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: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject:
Dom it's not quite as bad as you suggest. My van was new on 1st March 2006 and it has just turned the speedo to 67,000 (and to be honest, I'm having a slow year ). But anyway, that means I've covered 67,000 of the UK road miles and will be doing the same, hopefully more, this coming year. And I for one, like you, care enough to submit whenever I can. Other members do the same, or more, or less mileage. Cameras are of necessity positioned on roads which are frequently travelled, so there's every hope that if a heavyweight campaign were to be mounted, members could clear a lot of this up in short order. Pure guess, but I suppose that's how the database started and subsequently grew to where it is now. There's hope in there yet. Yes, I do accept that my mileage figures are misleading - reduce it for return journeys and all the times I go the same way, but still let's be positive.
Being as I've just got back from not seeing Mobiles 7029 and 14114 on today's 8 hour, 260 mile round trip to London - whilst driving I did thinking.
We've been told that nowadays, a mobile doesn't get into the DB until it's been confirmed and I worry about this. "It is said" that some folk have a strange idea of what a camera site is. I have also read herein that some folk think that every police hardstanding and overbridge on the motorway should be on the DB as a potential site. Let's consider that one such person reports a hardstanding without seeing a camera (even though they are asked only to report actual camera sightings), because he/she thinks they should be in the DB. Along comes a pgpsw guy and says "OK, that's a hardstanding, I can believe a camera there", so it gets into the DB. Could this be one explanation of proliferation? It seems as though mobiles get only one report, then a confirmation visit and that sounds dodgy. Let's face it, despite the scare stories to the contrary, mobile cameras don't disappear after just a few minutes - the one I saw in Wales a few weeks ago was there on the M4 when I went and when I came back, at least 3 hours - that's long enough to get more than one report from our huge numbers of members isn't it? Just one report, with a fair chance of inaccuracy, sounds just too easy to me. When I take over the World, I'll not only do 20 foot high shouting for camera reporting on the download page, I'll also change the system to demand at least TWO reports of a mobile camera before it gets put on any checklist, whether for pgpsw checkers or pMobile list - it would NOT get there until at least TWO separate reports had come in and NOBODY would get chance to confirm it (or waste time trying to confirm it).
bmuskett I think it's worth pointing out you're in small company saying you DO send in comments on the pMobiles (from your postings at the time I considered you fully intended to do so and this confirms it).
Quote:
one of the reasons that I, and others, wanted the file - so that we could comment on what was in there, as well as get the warnings.
But I seem to recall that most posters wanted the pMobiles for the warnings, NOT for checking. I'm convinced (without a shred of evidence!!) that when most folk get a pMobile warning, all they do is slow down and if there's a van there, pat their satnav gratefully. If they didn't get a warning and they saw a camera, there's a chance they'd report it. That's my basis for suggesting it's counter-productive.
Although I've said I don't load the pMobiles, that's on my main device. Actually I do put them onto my second GO which I use for handsfree phone and second opinion routing. And into a copy of Autoroute Express at home - when I've got nothing better to do, I have a look to see where the concentrations are in case I'll be going that way next day.
See my comments above about how easily pMobiles become full timers. That's why I think they're to blame for proliferation. _________________ Dennis
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:06 am Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
(a lot of speculation then) It seems as though mobiles get only one report, then a confirmation visit and that sounds dodgy.
I'm sure Darren or MaFt have told us before, but could you confirm what the verification criteria are for a mobile now?
DennisN wrote:
...I'll also change the system to demand at least TWO reports of a mobile camera before it gets put on any checklist, whether for pgpsw checkers or pMobile list - it would NOT get there until at least TWO separate reports had come in and NOBODY would get chance to confirm it (or waste time trying to confirm it).
I think that's overly cautious and would take too long to get a mobile even into consideration for verification.
And then you just confuse me. On the one hand people using pmobiles just take the warnings...
DennisN wrote:
I think it's worth pointing out you're in small company saying you DO send in comments on the pMobiles . But I seem to recall that most posters wanted the pMobiles for the warnings, NOT for checking. I'm convinced (without a shred of evidence!!) that when most folk get a pMobile warning, all they do is slow down and if there's a van there, pat their satnav gratefully. If they didn't get a warning and they saw a camera, there's a chance they'd report it. That's my basis for suggesting it's counter-productive.
Do you think that enough people are using the pmobiles for that to be a factor? One of your complaints was that only a tiny minority wanted them.
Then on the other...
DennisN wrote:
See my comments above about how easily pMobiles become full timers. That's why I think they're to blame for proliferation.
That's got nothing to do with whether the pmobiles file exists or not. If that's how they're verified that could happen anyway - a site gets submitted (for whatever reason), and then verified. In fact the pmobiles file helps, because you could get more opinions on the validity of the site from users because you've published the possible site, rather than kept it hidden.
The pmobiles file came about because a bunch of unverified mobiles were taken out of the main database. But there is still a problem with the accuracy of the mobile data, verified or unverified, and I think you're only going to improve it by showing users all the data as soon as possible, for them to comment on. The pmobiles file makes it possible to supply that data to the people who want it, while allowing those who don't to avoid it. Best of both worlds.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:53 am Post subject:
bmuskett I suspect you and I are not actually a million miles apart in this - we both want an accurate and useful database. Just looking at it from different perspectives - you'd rather have it in, in case, but I'd rather not. There's been a lot of sense posted by everybody and I think I'm going to leave it at that unless I see something fresh. _________________ Dennis
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:21 am Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
bmuskett I suspect you and I are not actually a million miles apart in this - we both want an accurate and useful database. Just looking at it from different perspectives - you'd rather have it in, in case, but I'd rather not. There's been a lot of sense posted by everybody and I think I'm going to leave it at that unless I see something fresh.
Ok, we'll agree to disagree on the pmobiles, but agree on the need for accuracy. Sounds like a plan.
Joined: Oct 18, 2004 Posts: 111 Location: South of Glasgow, West of Scotland
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:43 am Post subject:
Having been responsible for (re-)opening this particular can of worms, I have been watching with interest as the discussion develops. What is most refreshing is that the postings have proven my view that this is the best public forum I have visited - acceptance of differing views and many valid opinions. For that alone I am glad I raised the original point.
In terms of verification, I would add my own opinion. I do not think that one sighting of a van followed by verification that the location *could* be a possible sight is reason enough for adding. I was under the impression that we were being advised of regular sites, not one-offs (by the way, I am not saying that is what happens at present, just that I don't think that is the way it should be or become). If that were the case, the map would be littered with icons and the actual road would be invisible. After all, the vast majority of locations could be possible sites. That does not make them so, as my own local experience shows.
As an example, in my locale (which is where I started the thread) there is a street where a van occasionally sits. I would class it as a regular location, and it is properly marked on the database. However, 2 other sites exist on the database on the same street within about 100 yards. Knowing that road well, yes it is possible that a van could be at these other locations, but it doesn't happen that way, as it invariably sits at the best site for getting a hidden "catch". I believe that the other 2 sites are simply slightly inaccurate reportings of the actual location. That then leads to 3 warnings when one suffices. For the mobile sites, surely we shouldn't need warnings less than 200 yards apart. We should be alerted sufficiently by one warning for that stretch.
I am all for a team of local "champions" to cover the country. Applications on a postcard with details of years lived/driven/etc in that locale?
I agree with weelogic - I've had several trips on M25 & M11 etc recently and have been driven crazy by the fact that 40% of the motorway trip was taken up with constant mobile warnings - which means muting the my Garmin but in doing this I nearly missed a gatso warning which would've be ironic.
I've now removed the mobile data from my POIs. Given that I only drive at weekends and hols and don't own a Maserati , the risk is low from mobiles - I've never actually seen one! Its difficult to break the speed limit on the M25 anyway - being the worlds biggest car park :
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:06 am Post subject:
hpgsmith wrote:
I've had several trips on M25 & M11 etc recently and have been driven crazy by the fact that 40% of the motorway trip was taken up with constant mobile warnings
Are you using the most recent downloads? I thought in recent versions most of the "excess baggage" had been cleared out?
I've frightened myself almost to death - when I downloaded the new TT 675 maps, I reset my warnings. For all fixed cameras, because I'm such a softy pants slow driver, I put them down to only 200 yards in order to reduce the number of "false" warnings I get for off route cameras - I thought 200 yards was perfectly adequate for a considerate whitevanman like me. Yesterday the verbal warnings all took so long to speak, I was past the specs cameras on the M4 before she'd finished telling me the speed! New underpants!! _________________ Dennis
...Yesterday the verbal warnings all took so long to speak, I was past the specs cameras on the M4 before she'd finished telling me the speed! New underpants!!
Then now you can be a pDumbo with v.personalised underpants.
ooh! whew! _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:46 am Post subject:
mostdom wrote:
Then now you can be a pDumbo with v.personalised underpants.
ooh! whew!
I keep thinking you've reformed for a while, then suddenly you come back with a horrid again!
I can't remember - did you say you'll be at tomorrow's Expo (not that I'll see your reply in time to hide - I'll probably not be back at my PC before I leave).
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:48 am Post subject:
Thanks Mullet. I didn't do skiddies - remember, I'm the original slow old whitevanman and was well under the speed limit. But it gave me a horrible feeling of guilt. I'll increase the distance so that I have time to tell Liz she's gotta be joking, not just yelp "What the.."! _________________ Dennis
As one who is happy with situation as is, and just to add another worm to the can, The only thing I appear to be missing is an ogg file for the pmobiles, i.e. unverified mobile camera or am i missing something.
Surely the arguments are pointless, as I can turn off audible warnings or enable/disable specific categories, plus the fact that when driving I am concentrating on the road and audible warnings are a background sound and are secondary like anybody else in the vehicle.
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
). But anyway, that means I've covered 67,000 of the UK road miles and will be doing the same, hopefully more, this coming year. And I for one, like you, care enough to submit whenever I can. Other members do the same, or more, or less mileage. Cameras are of necessity positioned on roads which are frequently travelled, so there's every hope that if a heavyweight campaign were to be mounted, members could clear a lot of this up in short order. Pure guess, but I suppose that's how the database started and subsequently grew to where it is now. There's hope in there yet. Yes, I do accept that my mileage figures are misleading - reduce it for return journeys and all the times I go the same way, but still let's be positive.
