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: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:43 am Post subject:
BigPerk wrote:
For 'fixed' (eg specs or really static) cameras, I don't see quite the same problem as you describe, and some possible use - DO they get verified quickly, or would there be at least some benefit in showing them, and letting people see whether they are there or not (and submit if they wish to), especially on roads which may not be that well trafficked (and so more likely to catch people unawares?)?
In my opinion, no. My reasoning being...
1. If the road is well trafficked, we will get multiple submissions if any fixed camera appears and is not shown on the database. That in itself could lead to a new camera being admitted into the database through sheer weight of numbers.
2. If the road is NOT well trafficked, the camera will not get multiple reports and as such is not much of a danger to anybody.
3. Fixed cameras are still being painted bright yellow, so they are far more obvious than your sneaky little vans and because fixed cameras are set to a fixed focus, it should be possible for any reasonable driver to adjust his speed accordingly well inside time. (Sorry, I have no sympathy for the maniacs who need Formula 1 braking capability to slow down to the proper speed limit!).
4. We do get a fair number of false submissions, even of fixed cameras. Some people can't get the hang of reporting the correct coordinates, so apart from the obvious ones in the North Sea or Lake Windermere, the mistakes only get a single report. So these would be a waste of space and no danger to anyone of course - doesn't matter if it takes us forever to get to them.
5. If we were to publish "possible" fixed cameras, I'm convinced they would be installed by many and would obviate the urge to report new cameras - someone gets warning of a possible camera, there is one there indeed, so there's no need to report it again because somebody else already has. I'm sure the multiple reports are a very great value to MaFt.
Just in passing, did anybody notice in the ACPO guidelines for mobiles, it says that handheld cameras look like firearms, therefore the operator must be very visible to drivers? Next time you see an officer pointing something, ring 999 and say there's some guy with an Uzi out there. _________________ Dennis
That was the theory behind the pMobile cameras, so we have hundreds of "possible" mobile sites littering the database! And I'm glad to be aware that the question of other pCamera publications has been firmly discounted by Darren.
Fixed cameras (and specs are fixed even when they are fixed only temporarily) are easy to verify and will get into the database relatively quickly if it's a well-trafficked road, because a Verifier will be along in the not too distant future. In the meantime, everybody who reports a specs camera will be adding weight of submissions clusters towards acceptance of a site without a Verifier's visit.
I'm sorry but this is not the case, i submitted 5 specs camera's on the M18 nearly 5 weeks ago and still they aren't on the database, nor do i have a free membership, my membership was due last week so i had to pay when really it's quite possible this shouldn't have been needed.
The roadworks will be over before anything is verified.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:09 am Post subject:
safc wrote:
i submitted 5 specs camera's on the M18 nearly 5 weeks ago and still they aren't on the database
Here's two bits of information for you.
First, one of our verifiers this week went on the M180 to check Specs camera submissions and found that every one he checked did not exist - they were ALL incorrect submissions.
Second, on the Verifiers download in front of me I have thirteen specs submissions for M18, submitted as follows...
23 Oct (nearly five weeks ago) - one.
26 Oct (four weeks ago) - three.
5 Nov - three.
6 Nov - one.
8 Nov - two.
Some time after 18th Nov (last main DB release) - three.
I have no idea where your 5 of nearly five weeks ago would appear in that sequence and there is no set of 5 on one day.
You can do two checks of your own submissions.
First, check the auto generated email responses - they repeat back to you the detail which you submitted, including coordinates. Look on the submission map at every one of those coordinates to check they were accurate.
Second, look on the submissions map at the M18 and see whether there are any pale blue cross hair square window icons. If there are, those are the specs camera submissions which you made and which are awaiting verification. If you can't see any such icons, your submissions didn't make it into the verification process for some reason.
Can I remind you of other things I said - "well trafficked" and "multiple submissions". You say you submitted five cameras - we have THIRTEEN up for verification. If your five is the correct number, then we have another eight which are not right. Probably a great number more, hence weight of submissions encouraging our DB administrator to take thirteen on board for checking. But probably so many that he cannot identify a centre of popularity for any one camera to be admitted without verification - see his earlier reference to the ten sites for only four cameras.
Unfortunately, that part of the M18 is not as "well trafficked" as some others - when I went to Harrogate on 27th October, I turned off M18 long before, when I went to Newcastle on Friday 13th November and Barnsley last Thursday, M18 was off my beaten track.
If you read my article on how the verifiers work, you'll see we do it in our own time along our travels and have neither the time nor the funds to divert much off course. The funding of the database does not stretch to employing full time, paid verifiers (if only it did, I'd be first in line with an application form!!), so unfortunately, verifying takes time for some cameras. I have today checked 18 cameras on the M5 and M6 between here and Warrington which was today's destination. If I'd been going to Hull, I'd be reporting on your cameras tonight. Within a radius of about 15 miles from my home there are about a dozen mobile site reports which I hope to clear up eventually, but to do them as a specific task would be a circuit of a 30 mile diameter circle - my maths isn't up to calculating the distance for me to drive at 18p a mile running costs, or the time out of my self employed status, but whatever it is, I can't afford it. Sorry it's not perfect, but that's the reality of it. _________________ Dennis
i submitted 5 specs camera's on the M18 nearly 5 weeks ago and still they aren't on the database
Here's two bits of information for you.
First, one of our verifiers this week went on the M180 to check Specs camera submissions and found that every one he checked did not exist - they were ALL incorrect submissions.
Second, on the Verifiers download in front of me I have thirteen specs submissions for M18, submitted as follows...
23 Oct (nearly five weeks ago) - one.
26 Oct (four weeks ago) - three.
5 Nov - three.
6 Nov - one.
8 Nov - two.
Some time after 18th Nov (last main DB release) - three.
Here is a bit of information for you Dennis, the reason that the verifier on the M180 didn't find any speed cameras is because they were submitted when the roadworks were on !!!!!
i submitted 2 cameras on there myself and after 4 weeks the roadworks were complete with no verification, your guy goes out a month later and of course they are not there any more. They are in no way incorrect submissions they were just not verified in good time. By labeling them as such you just disenfranchise people and discourage them from submitting which is surely counter productive.
I appreciate what you do and that your not paid, fair play to you for doing it, however, it is a little frustrating that i'm looking at my second set of specs submissions going the same way as the first, submitted but never verified, crucially members are not being alerted which is the main function of this database, plus, how's a guy supposed to get a free membership ;-)
Also finally, if a verifier was on the M180 then surely he could have popped onto the M18 and verified, the two roads meet and the roadworks are there immedietly after you leave the M180 and join the M18, not exactly out of the way by any stretch of the immagination.
Apologies for my 5 week comment, i meant to say over thel ast 5 weeks, my submissionss were on the 26th of Oct and the 8th of Nov......here's hoping for a verification.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:56 am Post subject:
safc (Sunderland fan, like myself?),
I appreciate your frustration but these roadworks cameras are very difficult. There was a similar situation over the summer around the M60 (see this thread). Even though I was able to look at that stretch most days, I still wasn't able to verify what the submitter was seeing. Doesn't help your lifetime membership, but keep submitting and it will come.
As for warning people of the cameras, there's usually enough warning around these types of roadworks that people shouldn't need the extra reminder from their satnav.
I take your point bmuskett, however the cameras are there and if a verifier drives along that stretch then they could not fail to see what i see, 4 mile stretch of motorway 5 to 7 cameras, the problem is that the verification timescale makes it difficult and as much as i appreciate your efforts it makes submitting a huge frustration.
I have been subscribing for four years and i've only had the chance to submit twice, once on the afformentioned M180 and this time, so with all due respect in my neck of the woods the advice "keep on submitting" is not particularly helpful.
5 weeks is too long in my opinion, whether you do it free or not it's beyond reasonable, after all i'm not in John O Groats.
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject:
safc wrote:
5 weeks is too long in my opinion, whether you do it free or not it's beyond reasonable, after all i'm not in John O Groats.
It is too long and it is exceptional for a busy stretch. We try very hard but there will occasionally be issues such as this.
No amount of verifiers can ever cover the entire road network with 100% reliability but that's not to say we don't try to close gaps where they exist.
However, MaFt is as I write heading to the location to check and hopefully verify these cameras. It's a 2hr round trip so let's see what transpires eh? _________________ Darren Griffin
I don't mean to be over negative and do appreciate the work that you guys do out there, just a little frustrated that's all...............i will keep on spotting and i'm sure it will come.
By the way is there any plan to update the POI capture software, i'd love it for my Go 520, it would make spotting so much easier.
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:28 pm Post subject:
safc wrote:
By the way is there any plan to update the POI capture software, i'd love it for my Go 520, it would make spotting so much easier.
We'd love to but since TomTom pulled the rug from under the SDK we can no longer offer it. The SDK (Software development kit) allows third parties to hook into the TomTom OS. Without it we cannot practically offer a solution without having to recode for every variation of device and release version.
Another great TomTom idea which they ran away from for fear we'd do their job better than they could _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject:
Darren wrote:
However, MaFt is as I write heading to the location to check and hopefully verify these cameras. It's a 2hr round trip so let's see what transpires eh?
Perhaps safc will pay for MaFt's fuel and time to resolve this '5 weeks is too long in my opinion' problem
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15154 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:41 pm Post subject:
'annoyed' and 'angry' does not, i'm afraid, sum this up.
after 2.5 hours and a 106mile round trip there were 2 or 3 submissions that were accurate and that will gain a lifetime membership. there was a new camera that i have spotted and submitted myself.
there were also 5 submissions from one particular member for cameras that simply were not there.
i'm saying no more on this other than "thank you" to those who submitted accurate locations for this stretch of roadworks, your lifetime subscription will be with you on thursday.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15154 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:47 pm Post subject:
safc wrote:
I pay my subs for an accurate database M8TJT, maybe you verifiers should do your job more efficiently
Sorry i missed that you're forced to be a verifier !!!!
it's not a job. M8TJT, along with all the other verifiers, do it entirely voluntarily. when i recruit i specifically tell new verifiers that there are no targets and even one verification in a year is a big help to the database.
every week without fail M8TJT trawls through the uk, eur and aus databases manually correcting the directional data to the benefit of everyone. that's a huge task! add to that the camera verification too then that's an awful lot to have thrown back in your face by someone with a grudge against pgpsw for not giving you a lifetime membership.
thankfully not everyone feels the same as you clearly do and the vast majority are greatly appreciative of the verifiers and the work they do.
'annoyed' and 'angry' does not, i'm afraid, sum this up.
after 2.5 hours and a 106mile round trip there were 2 or 3 submissions that were accurate and that will gain a lifetime membership. there was a new camera that i have spotted and submitted myself.
there were also 5 submissions from one particular member for cameras that simply were not there.
I think you need to lighten up to be honest, and saying my submissions were not there is not true, i know they are there as i pass them regularly, there are 7 specs on that stretch of motorway (both sides) to say they are not is either untrue or your anger has got the better of you, i can see that i've rattled a few cages and have paid the price.
I have said i appreciate what the verifiers do but no one forces anyone to do anything, the fact remains that 5 weeks is a long time.
At the end of the day if any verifiers come on here and criticise me without being accurate then i'll counter..........or are verifiers always right ????
I will not submit again, i have not been abusive or disrespectful to anyone, just factual, it seems that some on here A, can't take a little critisism or B. have no sense of humour
Last edited by safc on Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
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
