Speed camera submission

Darren · Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject:

Ah, so you're suggesting the satellites pass over often enough to capture the vans in situ? This isn't the NSA you know Wink

My house isn't even on Google Maps and it was built 6 years ago!
_________________
Darren Griffin

Andy_P · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:53 am Post subject:

nimh999 · Occasional Visitor Joined: Apr 05, 2007 Posts: 46

What I am saying is this and maybe I haven't explained my train of thought very well.

The satellites are constantly taking pictures, the same pictures over and over again of exactly the same places. Just because they may not be updated on Google Earth doesn't mean to say they are not available to buy because they are. The cost, I don't know.

If you open Google Earth.

On the left hand side is an option called Layers

Expand "More" Expand "Digital Globe" and just tick "DC Coverage 2008"

If you zoom in to certain parts of the UK some seem to have very good coverage in that the pictures were taken, are available to buy but may not be the picture you see on Google Earth at this moment.

This shows as I understand it all of the pictures taken this year that are available to buy.

My suggestion was to see if the option to verify mobile camera locations was viable. Just a suggestion.

Sallyann · Lifetime Member Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 768

Although Google Earth started out as mostly satellite pictures, the images now shown on Google Earth and MS Virtual Earth are a mixture of both satellite and aircraft photography.

The majority of high-definition pictures of the UK are in fact from aircraft photography, and taken at quite extended intervals.

Sal

GPS_fan · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:25 am Post subject:

Remember also that mobile sites a verified for their feasibility as a location for a mobile camera - not always easy to do from an aerial photo.

Then, further independent reports of an active camera at that location are also required.

A fair few mobile locations are rejected as not being deemed suitable for one reason or another, eg a space not being large enough for a van to park or a reported farm entrance is actually a town centre when a verifier turns up.

If all mobile locations were accepted, this expenditure may have some justification, but it's a lot of money to fork out to find that a location doesn't look feasible as a mobile camera location.

Additionally, a satellite photo which has been purchased for a submission one day might be out of date for another submission in a slightly different location a few days later.

At least with a real life verifier visiting a location in person, some discretion is possible at the location, rather than trying to second-guess an aerial or satellite image which is not necessarily completely up to date.
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here

Andy_P · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:15 am Post subject:

nimh999 · Occasional Visitor Joined: Apr 05, 2007 Posts: 46

Andy_P · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject:

Cool! That means I can stop driving an extra 20-30 miles a week verifying (often incorrect) camera locations!

More beer money for me. Smile

GPS_fan · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject:

Yeah, and how do we spot the "Gatso" which is actually a tourist information sign when you get there?

Verifying mobiles is inherently difficult, but the system we have seems to work fairly well.

Remember, also, that fixed cameras in more remote areas may take a little longer to verify
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here

bmuskett · Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject:

We did have some discussion about using Google Street View for US cameras here.

Well, maybe we'll be able to use it over here soon - Google's Street View spycar clocked in London, and see the comments for other places it's been spotted.

	PocketGPS
	Web