speed camera submissions

[safc]

[M8TJT]

[MaFt]

[safc]

The fuss i'd kicked up aren't we being a little precious here, the difference is i'm not or never have been angry, i unfortunately had the gaul to question a verifier, who was after all being inaccurate and like you acting like you don't make mistakes.

Did you read my reply to Darren or are you just ignoring my positive comments, no vendeta no big issue just a little frustration, which to be fair has been borne out again.

I know what a specs camera looks like.......Big yellow post hanging over the road with two camera's on it, they were there but i guess they have moved.

At the end of the day this just makes my point about 5 weeks rather than weakens it but rather than aknowledge this point you sarcastically accuse me of seeing things, which is insulting to be honest, something i have never been in all of my posts.

Thanks to Darren for being civil and understanding, i really do appreciate your time in replying honestly and acknowledging my issue.

[bmuskett]

Whoa, ease off everyone or I can see us ending up with another Capvermell. safc had a valid issue that a stretch of roadworks covered by specs had not been verified after 5 weeks, on a not particularly out of the way stretch of motorway.

He made submissions in good faith, and either the cameras have been moved since he submitted them, or his submissions weren't accurate enough. I don't see that as a reason for you being annoyed, MaFt - those cameras needed verifying. I wasn't annoyed when I couldn't find alan_sh submissions on the M60, I felt bad that he'd missed out on his lifetime sub because we hadn't got to them before they were moved.

Give a fellow Sunderland supporter a break, please.

[BigPerk]

Yes, seems a difficult one this. I took DennisN's, etc points about the impracticality of showing 'pending' specs because of all the dud ones, but on the other hand if they are not shown at all, because they can't be verified before they're gone again, it's difficult to know what the right solution is. I think PGPSW may well be caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.

And I can see how submitters who go to the trouble of reporting them in good faith, but get no reward for their efforts, become very frustrated.

The question is, I suppose, how important are PGPSW spec camera warnings in roadworks (not where they are installed on s more permanent basis)? As has been pointed out the roadworks themselves, together with the usual warning signs, are a pretty obvious 'heads-up' for care - are people (at least those who deserve warnings) really going to exceed limits in such obviously risky places? Camera warnings are really of more use, where they are in unexpected or perverse positions, or where there are inadequate speed limit warning signs.

So I think (unless someone comes up with something better - probably not difficult ) PGPSW have to choose between a 'policy' of not covering these particular cameras, or finding some way of making sure they ARE shown while they are current, however difficult that may be with the stirling volunteers.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[MaFt]

i'm not 100% certain where i was being sarcastic... if you are referring to where i asked if you could confirm they were definitely specs cameras then that was a genuine question.

the reason i asked was
1) your submissions were the ONLY ones in those positions - the other submissions had at least 1 other submission nearby
and
2) when i drove past today there were large poles with cctv cameras on them very near to where 3 of your submissions were.

from my experience of managing the speed cam database for over 3 years most, if not all, locations will receive at least 2 or 3 submissions in the vicinity which is why i wanted to check with you.

can i also point out that there were other submissions that were rejected and not just yours safc.

MaFt

[GPS_fan]

This is all getting VERY silly.

Time after time after time after time, we say that we shall not enter into correspondence regarding submissions and we always seem to find ourselves doing just that.

Having skimmed through this thread, I found some of the comments quite offensive and, even IF they were intended to be tongue in cheek, the tone continued.

It's plain to see that, so often, accuracy of the database is secondary to a free lifetime subscription
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here

[DennisN]

Pardon me for coming back so late in the series - after dropping my words at midnight, when I got up this morning I had a call to go 300 miles into Wales and back, so I missed all this until now.

It's been flogged to death rather, but I'll still make comments.

The verifier who did the M180 could only have done the M18 if it had been on his route - if he was travelling between Sheffield and Scunthorpe the M18 was an expensive diversion which I personally would tell him not to take on (I wouldn't do it myself). Note that one of the 13 checkable submissions is on the westbound M62 entry slip road to M18, meaning a trip as far east as M62 junction 36. I don't believe that any of the cameras on M18 have been moved since originally positioned - that's gut feeling, with absolutely no evidence, but safc has not claimed his cameras have been moved since he submitted them, nor has he submitted changes to his submissions.

I must offer unreserved apologies for describing submissions as incorrect. That was false terminology on my part - it's a result of being a verifyer - to us, anything we check is either correct or incorrect, no grey areas, no "might have been correct at the time of submission". At speed driving past, for me it's very much a case of "tick" or "cross" and unfortunately, "cross" translates as "incorrect". In my evening report, it'll be Specs12345 Accept, Specs12346 Reject. Black and white.

I am very dismayed that MaFt has been out to verify these submissions. His wages are not my money (well I suppose they do come out of subscriptions), so if Darren chooses to send (or agrees to allow) his employee out and about, that's up to him. But the very least consequence is that the DB administration work lost 2.5 hours of his work, for the sake of a very small handful of cameras. As a result, I have to think that is what has prevented him from dealing with my latest 28 verifications and it's already 8pm on the night before the next update is due to be released! Never fear though - he's not a clock watcher, so I fully expect he'll catch up with them, as he works from home, but I have to wonder what hours he puts in. This week, it'll be two and a half hours more than he needed to, just to try to placate one member - I note we've had no similar complaints from the other members whose M18 submissions were accurate, but equally long in being verified.

bmuskett you've got a nerve suggesting it's a "not particularly out of the way stretch of motorway"! If that's the case, how come you didn't verify them five weeks ago? We don't regard MaFt as a verifier in normal circumstances, he lives closer to it than you and he did 106 miles round trip to "not particularly out of the way". What's wrong with a bit of support for him instead of grumping?

I am very much on record as saying we want every submission we can get and that if a camera exists we want it in the database. Obviously, we want it in there at the very earliest opportunity, but we have to be sensible and cost-effective. And members have to understand that. It does none of us any good to be inferred as incompetent or lacking in commitment just for doing our best.
"Verifiers, your best is not good enough!"

BigPerk I believe PGPSW have already chosen their policy and that is to have every last speed (oops, Safety) camera in the database, but only after it has been verified. That policy is upheld by voluntary reports from members and verifiers and it is what has given this database the top reputation which it deserves. I firmly believe there isn't another one which comes close to it for accuracy, comprehensive coverage and up to date. No need to change the policy, in my opinion.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

[safc]

Thanks bmuskett, some perspective and sense spoken there again thanks for your honesty.

GPS fan
at no point have i attempted to be offensive, i hope your comments are to the wider thread as i have tried to stay away from being offensive, i accept my one comment on doing the job better has been taken the wrong way but the smiley was a huge indication of how i meant that comment.

Other than that honesty is all i've written, also in no way do i put the accuracy of the database in second place, i've been a subscriber for 4 years now and i've promoted this database to freinds, family & work colleagues as the best, which i firmly believe.

That doesn't change the fact that as a member if i feel that a verifier is being inaccurate then i'll point it out, or is this board not about opinions and just about what you and the verifiers say is correct.

The £19 means nothing to me i assure you, however the accuracy does, and throughout this thread every verifiyer including yourself has basically said that my submission was bogus, well i assure you my eyesight is 20 \ 20 and 4 to 5 weeks ago the cameras were where i stated.

Only bmuskett has been open minded enough to accept that the camera's could have moved, i've even got DennisN saying he has a gut feeling i'm wrong, how bias is that particular comment ????

And further to this why would i lie or submit silly camera sightings, whether they have been moved or i screwed up i will not have my honesty and or integrity questioned by anybody, you included, i meant well and submitted, 5 weeks is too long, i ponted that out and the verifiers closed ranks.......

I'll continue to pay and use the database as my earlier comments stand, however as far as spotting is concerned my career is over, i don't need a free subscription and i certainly don't need this closing of ranks as soon as anybody questions a verifier, they do a great job for free but that does not make them beyond criticism and if they feel they are you shouldn't have them on board.

[MaFt]

[GerryC]

May I ask everyone to take a step back and realise that most of the misunderstanding in this topic is because we are behind keyboards and not talking face-to-face or on the phone where misunderstandings are recognised for what they are.

At least the one thing everyone agrees on is that we want to be able to use the most accurate possible database available. The only thing I will ask is directed to safc: Please don't stop submitting cameras when you see them. One day, one of your submissions may save me getting points on my licence.

Can it be left at that?

Gerry

EDIT - was typed before seeing MaFt's post above but I think it is still valid.

[BigPerk]

DennisN - I agree with you about the accuracy of the datatbase. What I meant to be saying was that PGPSW is in a bit of a spot here, and needs to find the best way out. As was said earlier to one of my posts there is a problem if there are 'dud' camera positions on the database - people will complain;

BUT there is also a problem if spec cameras (specifically, because by and large they are temporary) are NOT put on while awaiting verification, and in fact NEVER appear because by the time someone IS able to get round to them (like MaFt today), they've GONE. Because People Will Still Complain just as much about not being warned of cameras that are there (temporarily), as they will about being warned of ('dud') cameras that are not there.

In fact I would say that it's actually worse to miss a genuine warning than to irritate with multiple 'false'ones close together. That's what I was getting at - at the moment with these specs, PGPSW is dammed if it does and damned if it doesn't!

Therefore it seems a good idea to look at what (if anything) needs to be done. I would respectfully suggest a separate specs camera database, with a clear health warning. That will at least ensure subscribers are warned, possibly too much, admittedly .

The other problem is what to do about honest submissions like these that may well not be verifiable in the time they are there. That's for the admin people to decide in my view. But I fear that safc has been getting a bad press that is a little unjustified - he seems quite genuine, and surely his frustration can be accepted as genuine too? bmuskett was right to mention Capvermell - there is a real risk of alienating someone because they have made some critical comments on the verification process - but NOT of the verifiers or anyone else personally. Let's not get too personal too quickly either, please (and that's not aimed at anyone BTW).
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[jcbboy]

I asked a simple question in the beginning after submitting several cameras on the database in the past few months some a distance from where they where on my satnav and because so many were not active on wakefield road and the odd one on bradford road. Yes its a guide and check your speed at all times as it may not have been verified or not be for some weeks. I felt the original comments were not valid about my membership and also if i knew how to operate or set up my satnav. I would have appreciated an answer and a timeline hence i presume it as long as a piece of string when they are activated on the database and subject to verifiers time to go out and check if you the submitter is telling the truth.My concern is have we a shortage of verifiers or have we people wasting there time with imaginary sites or incorrect grid references. Well I didnt expect to wow so much comment but thanks for the useful and amusing ones. Case closed.

[MaFt]

there are about 20 or so verifiers for the uk and more spread about the world.

the cameras on wakefield road have all now been checked, updated and confirmed so hopefully if you go down that road now they should all be ok!

unfortunately we got a little sidetracked from your original post...!

MaFt

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!