Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
(and I suspect others, or the option to submit a removal request would not exist) the key to the validity of the database is accuracy.
What Daren is saying is that It takes more than one submission to add a new Mobile site, then it takes the same to remove it.
So if you are correct and you live in a high populated area, and the camera warnings are wrong than others will also help you to remove them.
You must agree that if additions and subtractions, were done on the say so, of one person only, the database would be biased.
I like you have a clean licence, and i don't hurl through the town illegally, but when that extra 1mph over the allowed speed line can get you points and a fine, I want every warning that "Plod" and his "Talivan" is in the area, to me being over-warned is well worth the extra noises from my Sat Nav. _________________ TomTom Go 60
Garmin Nüvi 660, Firmware v4.90
Drive-Smart GPS with Loader v1.4.16
HTC Advantage X7500 MS 6.1 Tchart Speed Sentry
Satmap Active 10, Software v1.16
Fuzion 32 HUD Bluetooth GPS receiver
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject:
weelogic wrote:
That's all well and good, but a physical check of several of the sites I have logged will show them as warning signs
All you can do is submit a remove request, but put in the comments that it is only a speed warning sign and there is nowhere for a mobile to stop. The more information you can give the better.
weelogic wrote:
To be constantly warned of cameras that don't exist while going about your daily business is a distraction at best, a frustration at worst and undermines the value of the database per se.
It's a difficult situation. The only options I can think of are these:
Switch off the mobile warnings
Change the warning sound for mobiles to something unintrusive
Switch your camera detection system to one that only warns you if you are over the speed limit. _________________ Gone fishing!
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject:
weelogic wrote:
In one case (25954@60) there is nowhere for a police unit to stop. A van there would have to occupy the inside lane of a busy dual carriageway. There would be no need for the camera - their vehicle would cause such an obstruction that the average speed would fall to walking pace!
May I insert an unbiased comment here please? The mobile you quote shows up on my Autoroute Express and in Local.Live.com smack bang on the triangle "splay" of a junction (Cairnmoor Road and A749). Would you say they couldn't fit a Van or Motorbike or Tripod on that lump of grass? (I am only looking in virtual mode of course, so it may be misleading me). The aerial view also shows the centre reservation as a pretty substantial width, again it doesn't show me if the centre reserve is inaccessible to a van/bike/tripod.
As I understand things, the problem for PGPSW with regard to mobile cameras is that they are mobile, here now, gone later. The report of a genuine mobile camera site is from a visual sighting, but confirming it will no doubt be a nightmare and confirming a removal even worse (a sort of "when did you stop beating your wife?" scenario). Not long ago, I said quite strongly that I've never in 6 years regular driving more than 60,000 miles a year seen a mobile camera on any of the locations which warn me as I drive along the M4 to/from London. Indeed, I thought the 70mph mobile warnings were such a waste of time I turned off that warning. Then suddenly, a couple of months ago, I started seeing the actual vans. Then I saw several of them every time I drove that way.
This is a very valid and useful discussion, but I feel its resolution is not at all close. I think on balance the solution is what PGPSW seem to be doing, namely don't insert a mobile camera without first checking if it's a valid location and equally, don't delete a camera without the same weight of checking. Certainly I have myself submitted removals - did one only this morning I think, for a mobile which shows on a roundabout on the A30 in outermost Cornwall - in my submission I said the roundabout's obviously been rebuilt leaving no space for a mobile. Whether that mobile was ever genuine in the first place I have no idea, but my comments may help PGPSW to accept its removal, especially if someone else does the same, now that the holiday season is upon us. The key to this is really for all members to submit "changes" whenever they find any. That's additions, removals, change of speed, anything. Reporting, with additional comments, can only be valuable. Personally, I place a heavy reliability on the database and it hasn't let me down since I started using it 18 months ago (that's including a 800 mile round trip to Glasgow's Kilbirnie Street not long ago). _________________ Dennis
I am not in the least bit supprised this has come up again. I agree with that only those who conciously attempt to keep a tidy database can put thing right, but for every one of us that attempts to remove an incorrect entry there are three more who would submit anything to get the golden prize, Lifetime membership.
I know it is writen there that mobiles arn't included in this but how many people do you think accually read it. How many times have you reported to someone on the forum that it doesn't include mobiles.
I don't have a life time membership, I have a dozen europe cameras to my name, and I couldn't care if I get life or not
And with the frenzy that would ensue after a new camera were erected I doubt I ever will.
So I'm going to say it. Maybe consider a different incentive to report new/changed/removed camera locations fixed or otherwise.
Oh! and what will the new database be called for unverified removal mobile locations, Rmobiles? Tonge in cheek, be kind. _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:52 am Post subject:
Quote:
Tongue in cheek, be kind.
Wooo Hoooo!! Get away - you know we don't do kind here!!
Do you honestly believe there are people out there who will falsely report a camera just to get a free lifetime membership? Honestly? Have they stopped helping little old ladies across the road? If they get a free membership will they stop reporting cameras? I'm sure I have reported far more camera items since I got my free membership than I ever reported beforehand. I see it partly as payback for the benefit of camera warnings and partly as continuing to contribute to the upkeep of a terrifically valuable resource.
This is depressing. I got my free membership when pgpsw first announced they were going to start charging for membership - awarded because I had previously reported cameras. It was a complete surprise and I rejoiced - NOT because I was getting it free (I had already decided that as soon as the means of doing so was published I would be in for annual membership), simply because it meant I didn't have to worry about remembering my renewal. For heaven's sake, what sad ***** needs to put in all that effort for the sake of the price of five fags or a lager a month?
I have always put down false reports to desperate saddoes who want to slow down speeding traffic through their own personal village or area - I can understand that and have reported in several which seem just that to me.
Mr Happy, you have just destroyed my faith in human nature .
But there are still fairies at the bottom of my garden, so there! _________________ Dennis
It would be interesting if someone could setup a poll to find out how many people disable/delete the mobile warnings and how many people prefer to use them?
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:04 am Post subject:
The problem is that only a small percentage of the database subscribers are forum users so any poll results would be worthless. _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:40 pm Post subject:
Humble apologies Dom. In addition to not doing kind, I personally also jump to conclusions. I thought you meant people were reporting false cameras in order to get a membership, but now I think again, I can understand people thinking "most anything" is to do with the database. I think the camera submission page tries to deal with that (with pictures of 7 proper cameras and 5 not ones), but I suppose if you're dealing with the likes of me, it could be difficult to get through! I think I've seen some discussion on the subject - say for example change the submission page to requiring a click on a picture of the camera so that without a picture of an illuminated speed sign, or a camera warning sign (or a simple speed limit sign even!!!) those things can't be reported as cameras. There just seems to be no answer to it. Perhaps all members should have to go through a development programme - start us all off as pDumbos, not to be trusted with anything, gradually on the strength of proven accurate reports we'd progress to pAcceptables, then with enough proofs, get to be Verified Acceptables? We could even demand a pDumbo download. _________________ Dennis
Being only a mere newb, I find this debate fascinating. I can only speak from my own experience about a year ago when passing a mobile camera on a tripod at the side of a suburban street, and the van parked completely invisibly down a side-street.
I don't recall seeing even a temporary warning sign, which I understand is completely legal if the council post permanent warning signs somewhere in the area.
The traffic was at a crawl, maybe not the best place for a camera eh, so I had time to check that it really was a speed (sorry) SAFETY camera.
Cut to the chase, I guess had I seen this location on a POI list, ie nowhere for a van to park on the main road, I might have thought it an error.
Personally, I'd rather have a false alarm than none at all.
I shall be subscribing to the safety camera downloads shortly, keep sending 'em in please!
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject:
oldwoman wrote:
Being only a mere newb, I find this debate fascinating. I can only speak from my own experience about a year ago when passing a mobile camera on a tripod at the side of a suburban street, and the van parked completely invisibly down a side-street.
.......................... ... ... ...
I shall be subscribing to the safety camera downloads shortly, keep sending 'em in please!
Hmm. Young head on old shoulders. I think (but not 100% sure) that with the subscription you might also qualify for free night school classes in Mr Happy's degree thing. Note, until you get the degree, you'd be classed as a pPGDIAIOVIPRE. _________________ Dennis
...and the van parked completely invisibly down a side-street...
With an observation like that you may well get a full PGDIAIOVIPRE deploma.
I see here good arguments for and against the mobile database in its current state. I personally use the mobile database and happily ignore the pmobile database. I know some cameras are where they should be, and some arn't, in both databases. The question is what should be done about it.
Do nothing and let the database regulate itself?
Allow cirtain members absolute right to remove cameras without question?
Allow cirtain cicumstances absolute right to remove?
Engage a whole new and more elaborate points system?
Delete them all and start again from sratch? (I like this option) asking for it.
Any ideas? _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject:
mostdom wrote:
Any ideas?
DennisN already said it on Saturday -
DennisN wrote:
I think on balance the solution is what PGPSW seem to be doing, namely don't insert a mobile camera without first checking if it's a valid location and equally, don't delete a camera without the same weight of checking. Certainly I have myself submitted removals - did one only this morning I think, for a mobile which shows on a roundabout on the A30 in outermost Cornwall - in my submission I said the roundabout's obviously been rebuilt leaving no space for a mobile. Whether that mobile was ever genuine in the first place I have no idea, but my comments may help PGPSW to accept its removal, especially if someone else does the same, now that the holiday season is upon us. The key to this is really for all members to submit "changes" whenever they find any. That's additions, removals, change of speed, anything. Reporting, with additional comments, can only be valuable.
After the discussion around the pmobile file, I decided to try to improve the camera data where I have local knowledge, not just for pmobile cameras, but for all types. And I think that's the answer for Weelogic's area as well - he needs to submit his local knowledge to get the cameras in his area sorted out.
Joined: Jun 15, 2004 Posts: 297 Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:18 am Post subject:
I myself have now removed the mobile sites after they are downloaded. The number of clearly incorrect sites are increasing the longer the DB is in operation. People are more likely to just ignore a false positive than do anything about it.
Fixed sites are complicated enough and still require constant maintenance. Even though they are clearly defined and reportable. If something isnt done soon the mobile DB will be so corrupt, it will become useless.
The perfect scenario would be to only have 'current' mobile sites included, the difficulty here is quantifying what is current. Why can't we have a situation where mobile sites not only require multiple initial reports (apparently they do) but also requiring ongoing confirmations? Maybe 2 in each 6 month period?
We would then end up with two mobile db's:-
1) ALL mobile sites reported since the year dot.
2) Current mobile sites.
There are maintenance considerations for either approach, but I hope this suggestion may be considered by the PGPSW team. _________________ Fraserp TomTom 1000
GPSmap 60CSx
SatMap
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!
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
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
I got my free membership when pgpsw first announced they were going to start charging for membership - awarded because I had previously reported cameras. It was a complete surprise and I rejoiced - NOT because I was getting it free (I had already decided that as soon as the means of doing so was published I would be in for annual membership), simply because it meant I didn't have to worry about remembering my renewal. For heaven's sake, what sad ***** needs to put in all that effort for the sake of the price of five fags or a lager a month?
.
In addition to not doing kind, I personally also jump to conclusions. 
I thought you meant people were reporting false cameras in order to get a membership, but now I think again, I can understand people thinking "most anything" is to do with the database. I think the camera submission page tries to deal with that (with pictures of 7 proper cameras and 5 not ones), but I suppose if you're dealing with the likes of me, it could be difficult to get through! I think I've seen some discussion on the subject - say for example change the submission page to requiring a click on a picture of the camera so that without a picture of an illuminated speed sign, or a camera warning sign (or a simple speed limit sign even!!!) those things can't be reported as cameras. There just seems to be no answer to it. Perhaps all members should have to go through a development programme - start us all off as pDumbos, not to be trusted with anything, gradually on the strength of proven accurate reports we'd progress to pAcceptables, then with enough proofs, get to be Verified Acceptables? We could even demand a pDumbo download.
