Mobile Camera Site Errors?

[weelogic]

Admin Note: This topic has been split from the membership subscription change announcement thread

[weelogic]

[Gee-Pee]

[Darren]

[Andy_P]

Weelogic..... Please can you define what your definition of a "ghost" site is (sorry if I missed it ).
If you mean MOBILE sites where *you* don't see a camera when you pass, what can possibly be done to improve the situation?
Every person who submits a mobile has a right to expect his submission to be taken seriously. There is no way that a verifier can sit at every site and wait for the van to turn up again, so verification HAS to be done on the weight of evidence (or preferably a second sighting from anyone).

If you have any practical ideas on how to improve whatever this problem is, please tell us.

--------------

Gee-Pee..... I would be VERY surprised if there are so many inaccurate camera records on your trip up the M1 (if ANY).
Are you sure you are allowing for how the satnavs work? You don't say which model you use, but the TomToms I use will all give false alarms for GENUINE cameras that are not actually on what *I* would describe as "the route".
This is nothing to do with the accuracy of the database, but a limitation of the hardware, and there's NOTHING PGPSW or anyone else can do about that!

I have just get back from a holiday in Scotland, so spent a lot of time on the M1 / M6 and have to say I didn't get A SINGLE false alarm, that wasn't explainable by the above.
Maybe if you could give us a list of co-ordinates for all these false alarms you say you got, then we could try to find out what the problem is, but if you just say "regular warnings with nothing in sight" there's not a lot we can do.

EDIT - Apologies for repeating some of what Darren just said, but I was typing furiously, with gritted teeth.

[Darren]

I've just checked and for the mobiles, specifically to answer weelogic, your removal comments such as 'never been a camera here' are of no use to us. As I explained, you could drive a route every day of your life and never see the camera because they operate at different times to your journey! However at least two other members have seen them and reported them.

Now if a removal request said 'this is outside my house, I work from home and have never seen a camera here' or 'there is nowhere for a camera van to park here' or 'can't see a camera van parking here, poor view of road, obstructed by buildings' etc that would help us much more.

Cameras get into the main database only when we receive multiple independent reports, removals operate in much the same way except for mobiles. Because it is much more likely for two people to spot and report a mobile site than it is for us to get cast iron evidence that a mobile site is erroneous we err on the side of caution.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[mikealder]

Sorry to add this so late (as this is way off topic from the original post) but it might give people an understanding of the comments field when submitting locations:

I have to say when checking removal locations I tend to err on the side of caution, if its a motorway with a hard standing for Police vehicles that has a remove tag against it I will generally reject the Remove request unless the comments field for that specific location detail why it is no longer used.

As an example only yesterday did a remove request pop up on one of my devices whilst on the M180, there was a camera van in operation at this very location only two weeks ago. Am I supposed to remove the mobile site when I know it was in use very recently - I think not, the remove request was rejected.

The issue of mobile locations is down to the judgement of the verifiers and how they assess the situation when they visit a specific location, I think I have only seen a mobile van in operation at a site requiring checking three times in the last 18 months, it is not an easy task at times.

The remove requests can often be caused by people using the single file download and therefore not knowing the location is a mobile site, other requests for additions of new cameras are handled in a similar way - if there is no camera at the location it won't get added - CCTV and ANPR let alone a shop front door camera have all been checked by me in the last six months and reject as they clearly are not speed cameras - this takes time and considerable effort.

Any of the verifiers will understand what I mean, we aim to keep the rubbish out and good viable sites (for mobiles) in, in the case of fixed cameras these are so much easier to check.

What I would say though, is please use the comments field to add as much detail as is possible when submitting camera locations, these details however small can make life so much easier and help to keep the database as accurate as possible, most of the verifiers use them. Just to prove this take a look at this picture:



I think this is enough about verification though lets get the topic back on track - Mike

[Gee-Pee]

[Darren]

[weelogic]

To Darren, what more do you want over that which I have previously provided on removal requests? If you want 2 pages of chapter and verse, fine here goes (and to Dennis, if this is off-topic, so be it, in my opinion the quality of the database is 100% relevant to a discussion on the merits or demerits of charging for its use).

MOBILE:25954@60

This site sits at the junction of Cairnmuir Road and the dual-carriageway A749. There is nowhere at this location for a mobile unit to stop. Cairnmuir Road is a country road with 2 industrial units - a Rolls Royce test facility and a council landfill site. The landfill site is used constantly by 38 tonner articulated rigs which exit from Cairnmuir Road onto the A749 heading north. For safety reasons they are not allowed to exit across the northbound carriageway in a southbound direction. If a mobile unit stopped at this junction it would block the exit that the 38 tonners use, causing a major safety issue. I know from discussions with the local police that they would never stop in this location for that reason.

MOBILE:8457@40

This site is slap-bang in the middle of the northbound carriageway. There are no pavements here and it is illegal for any vehicle to stop unless there is an emergency reason. Safety camera vans cannot park on the public roadway if their presence can be considered an obstruction to traffic. I don't know about England and Wales, but that's Scots Law. Moreover, this site is in fact a speed warning sign, which flashes when you exceed the 40 mph limit.

MOBILE:12907@40

Ditto above for the southbound carriageway. Again this is a speed warning sign.

MOBILE:24518@40

Absolutely correct location. Visitors will see that a small paved area has been added just north of the nearby bus-stop for the safety camera van to park.

MOBILE:8449@30

Again, this is a speed warning sign. Were a safety camera van to stop at this location, traffic heading east on Blairbeth Road would be unable to pass as there is a pedestrian island in the middle of the road. The van would then be causing an illegal obstruction.

MOBILE:16304@30

Correct location. Visitors to this spot will see that the double yellow lines have been altered to create a specific layby marked "police". This occurred after a local councillor pointed out to the police that their use of this spot was illegal without such markings (reference Scots Law once more).

MOBILE:15208@30

This is a speed warning sign. This spot in Langlea Road is across from the entrance to the rugby club and a van would block one carriageway of an already narrow road on a corner. Vans can't park on the pavement (the law again).

MOBILE:25950@30

This is a misplaced reference to mobile 25949, which is the correct spot. The junction has no public area for a van to park, being bounded by privately owned inductrial units. The heavy traffic at this junction at all times would render a van an illegal obstruction.

MOBILE:8450@30

Another misplaced reference to 25949.

Is that specific enough? If not, I would gladly meet whoever acts as your verifier for this area and show them in person. A discussion with my local police contact could also be arranged.

Or am I still being obtuse?

[weelogic]

Now I'm more confused than ever. If I am supposedly among the "minority" who "spoil things" then your position is sadly misplaced. I have been a regular subscriber to the forum and the database for several years and have no qualms about the concept of paying for its development. I am also a company owner and, for my sins, finance director, and I fully understand the issues of value and capital utilised.

My point is one of accuracy, not of free distribution. If we are to pay (and we rightly should) then we can expect more from the product than if it were free issue. The question of whether the annual subscription is of greater benefit in deterring torrents and warez is one that market forces will determine over time. There is no right answer, and I trust the judgment of the mods to make the right call at the right time.

If you feel I have no right to question the accuracy of the database, then that's an opinion you are entitled to hold. I simply have another point of view and am rarely slow in the expression of it, verbose though it may be.

[MaFt]

[Andy_P]

Weelogic. Thank you. Those comments are excellent, it's just a shame that we had to get to a "gritted teeth" discussion to get them.
That sort of description and local knowledge makes the verifying process vastly easier....

HOWEVER:
Checking:
MOBILE:25954@60
MOBILE:8457@40
MOBILE:12907@40
MOBILE:8449@30 - (I have no record of this ID number. Do you mean 28449?)
MOBILE:15208@30
NONE OF THESE SITES APPEAR IN MY VERIFIERS FILES FOR CHECKING FOR REMOVAL.
How can this be?
All I can think of is:
1. either you've not submitted any removal requests for them,
2. or you have done it since the last update (delayed longer than usual, as said)
3. or your removal submissions have already been investigated and rejected for whatever reason,
4. or something has gone badly wrong.

Anyone any ideas which? This is obviously important, as we can't agree the removal of sites if we don't know about them!


Finally... Several of your comments mention there would be no room for a van to park up safely. We also have to allow for both single police motorbikes and single officers with handheld guns. Would either of these options be possible in these places???

(ADMIN/MODS - Can this important discussion be split out of the original topic into its own thread?)

(edited once to add a forth possibility in the list above - 21/9/07 02:37)

[Darren]

[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!