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!
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject: PGPSW database versus Road Angel Connected
The other day, I did an experiment using a friend's TomTom, with the latest PGPSW database installed and my Road Angel Connected (the model that updates automatically over a phone connection, as you drive).
I covered about 50 miles, including crossing the entire city of Nottingham - speed camera capital of the Universe - and my Road Angel picked up about *twice* as many potential mobile locations as the TomTom unit did.
As you know, Road Angel uses a paid team of people to interrogate the published databases (the mobile locations, I understand, have to be published by law seven days ahead of them being used for the first time) and also receives updates from users who press the 'camera alert' button when encountering a camera that isn't in the database. The latter are verified before being added to the Road Angel database.
So one of two things is happening here: either the Road Angel database is wrong and showing more mobile camera locations than truly exist, or the TomTom database is wrong and is omitting many camera locations that do truly exist.
Obviously, it is better to err on the side of caution, if total accuracy is not possible, so I would rather rely on Road Angel alerting me to many more potential mobile camera locations than TomTom ignoring many of them.
If you really do want to have full alerting of the potential mobile cams, then it seems you cannot rely on TomTom and its database.
I wonder if anyone has any comments to make on this - in some ways it's not a fair comparison because the Road Angel costs around £300 plus another £5 a month database subs fee whereas you already have the TomTom for satnav and the PGPSW database sub is considerably cheaper. But if price is not an issue (and it isn't for me with a licence that has several points on it) and you want the most accurate database possible, how does one explain why the Road Angel finds so many more potential mobile camera locations.
Thanks. Keith
PS. For fixed camera locations there was little difference in my 50 mile test.
Joined: Mar 01, 2005 Posts: 1513 Location: West Mids
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject:
Not too sure how accurate the published sites are as they usually just name a road, not where cameras have been seen to exist.
Also, I don't know how long they keep "old" locations on the active database. For a while now the database from here has had mobile sites removed where users have not marked them "seen again". This is one of the ways that this site want to ensure that only sites where a camera is likely to be based is included. One of it's intentions is to stop too many false alerts.
By their very nature, mobile sites are always the hardest to "prove" exist so if you want to be sure that you don't get caught by one, don't speed!
Of course I'm biased. _________________ Gerry
TomTom730T
Cameralert for Android
Brodit ProClip mount
By their very nature, mobile sites are always the hardest to "prove" exist so if you want to be sure that you don't get caught by one, don't speed!
Of course I'm biased.
I agree about not speeding and I find that since having the Road Angel I drive with a much greater awareness of the posted speed limits. But I live near Nottingham - they have more SPECs cameras there than anywhere else in Britain and more of all the other types too as far as I can tell. Many of them are on 40 mph dual carriageways and it is very easy, especially at quiet times of the day, to let your speed drift over the limit by the small amount they need in Nottingham before they do you. The last time I was caught was for doing 35 in a 30 limit on a straight, 4 lanes wide road that you would swear was a 40 limit if you didn't know. No complaints - I was exceeding the limit and that's that. But it's often not intentional, not dangerous and by only a small margin.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15137 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject:
there is no law that states speed camera places must be published 7 days in advance - that's just utter twoddle used as marketing hype by certain speed cam detector manufacturers... even when the SCP's DO announce where they will be it just gives a road. thornton road near me is 8 miles long and has 7 unique and regular mobile spots. i would rather be alerted to the 7 spots where they use than a constant warning for 8 miles because an SCP website said they would be on thornton road...
if the idea of user submission is to add it instantly to the database as a 'live' camera then how on earth do they verify them in the time needed before the van packs up and moves on?!
my personal opinion is there is a large degree of marketing mumbo jumbo buzz words (active, update, live, over the air)... i really fail to see how they can 'interrogate the published databases' to garner any more information that the road that is being targetted...
there is no law that states speed camera places must be published 7 days in advance - that's just utter twoddle used as marketing hype by certain speed cam detector manufacturers... even when the SCP's
MaFt
You are right that there is no specific legislation but you may not be aware of ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology (ACPO, 2004). This guidance is used by all police forces and when it has been confirmed that a site is suitable for camera enforcement, the enforcement is undertaken in accordance with the ACPO Code of Practice.
The Department for Transport added extra clarification in their Circular of 01/2007: USE OF SPEED AND RED-LIGHT CAMERAS FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT: GUIDANCE ON DEPLOYMENT, VISIBILITY AND SIGNING.
The camera locations databases *are* published by various official sources and form the basis of any good speed camera location database such as the PGPSW version or, indeed, any other well produced version. User contribution is a valuable additional resource but depends on many factors as to its reliability and/or suitability. Generally, it is impossible for a small number of user/observers - say around 40 or so - to travel the length and breadth of the UK to verify camera locations in any time period that would be useful. Obviously, it would be insufficient to simply rely on user reports without verification, hence the desirabilty of verification, but also hence its virtual impossibilty without huge numbers of observers/verifiers.
The Road Angel Connected facility whereby a user can push a button at the location of any mobile camera site *when there is an actual camera present* and thus alert the central database *in real time* with the information then sent to all Road Angel Connected users who happen to be passing through that location, all within a few minutes, is an additional safeguard which does, of course, rely on the integrity of the users to only 'push the button' when there is a live camera at the location. It cannot be verified for obvious reasons. However, users may consider that the small possibility of a rogue user creating false alerts is worth risking if the location of live camera vans is reliably flagged more often that not (which is in fact the case, from experience). There is no harm done if the mobile location does not have a live van there and in any event, the alert will only be in the database for a couple of hours or so (the van presumed to have moved on by then, unless other user alerts confirm it has not of course). All of this is obviously only possible when the speed camera detector is linked via its internal SIM card and the GPRS network to the central database, in real time. This is a 'bonus feature' in truth and not central to the device's main purpose which is to provide accurate cameral location informartion.
I should add that I have no relationship with Road Angel other than as a satisfied user. It is not a cheap service and so, at the end of the day, it comes down to the old adage: you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15137 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject:
kbarnes70 wrote:
You are right that there is no specific legislation but you may not be aware of ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology (ACPO, 2004). This guidance is used by all police forces and when it has been confirmed that a site is suitable for camera enforcement, the enforcement is undertaken in accordance with the ACPO Code of Practice.
exactly, it is GUIDANCE and guidance alone - ie they can go wherever they want to! you don't have to follow guidance! the guidance MAY be used by all police forces but that doesn't mean that every single use of a speed camera follows those guidelines - i use windows xp but that doesn't mean i HAVE to use it all the time (rubbish analogy, i know but you get the picture?) - likewise police force X may use the guidelines but it doesn't mean they use them all the time.
Quote:
The camera locations databases *are* published by various official sources and form the basis of any good speed camera location database such as the PGPSW version or, indeed, any other well produced version.
we wont touch them... they are simply too inaccurate to form the basis of an accurate database like ours.
Quote:
User contribution is a valuable additional resource but depends on many factors as to its reliability and/or suitability.
we go one step further than this - on top of user submissions we also have a lot of manual processing to ensure accuracy - it is THIS factor that makes our database stand out. i spend approx 15-18 hours a week (depending on number of submissions etc) simply processing user submissions.
Quote:
Generally, it is impossible for a small number of user/observers - say around 40 or so - to travel the length and breadth of the UK to verify camera locations in any time period that would be useful. Obviously, it would be insufficient to simply rely on user reports without verification, hence the desirabilty of verification, but also hence its virtual impossibilty without huge numbers of observers/verifiers.
i take that as referring to our verification process? we also use subsequent submissions, geo tagged photo's, videos, accurate descriptions etc as part of the verification process. as a whole i think this works well. we also remove 'inactive' sites after a long period of inactivity. as we cater for loads of different devices and software it is simply impossible for us to consider a 'live' system whereby user reports can be sent directly to other users. one major disadvantage of this is that it means at least one person has had to go past an active mobile site without any warning before others can 'learn from his mistake' - if a site is used it is likely to be used again so we keep that location in the database for 6-12 months (depending on status). as mobile cams are only supposed to be set up at accident blackspots etc then at the very least the warnings serve as a reminder that the road is a dangerous road.
Quote:
The Road Angel Connected facility whereby a user can push a button at the location of any mobile camera site *when there is an actual camera present* and thus alert the central database *in real time* with the information then sent to all Road Angel Connected users who happen to be passing through that location, all within a few minutes, is an additional safeguard which does, of course, rely on the integrity of the users to only 'push the button' when there is a live camera at the location. It cannot be verified for obvious reasons. However, users may consider that the small possibility of a rogue user creating false alerts is worth risking if the location of live camera vans is reliably flagged more often that not (which is in fact the case, from experience). There is no harm done if the mobile location does not have a live van there and in any event, the alert will only be in the database for a couple of hours or so (the van presumed to have moved on by then, unless other user alerts confirm it has not of course). All of this is obviously only possible when the speed camera detector is linked via its internal SIM card and the GPRS network to the central database, in real time. This is a 'bonus feature' in truth and not central to the device's main purpose which is to provide accurate cameral location informartion.
comments above also relate to this!
Quote:
I should add that I have no relationship with Road Angel other than as a satisfied user. It is not a cheap service and so, at the end of the day, it comes down to the old adage: you pays your money and you takes your choice.
:D i think this is the first praise road angel have had for quite some time...!!
out of interest, it would be good to hear exactly how they 'interrogate the published databases' to get heir data. we are, and always have been, very open about the source of our data - you guys! and from experience and comments both from customers and the industry it is a system tht obviously works!
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 8:23 pm Post subject:
kbarnes70, sorry but that is a lot of twaddle. Show me just one example of a camera partnership that publishes 'accurate' locations for their mobile cameras? I'll wager you won't find any.
Talk of ACPO etc is a red herring, the code of practice does not require them to publish accurate locations and they don't.
And where do Road Angel state they 'uses a paid team of people to interrogate the published databases'? There are no such databases so why would they pay them to interrogate non-existent databases?
I thought the idea of the connected devices was that RA's user-base reported active mobiles via their devices? If you were seeing reports of locations on the RA were they active sites? If not then what;s the point?
Were it that easy we'd all be laughing, it isn't.
We have a very active user-base of reporters and our mobile database is far more accurate as a result.
And remind me, how much is RA's subscription? _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Posts: 2145 Location: Midlands, UK
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject:
I have a RoadPilot MicroGo, the false alerts drive me mad. Mobiles that have not been seen for years. Mobiles that are current at lots of locations missing. And reporting a cam is a joke, no map on there web site, and more annoying than that is when you update the unit it removes ALL of the sites you have put on it manually since the last update
I have been using the PGPSW data for over 4 years and it has been very accurate over that period
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
