Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
Read the current newsletter! Weekly
Newsletter
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Pocket GPS World - SatNavs | GPS | Speed Cameras: Forums

Pocket GPS World :: View topic - Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions!
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in for private messagesLog in for private messages   Log inLog in 

Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> CamerAlert on Apple Devices
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Adamantium
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Jan 26, 2009
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 12:36 pm    Post subject: Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions! Reply with quote

This is my first post so be gentle!

How are unconfirmed camera locations treated on the database?

The fact that there is an option to display these in the ipod app suggests that these do appear on the database, but do they get a different audible warning and what does it take for them to appear on the database? eg. do they appear the minute they are reported everyday if you choose to download everyday?

The reason I went down the route of using this app was in the hope of getting alerts about mobile cameras that appear in unexpected or unknown locations, using the benefit of the community, so I really want to know what it takes to get that information as accurately as possible.

I have posted about this on the gtr forum and was informed by someone that he had spotted a mobile camera, but did not receive his membership for free because no one else was able to subsequently confirm that location. As a result, a location that WAS the site of a mobile camera is not listed on the database. Is there a way around this?

What is the burden of proof required to get cameras listed?

Is there any benefit in having a sub-database that can be updated daily, that only relates to mobile cameras confirmed or not (with a lower burden of proof requirement) that can maybe be subdivided by location. Eg. If you live and drive in the south, only update daily the mobile camera database in the south, and do the entire database on a weekly basis.

Also, I've been told that no longer used mobile locations dissappear from the database. Is this true, and if so, is it possible to retain them but with the option to ignore them? Personally I'd rather be over informed of potential locations than underinformed.

Sorry if this sounds rant like, I am just trying to get to grips with the information I have available already and possibly to determine how to improve on what is already an excellent idea. If this is unwelcome, please forgive me - as a patent/trademark attorney it's in my nature to try to improve on things, regardless of how good they may already be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daggers
Lifetime Member


Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 1020
Location: Solihull, UK

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 1:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions! Reply with quote

Adamantium wrote:
eg. do they appear the minute they are reported everyday if you choose to download everyday?


The database is updated weekly (usually) on a Wednesday, so it's not worth downloading every day.


Adamantium wrote:
What is the burden of proof required to get cameras listed?

All cameras are independently verified by one of the team of volunteers. Fixed cameras are obviously very easy to verify (Is there a camera at the location specified?) but mobiles are a bit more difficult. The verifiers can only identify that it is a suitable place for a camera. Therefore mobiles must also have a second independent sighting at the same location. Until this point they are in the database as "pmobile" cameras. Search the forum for instances of "pmobile" to find much discussion on the subject.
_________________
TomTom Go 550 Live
App 9.510, UK & ROI Map v 935.5753
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 12834
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 1:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions! Reply with quote

Adamantium wrote:
This is my first post so be gentle!

ok, but only because you asked so nicely Smile

Adamantium wrote:
How are unconfirmed camera locations treated on the database?

exactly like that - as unconfirmed locations Smile only the unconfirmed (aka 'unverified' or 'p' (p=pending)) mobiles are publically available. unverified fixed cams are only available to verifiers.

Adamantium wrote:
The fact that there is an option to display these in the ipod app suggests that these do appear on the database, but do they get a different audible warning

it will say 'unverified' at the start of the alert (if you use voice alerts) eg "unverified mobile camera zone, speed limit 30 miles per hour"

Adamantium wrote:
and what does it take for them to appear on the database? eg. do they appear the minute they are reported everyday if you choose to download everyday?

any mobile site (and any other submission for that matter) get's it's first 'check' done by me. if it's in a field or in the sea (yes, we DO get them...) then it gets rejected straight away. if it's on/near a road and is a fixed camera then it gets added to our pending database which only the verifiers have access to. mobile submissions are a bit stricter due to their nature. a fixed camera submission is easier for our verifiers to check/confirm - it's either there or it isn't! a mobile is highly unlikely to be in use at the time a verifier visits the site so a good description of the area is vital (eg "just before speed changes to 60 from 40", "in layby when travelling north", "outside number 52", "in church car park" etc. that way when a verifier arrives he/she/it can check the location against the comments in order to confirm that the submitted coordinates actually match the description given.

fairly recently a verifier came across such a submission. he initially chose to reject it as the comments said it was in a large layby but there was no layby at the coordinates submitted. however, 100m further up the road there WAS a layby that fit the description given and so the coordinates were corrected to the actual location. without comments it would have been rejected as the submitted coordinates did not have anywhere for a van to park. the iphone/ipod/ipad app has 'voice notes' for this very reason - you can record a quick message to add your 'comments'.

pMobiles appear in the 'live' database (used on the submission map and in CamerAlert when you download) as soon as they have passed this first bit of processing.

DennisN, the grumpiest verifier of them all, wrote this a while back which has a lot of good information about how the whole verification process works: http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/verifier-day-in-life-of-a1036.php

Adamantium wrote:
The reason I went down the route of using this app was in the hope of getting alerts about mobile cameras that appear in unexpected or unknown locations, using the benefit of the community, so I really want to know what it takes to get that information as accurately as possible.

hopefully i've answered that above?

Adamantium wrote:
I have posted about this on the gtr forum and was informed by someone that he had spotted a mobile camera, but did not receive his membership for free because no one else was able to subsequently confirm that location. As a result, a location that WAS the site of a mobile camera is not listed on the database. Is there a way around this?

if it had useful comments and correct coordinates then it would have been in the pMobile database.

Adamantium wrote:
What is the burden of proof required to get cameras listed?

again, see 2 answers above.

Adamantium wrote:
Is there any benefit in having a sub-database that can be updated daily, that only relates to mobile cameras confirmed or not (with a lower burden of proof requirement) that can maybe be subdivided by location. Eg. If you live and drive in the south, only update daily the mobile camera database in the south, and do the entire database on a weekly basis.

CamerAlert WILL get these sites whenever you update. the main database download (for 'regular' satnav's) only get these in the weekly update. we have no plans to change this. the issue of a localised download has been raised before in terms of a 'trial' version of the database however it was decided that the time and admin involved in this was not worth it - if someone wants to see what data we have in their area then they can easily see this on the submission map on the site.


Adamantium wrote:
Also, I've been told that no longer used mobile locations dissappear from the database. Is this true, and if so, is it possible to retain them but with the option to ignore them? Personally I'd rather be over informed of potential locations than underinformed.

pMobiles may be removed within 6 months if they have not been verified or seen again in use. Confirmed mobiles may be removed if they have not been reported as seen again within 12 months. this only occurs with UK sites at the moment (and hasn't been done for quite a while as it's a mostly manual process!). we have decided that we will not make these purged sites available however it only takes a single sighting to get it back in the database for 6/12 months.

Adamantium wrote:
Sorry if this sounds rant like, I am just trying to get to grips with the information I have available already and possibly to determine how to improve on what is already an excellent idea. If this is unwelcome, please forgive me - as a patent/trademark attorney it's in my nature to try to improve on things, regardless of how good they may already be.

not a rant at all (but please don't get your claws out - there are children here!) Smile and Welcome

MaFt
_________________
MaFt®
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 12834
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 1:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions! Reply with quote

Daggers wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
eg. do they appear the minute they are reported everyday if you choose to download everyday?


The database is updated weekly (usually) on a Wednesday, so it's not worth downloading every day.


slightly different for CamerAlert users though Wink
_________________
MaFt®
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Adamantium
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Jan 26, 2009
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 1:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions! Reply with quote

MaFt wrote:
[fairly recently a verifier came across such a submission. he initially chose to reject it as the comments said it was in a large layby but there was no layby at the coordinates submitted. however, 100m further up the road there WAS a layby that fit the description given and so the coordinates were corrected to the actual location. without comments it would have been rejected as the submitted coordinates did not have anywhere for a van to park. the iphone/ipod/ipad app has 'voice notes' for this very reason - you can record a quick message to add your 'comments'.

pMobiles appear in the 'live' database (used on the submission map and in CamerAlert when you download) as soon as they have passed this first bit of processing.



Thanks for the very useful and prompt reply.

Can I confirm that I understand this correctly. This means if I am out and about, and I spot a mobile camera that didn't come up whilst I was driving, and I submit the most detailed description I can and even take a photo using my phone, it will not appear on the database to any other normal users who downloads afterwards via CamerAlert on their phones until a verifier has been to the site?

Doesn't this leave a big potential hole in the safety net created by the database especially since the nature of mobile traps is that they get you by being unexpected? Surely the safest thing to do in the case of mobile traps is to assume they are valid until shown otherwise rather than the opposite?

Once again, not trying to attack you, just making sure I don't over rely on something based on misinterpretation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 12834
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions! Reply with quote

Adamantium wrote:
Can I confirm that I understand this correctly. This means if I am out and about, and I spot a mobile camera that didn't come up whilst I was driving, and I submit the most detailed description I can and even take a photo using my phone, it will not appear on the database to any other normal users who downloads afterwards via CamerAlert on their phones until a verifier has been to the site?


Slightly incorrect. With a photo and description it will be added as a pMobile (tick the option of 'Unverified' in the alert set up) as soon as I process it (usually within a day or 2). Once verified it will be classed as an 'active' (i.e. confirmed) site and be in the normal 'Mobile' database. Once verified AND seen again by different users then it will qualify for the free lifetime subscripiton (assuming the submitter was subscribed at the time of submission).

Adamantium wrote:
Doesn't this leave a big potential hole in the safety net created by the database especially since the nature of mobile traps is that they get you by being unexpected? Surely the safest thing to do in the case of mobile traps is to assume they are valid until shown otherwise rather than the opposite?

Yes, and this is what we do. the pre-process only gets rid of the obviously wrong ones (fields, oceans, 130mph in housing estate etc) - all 'seemingly accurate' submissions for mobiles are added to the pMobile (Unverified) database.

Hope that's a bit clearer?

MaFt
_________________
MaFt®
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Border_Collie
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 2543
Location: Rainham, Kent. England.

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Surely the safest thing to do in the case of mobile traps is to assume they are valid until shown otherwise rather than the opposite?

Once again, not trying to attack you, just making sure I don't over rely on something based on misinterpretation.


The database is not here to help you break the speed limit, it's a reminder if you do go slightly over the top e.g. decending a long hill, and as a warning that it's potential black spot, after all, cameras are only placed where there have been a number of accidents.

The only sure way to keep the points off your licence is to be aware of speed limit signs and watch your speedo.
_________________
Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
The Other Tired Old Man


Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 6064
Location: East Sussex, UK

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions! Reply with quote

Adamantium wrote:
Surely the safest thing to do in the case of mobile traps is to assume they are valid until shown otherwise rather than the opposite?
But how do you 'unless shown otherwise' that there has NOT been a mobile camera at the submitted site. The verifiers only check for the suitability of a site for a mobile against the description given.
The difficult bit is that if the description says 'a van' then there must be room to park a van. If the description says 'a policeman on a motorbike with a hand held' then a very small site is big enough. If the description says nothing, Confused Crying
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
The Other Tired Old Man


Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 6064
Location: East Sussex, UK

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where's the bleedin' Edit button gone Gun Shoot Out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darren
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23805
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Unconfirmed mobile cameras and a few suggestions! Reply with quote

Adamantium wrote:
Doesn't this leave a big potential hole in the safety net created by the database especially since the nature of mobile traps is that they get you by being unexpected? Surely the safest thing to do in the case of mobile traps is to assume they are valid until shown otherwise rather than the opposite?

We've been in this game for many years now and so we know a thing or two about how to run this type of service.

If we were to do as you suggest, we'd very quickly have a database rammed full of erroneous locations and would quickly incur the justified wrath of the users. Too many false warnings and people very quickly lose trust in the data.

How do we prove 'the opposite' as you suggest in the case of mobiles? By their very nature they are rarely there, so to accept a location on the basis of a single report would be a recipe for disaster.

As it is currently, a mobile will be accepted into the pMobile database on the basis of a single report if it is verified as a possible location. If it is reported by a few users then that will ensure it enters the master database.

All mobile locations decay and if they are not the subject of further reports they will ultimately be removed from the database.

There is no perfect system for mobiles, but we believe ours is the best possible in the circumstances.
_________________
Darren Griffin - Editor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Adamantium
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Jan 26, 2009
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks again for the replies, and again so efficiently.

I am of course not intending to break any speed limits, but for my sins I bought a car that makes it very difficult to not accidentally break the rules!

I do need to ask just a few more questions if that's ok.

1. If you take a photo using the iphone with geotagging enabled, does that take you past the verification stage as I presume it is very difficult to fake that kind of data, especially when there's no reason for it.

2. What incentive is there for secondary users to confirm pmobile sites when they know someone else has already notified it and is looking for the lifetime subscripion. Is there a lesser subscription incentive?

sorry for the questions! I'll shut up soon, I promise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 12834
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adamantium wrote:
1. If you take a photo using the iphone with geotagging enabled, does that take you past the verification stage as I presume it is very difficult to fake that kind of data, especially when there's no reason for it.

Unfortunately not. However it will probably speed things up. Google "edit EXIF gps data" - most EXIF editors will allow you to amend the GPS data. there's good reason for this, if you had a poor fix on one of your holiday snaps (or if you want to match up a track log from a long bike tour) for example to where the pictures were taken then it needs to be editable.

Adamantium wrote:
2. What incentive is there for secondary users to confirm pmobile sites when they know someone else has already notified it and is looking for the lifetime subscripion. Is there a lesser subscription incentive?

2 reasons:
1) because the user who saw it again will want an up to date database and not risk having a (now known) mobile site get purged.
2) the whole 'you scratch my back' theory - if user B sends in a sighting of user A's thus possibly giving user A a lifetime sub, then user C may then, unknowingly, re-report a sighting of user B's and get HIM his sub.

I would like to think that most users would go for option 1.
_________________
MaFt®
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Adamantium
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Jan 26, 2009
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, so I think I have it now and have been thwarted by too easily compromised geotagging. I was hoping that the most up to date GPS database possible could be a legal substitute for a jammer, but it would seem that is not the case.

I will turn my efforts towards making 100% sure my right foot stays as light as possible.

This is not a slight on what you have achieved here. I think it is fantastic and am pleased to contribute.

As regards the incentive for confirming p sites, I'd love to think your faith in human nature is well placed.

I for one am happy to support everyone else on here when it comes to confirming p sitings, and so will do my best to keep things up to date.

Thanks again for your patience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 12834
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adamantium wrote:
Ok, so I think I have it now and have been thwarted by too easily compromised geotagging. I was hoping that the most up to date GPS database possible could be a legal substitute for a jammer, but it would seem that is not the case.

no mobile database will ever be 100% accurate. even if you had an online link whereby user sightings activate it on other devices (tomtom try this but, well, i'll let other users describe it for you...) there would still be issues with the fact that the first person to submit it would not have had the initial warning and anyone who passes in the time it takes for the submission to be transmitted to the servers then pushed out to all the users (who may not even receive it if the signal is poor) will also not get it. also, this sort of set up makes one huge, great big, massive assumption that the submission is accurate in the first place.


Adamantium wrote:
As regards the incentive for confirming p sites, I'd love to think your faith in human nature is well placed.

from experience, with regards to pMobile sightings, it is Smile We do get a lot of 'seen again' reports from both lifers, regular subscribers and also non-subscribers.

MaFt
_________________
MaFt®
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 12947
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just for giggles, here is an example of "apparently valid" pMobile submission which MaFt released into the database for verification. Obviously he did check that it wasn't in a field, a lake or the North Sea, but he couldn't tell whether or not there was a farm entrance there. That took verification.

By the way, did you know there's a Gatso in Legoland? We've even got that in our database - Gatso:91167@20!


_________________
Dennis
Where there's a will .... there's a wake.
I'm getting a cat flap for my whippet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message







Posted: Today    Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> CamerAlert on Apple Devices All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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

Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group
phpBB port v2.1 based on Tom Nitzschner's phpbb2.0.6 upgraded to phpBB 2.0.4 standalone was developed and tested by:
ArtificialIntel, ChatServ, mikem,
sixonetonoffun and Paul Laudanski (aka Zhen-Xjell).

Version 2.1 by Nuke Cops © 2003 http://www.nukecops.com

Make a Donation



CamerAlert Database

Click here for the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database

Download Speed Camera Database
12.113 (19 Nov 14)



WORLDWIDE SPEED CAMERA SPOTTERS WANTED!

Click here to submit camera positions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database


12mth Subscriber memberships awarded every week for verified new camera reports!

Submit Speed Camera Locations Now


CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







© Terms & Privacy


GPS Shopping