what evidence are you going on?
Between mobile phone users with the CamerAlert app. and all those thousands of satnav users with their various versions of the PGPSW camera database installed, I would have thought there would still be plenty of spotters in Cumbria.
Are you just going by that published list as your definition of "well known" mobile locations? _________________ "Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
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 |
|
|
|