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!
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:41 am Post subject:
Fraserp your suggestion is certainly worthy of consideration. Perhaps we could hive of all sites to the pMobile file and then re-add them as reported to the main database where they will automatically expire.
However, given the furore over the pMobile data, this is a huge can of worms and whilst I appreciate you have concerns in your area, by and large the mobile database works quite well. If more members in your area submitted removal request as works fine in other places then the incorrect data would be removed.
Mostdom, if only the database did regulate itself! A vast amount of work goes into this every day! _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:46 am Post subject:
Groan ...
Mobiles
pMobiles
pDotmobiles
cMobiles
My head's beginning to ache!
I only recently did some extensive reading about "that man" in charge of North Wales' cameras. I would not wish to see the DB "clean slated" in that area of the country! On balance, I think pgpsw are getting it about right. I feel a comfortable confidence in it.
Having said which, I don't suffer the proliferation of mobiles because I delete the pmobiles from my speed zoned download - I reckon the method of verifying them is as it should be - in the absence of permanence of such sites, they shouldn't be in the database until someone from pgpsw has assessed them. It makes download and installation more complicated. I think handing them out to everybody was the only mistake pgpsw made. Although they have requested us to confirm sightings of mobiles which are in both the normal and the "P" files, I'd be really interested to know just how many confirmations they've received from members (as opposed to their own verification team). I'm not sure, but I think I've submitted confirmation sightings of vans at maybe half a dozen genuine sites - when I see one, I make a special effort to get its identity from "browse map of route" and when I get home submit a confirmation. But it's not a simple process (on my own in the van - I have to try to pull in as soon as possible to fiddle with the touch screen), so I can well imagine it being too much trouble for many people. Furthermore, I honestly doubt whether those who download the pmobile files bother to have a different warning sound to identify them AND send in their opinion as to whether they look likely - doing that would have been really valuable - come on PGPSW, tell us whether all those people who agitated to have the pmobile files have done anything with them to help the database, or have they just selfishly used them to protect their own bad driving??
Let's hear from some of the "PAgitators" - Do you know which mobile cameras on your device are standard and which are P? Do you look at them and send in an opinion as to whether or not they look like valid sites for a mobile camera? You said it would be a simple thing for you to have pmobile cameras and for the rest of us to ignore them - well, each update, I have to delete a dozen or more files instead of simply unzipping them straight into my map folder - that's a possible ****up I may make, just so you can feel better able to speed and get away with it.
Fraserp wrote:
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?
I think this goes just a bit too far - certainly wait for multiple initial reports OR strong confirmation visit by pgpsw team, but ongoing confirmations seems like an immense job. I don't believe it's done for fixed cameras, why add it for mobiles? I could imagine some poor soul in pgpsw spending zillions of hours (wasted!!) on maintaining just the mobile part of the database - putting 'em in, running a diary system for ongoing confirmations, taking 'em out again - nightmare! _________________ Dennis
Joined: Oct 18, 2004 Posts: 111 Location: South of Glasgow, West of Scotland
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:32 am Post subject:
To bmuskett, I agree that what we need is local knowledge, and that is what I have tried to impart on my removal submissions. The issue is that removal needs independent verification also, so my knowledge can only go so far.
On the subject in general, I also agree that a revised weighting system be used, or a method of checking the currency of the locations. While I cannot state with 100% accuracy that certain locations have never been used (apart from the one I mentioned where there is nowhere for a unit to safely stop), I can state with that degree of accuracy that they are not, and never have been, regular sites.
If we recorded every single location where a unit had stopped once in the past 5 years we would be unable to see our screens for mobile icons. If a user is that worried about being caught, they should pay more attention to their speedo than their sat-nav, or fit a speed limiter! (I had a Renault Laguna back in 2001 that had a limiter linked to the cruise control - oh the fun I had when I loaned the car to a colleague for a trip to France and, knowing his reputation for speeding, set the limiter to 75mph without telling him how to deactivate it, ha ha ha).
At last we are getting somewhere, Dennis i thought that was a good post.
Quote:
On balance, I think pgpsw are getting it about right. I feel a comfortable confidence in it.
Having said which, I don't suffer the proliferation of mobiles because I delete the pmobiles from my speed zoned download - I reckon the method of verifying them is as it should be - in the absence of permanence of such sites, they shouldn't be in the database until someone from pgpsw has assessed them.
I haven't yet "tampered" with the database but this sounds a good idea, I too feel (although i prefer all round cover) that maybe these pmobiles shouldn't be in the database, until pgpsw has assessed them, as sometimes the warnings are getting a bit silly.
Quote:
when I see one, I make a special effort to get its identity from "browse map of route" and when I get home submit a confirmation. But it's not a simple process (on my own in the van - I have to try to pull in as soon as possible to fiddle with the touch screen), so I can well imagine it being too much trouble for many people.
Again "marking" a position is difficult, and often even when i get home i forget, as i'm distracted elswhere.
My DriveSmart unit is good in as much i can "mark" a position instantly, but i need to push two buttons together and then it asks me questions such as speed etc, more button pushing - not too good when driving on my own.
Quote:
come on PGPSW, tell us whether all those people who agitated to have the pmobile files have done anything with them to help the database, or have they just selfishly used them to protect their own bad driving?? Let's hear from some of the "PAgitators" - Do you know which mobile cameras on your device are standard and which are P? Do you look at them and send in an opinion as to whether or not they look like valid sites for a mobile camera?
This would be a start, if no verification maybe delete the file, until it could be built with more accuracy, i know i wrote earlier on this thread i would like all warnings available, but if they are mostly a pile of s**t as everybody keeps saying, the only answer is to start again, and we will all have to just be more aware until it is sorted.
Maybe keep the camera's in N/Wales for Mr Taliban with his Talivan for the time being.
weelogic wrote:
Quote:
I agree that what we need is local knowledge, and that is what I have tried to impart on my removal submissions. The issue is that removal needs independent verification also, so my knowledge can only go so far.
Would it work if forum members did a "tally" in their own area to identify obvious "dead" camera positions, which could be listed on this web site for others to check and agree they are dead, maybe listed under postcodes.
This public database could be added and subtracted to under pgpsw command - if it didn't occur too much extra work. _________________ 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: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject:
GJF wrote:
DennisN wrote:
Quote:
come on PGPSW, tell us whether all those people who agitated to have the pmobile files have done anything with them to help the database, or have they just selfishly used them to protect their own bad driving?? Let's hear from some of the "PAgitators" - Do you know which mobile cameras on your device are standard and which are P? Do you look at them and send in an opinion as to whether or not they look like valid sites for a mobile camera?
This would be a start, if no verification maybe delete the file, until it could be built with more accuracy, i know i wrote earlier on this thread i would like all warnings available, but if they are mostly a pile of s**t as everybody keeps saying, the only answer is to start again, and we will all have to just be more aware until it is sorted.
Maybe keep the camera's in N/Wales for Mr Taliban with his Talivan for the time being.
weelogic wrote:
Quote:
I agree that what we need is local knowledge, and that is what I have tried to impart on my removal submissions. The issue is that removal needs independent verification also, so my knowledge can only go so far.
Would it work if forum members did a "tally" in their own area to identify obvious "dead" camera positions, which could be listed on this web site for others to check and agree they are dead, maybe listed under postcodes.
This public database could be added and subtracted to under pgpsw command - if it didn't occur too much extra work.
I didn't want to get into the pmobile discussion again (honest, I didn't), but since I was one of those who requested it I'll give you my experience of using it.
First of all, using the pmobile database doesn't give loads more rubbish warnings than just using the verified mobile file. To start with there are (current numbers) 5,627 verified and 1,160 unverified, so using both files only 1 in 7 is unverified. However, not every verified mobile is good, and not every unverified mobile is bad. Look at the area weelogic is complaining about - in the area I highlighted I see 2 pmobiles and 11 verified mobiles. But weelogic isn't using the pmobiles, he's complaining about the number of bad verified mobiles. And look at the gatsos and red light cameras in that area, there must be warnings going off continuously driving in that area. Taking the database as a whole, for anyone using the pmobile file, only 1 in 12 warnings is an unverified mobile. And I'm prepared to put up with that because I know some of the pmobiles are real.
Like the one I reported last month that I came across in Streatley in Berkshire. A policeman standing in a hedge on the opposite side of the road as I came round a bend. Looking at it without knowing I wouldn't have put it down as a valid site, but there he was. And only someone using the pmobiles will get that warning until it gets verified, and how long will that take?
And to answer DennisN's question, yes, I have done what I can to improve the database. Like GJF suggests above I did a tally in my area. I used the submission map to look at all the cameras in my area and my commute to work and comment on them where I could. Including 2 pmobiles near where I work that I know are commonly used sites, one was used again last week.
I really don't understand the antipathy to the pmobiles file. It's not as full of crap as is made out, certainly no worse than the verified mobile file in my experience, and weelogic's too by the sounds of it. Try using it - you might be pleasantly surprised, and saved from a speeding fine.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject:
Quote:
And only someone using the pmobiles will get that warning until it gets verified, and how long will that take?
As long as it takes someone to verify it I suppose.
I wonder when the pmobile you saw was first reported.
I think the main argument against is that many of the 1160 pmobiles have been there for many months, and probably over a year. They never used to show in the database, except for a month or two before being removed again, and from what I recall there never seemed to be a problem not having them.
If I remember rightly, there were many reported mobile sites shorty after November 2005 and have never been verified. I wonder how many of those were real or malicious.
If all reported cameras, especially mobiles, are added to the database without verification, how are they ever going to be removed if an error has occured in reporting?
An example is, recently as I was turning from my road on to the A2, I saw what looked like a mobile camera on a tripod. I planned to report it but on the way back home I saw several others dotted about. I stopped and had a word with one of the men nearby and he told me they were 'traffic counters'. Assume I had mistakenly reported it as a mobile, the position would be ideal for a camera van and anyone asked to verify the site would say it was feasible. The result would be one more pmobile on the database with no chance of it ever being removed. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
For what its worth, My view is leave em in, I personally was done by a policeman poking his speed gun over a post box and he could easily move to a different location within minutes, admittadly it was before the widespread use of gps, but being new years day also presented a breathaliser which produced negative and passed because of personal reasons I had not been drinking the night before, and I can easily take false alarms in my stride and it is anybodies choice to remove or ignore them if they want, Let it run as is.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15144 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:05 am Post subject:
a few points to raise here:
we DO keep a tally of each time a mobile site is reported. the idea being hat if we get a remove request and no one has reported it for a considerable time then it has a higher chance of being removed.
also, over the last few weeks there has been a gradual increase in the number of 'opinions' of pmobile sites vi the submission page - ie people saying not a lot f room, or good spot etc.
Joined: Jun 15, 2004 Posts: 297 Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:49 am Post subject:
Darren wrote:
Fraserp your suggestion is certainly worthy of consideration. Perhaps we could hive of all sites to the pMobile file and then re-add them as reported to the main database where they will automatically expire.
Thanks for this positive feedback, from you at least. Surely, the PGPSW guys, will be be able to easily identify when mobile cameras were reported and verified? Based on this have an expiry set. People that want to be bleeped at every 2 miles can keep all, but those that want 'current' data just use the current data. Everyone happy! A combination of the both, as now, will satisfiy the 'dont mess with it' brigade!
If we then choose to have the Pmobile sites on our devices and see an actual camera, we can verify it! This will give us upto date info rather than stale, out of date reports. Just having this list increase daily, without any adequate maintenance, makes no sense! Whats the difficulty in having these moved to the Pmobile section?
Darren wrote:
However, given the furore over the pMobile data, this is a huge can of worms and whilst I appreciate you have concerns in your area, by and large the mobile database works quite well. If more members in your area submitted removal request as works fine in other places then the incorrect data would be removed. Mostdom, if only the database did regulate itself! A vast amount of work goes into this every day!
I appreciate that this is a can of worms, but surely, it goes with the territory! I also understand how much work is involved in maintaining any database. I, for one, am greatfull for all your hard work!
I'm not trying to force my needs on others by stating old mobile cameras 'have' to be removed completely, just have an option to use current info not stale data. _________________ Fraserp TomTom 1000
GPSmap 60CSx
SatMap
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:47 am Post subject:
The debate is welcomed. All I try to do is ensure that the everyone sees the issue from all angles etc. We have a large amount of users but still it is possible for an active mobile site to not be seen and reported for a considerable period and there is a risk that we will miss some as a result if we begin removing 'expired' mobile camera sites. _________________ Darren Griffin
Out of interest, I have just looked at the pgpsw map of cameras to see what was marked on my home patch.
With just ten minutes work i found four mobile camera positions NOT marked.
Two positions where i have seen vans on more than one occassion - although not recently.
One position where they spend an afternoon a couple of times a year with a camera on the end of a long High Street run.
One position where they are known to hide behind a telegraph pole (Must send out a thin Plod).
All of this within about five miles, If you devide this up around the country that database is going to get big!
PS. Do you want the positions? _________________ 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: Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject:
Darren wrote:
it is possible for an active mobile site to not be seen and reported for a considerable period and there is a risk that we will miss some as a result if we begin removing 'expired' mobile camera sites.
I reported a mobile site which I saw in use several times in a month, then I didn't see it used for about 18 months and wondered if the site was disused.
Then the camera van was back again. I'd be inclined to never delete mobile sites. _________________ Gone fishing!
it is possible for an active mobile site to not be seen and reported for a considerable period and there is a risk that we will miss some as a result if we begin removing 'expired' mobile camera sites.
I reported a mobile site which I saw in use several times in a month, then I didn't see it used for about 18 months and wondered if the site was disused.
Then the camera van was back again. I'd be inclined to never delete mobile sites.
This was part of my earlier argument - this is how i see them.
Darren wrote:
Quote:
Yes please. Can you submit them on-line?
Done the deed - hope i haven't added even more clutter. _________________ 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
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
Would it work if forum members did a "tally" in their own area to identify obvious "dead" camera positions, which could be listed on this web site for others to check and agree they are dead, maybe listed under postcodes.
