Do we not have enough people to verify the database?

[Petekk]

Having used the GPS database for a week, I note that the exiting pocket GPS database is very good, I have however noticed that a few of the camera postions are not accurate. I admit I havent thought this through but here goes anyway.............

It seems to me that the difference between Pocket GPS and the commercial databases, it that the commercial folks have "spotters" to verify the position, speed limit, and direction of a camera.

With all the people using Pocket GPS do we not have the same resources if not better resources avaliable to us? If I verified the cameras that I pass every day (just in my town) I could easily supply 8 enteries to the database. If the current database has 2886 enteries and everyone can submit 6 readings we would only need 500 people! (yes I know we would have duplicates and so would require more people, however some contributors would no doubt supply more data). Any duplicated data could be used to verify the accuracy of the information received, to futher ensure that the data was correct.

After data collection, if users report a change to a camera (addition/removal or speed) this would then lose the "verified status" and list the camera as reported, untill the camera is next verified by an users (or maybe two new reports=verified?). This can be considered further - but if we have more fields we have the option to use "all camera" or "verified only"

In order to create the ultimate database we would need more information. Whilst direction would be nice, I dont think the POI system can cope with this (does trafcam use this??) - Does anyone know if this data could be used if we had it?

Otherwise as far as I can see we would require.

1) Lat/Long GPS position (exact position where camera is sited not 300m down the road!!)

2) Type of Camera (1) Gatso (2) Specs (3) Truvello (4) Frequent Mobile Trap (5) Red Light?? (do we need this one?) At the moment everything is Gatso! - catergories taken from Trafcam system which is the nearest commercial system.

3) Speed

4) Reported or Verified?

5) Date of verification

Is this a crazy idea? or might it be worth developing further?

[Darren]

Thanks for your comments. What you describe is pretty close to how the database already operates though!

New cameras are reported to us and added to the database, cross checks take place to filter out multiple reports for the same camera (it then gets complicated as we cannot know which is the most accurate report).

The same goes for erronous entries reported to us. Although in an ideal world we would like the exact position of the camera, in practice the sites are recorded as drivers pass them at speed and so the locations are often out by anything up to 100m.

If a user reports a camera location as being innacurate then we will take the new location reported to us.

At the end of the day this is a free database and will never match the accuracy of the commercial version, it takes some considerable time to manage the updates and produce releases but we are always looking for opportunities to improve it without drastically increasing our workload as we all have day jobs as well!
_________________
Darren Griffin

[mike_d]

I've just done a search for "report location" and this seems to be the nearest post to my concern. I'll post here and see if I get a response.

I, too, have just started to use the database on my shiny new TomTom One and am generally pleased, but I am surprised at how far out some of the locations are.

I have reported two mobile location errors, and although I understand that Mobiles are hard to pinpoint, they are both very close to work and I can tell you exactly where they park.

Next I see that there may be malicious reporting of supposed removals. Taking multiple reports as verification just encourages multiple registration and hence multiple reporting, if someone wants to break the system they will try harder.

Can I suggest a possible solution?

I travel regularly past many cameras on my way to and from work. We have thousands of members who do the same. Ask for volunteer checkers. I can send in a list of the camera numbers I pass. Put them on a spreadsheet. If a change is reported ask two or three who list that camera as regularly passed to report its status.

Similarly the same volunteers could confirm new locations close to their route. I would be happy to confirm the exact location of a newly reported camera not too far from my route, same spreadsheet, closest current camera.

Where do you expect the location reported to be, the actual camera location (often a few yards off the road, or as the road position as you pass it. Should rotatable cameras be reported as an A and B position to cover what is usually a dual carriageway? With a 5 decimal place accuracy we can ne within 20cm!

Do you want me to report location errors, or to put a limit on how inaccurate the location has to be before you will want to change it?

Mike

[neil01]

[mike_d]

I'm not trying to be funny, or trivial, hence my comment on reporting bi-directional cameras as an A and B version (to overcome the carriageway issue), I'm seriously looking at what is useful to the members. I do think a few, dare I say it, "rules" could help. Camera location ON the carriageway, but at the exact position when parked alongside it. If we have consistency we can all start to make our own decision as to warning distance etc. The reports I have made on location are serious, since they current location could be more of a "you've just been caught" rather than a warning.

Mike

p.s. I'd like to see a moderator/organiser respond, Neil, your input is valued, but I can't see us discussing it pushing the boat forward.

[Ako]

I'm not sure I understand why bidirectional cameras would be labelled as A or B. I would want to know about a bidirectional from either direction as you wouldn't know which way it was pointing until you was very close to it (or have I missed the point?).

Regards

Dave
_________________
Holux231, XDAII Copilot 6, 1Gb Lexar SD Card

[Andy_P]

There is already an ongoing process of re-marking bi-directional cameras as if they are two seperate cameras, one on each carriageway. (I know, because I've reported some of them!).
I even suggested something very similar to your A and B, but they have decided to simply add them as the next available new number.
So, for example, a camera that was marked in the database as GATSO:123@70 inbetween two carriageways, will now be moved onto the middle of one carriageway and another entry, GATSO:4567@70 will be put onto the other carriageway (so long as someone tells them about it!).

They have also moved some cameras that I have reported as not triggering an alert on the TomTom, because they weren't placed properly on the carriageway.

Finally, we may even have to "cheat" a few positions slightly. There is a camera on the A40 coming into London that is just after a slip road, and there is a slight mapping oddity that makes the Go insist that it is actually on the slip, so it doesn't warn you when you pass on the main road. IMHO, I'd rather have a very slightly late warning than none at all!

[Tatsfield]

Don't believe that commercial databases are bound to be better than one maintained by enthusiasts and updated by keen users.

I subscribed to Tom Tom's own product and am horrified just how bad it is. Of 15 cameras on my once-a-week route from Poole to London, I can fault 7 of the entries. It is obvious that Tom Tom have no spotters whatsoever as they raised the speed level of a camera pointing in one direction and left the wrong speed when it was pointing the other way. What spotter would have allowed that to happen? They list all redlight cameras as speed cameras with the prevailing speed limit so you can't turn them off but have to endure continual audible warnings in built up areas. Their database is untrustworthy and erarrically updated so it is worse than useless. I am complaining to them but I am fully prepared to just write of my investment and consign the damn thing to the trash can.

I have high hopes that the Pocket GPS database will be better but I am comforted by the knowledge that it couldn't be worse!

[Pocketgps]

I notice quite a few references to bi-directional cameras, but as far as i know none of the current gps software programs can use that information with add-on poi's.

[neil01]

It may even turn out, that to have 'bi-directional' cameras is an uneccessary complication, and that treating 'them' as two cameras is the most effective way to deal with them for the following reasons:

1 On a dual carriageway, as far as many applications are concerned, the target locations are not even on the same road.

2 For mobile cameras, the target areas can be half a mile apart.

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!