Key re Speed Camera Database

[DennisN]

At least the first time you only asked ONCE!
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

[MaFt]

sorry guys, the sarcasm didn't come across very well...

maybe i should go back and edit the offending posts with lots of :Z: and smiley faces

perhaps not..

MaFt

[DennisN]

I thought the sarcasm came across very well indeed - that's why you then got a battering from all the gallant oarsmen and oarswomen!
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

[Andy_P]

Let peace reign (or rain)....


Jim... Perfectly good question, you just inadvertently set off some banter between the people who help run the database, who often wind each other up like this in private.

But it can get confusing when it happens in the middle of someone's question, and for that we're sorry.

[JimPrice]

Definately not a problem

I understand that a number of you used to be "Old Bill"

Same here, so I am quite used to the banter

In fact in the days of so much political correctness it's good to see it still exists

[JimPrice]

I note that GATSO 56171@30 which as you see from earlier posts I reported has now been included on the latest release of the Speed Camera database

Purely as a matter of personal interest was I credited with being the first to report this particular camera?

The reason I ask is that it is not at the location I reported it and having driven past it this morning I can confirm that it is not showing the camera in the correct location

Was this camera location not verified?

I can tell you that the camera is definatly located on the pavement outside 91/93 Causeway Green Road

Do you want me submit a corrected location, although that will be the position I originally reported it

[MaFt]

one of our verifiers confirmed the camera as being at the end of grosvenor road...

how far up on the map should it be?

[JimPrice]

More or less opposite Grosvenor Road you will see that there is a driveway...

This is probably where the confusion has set in because on the Google submission map if you go east along Causeway Green Road just before you get to Hadley Street and on the opposite side of the road from Hadlay Street there is also another driveway into a local authority centre

The Gatso is situated in the middle of the 2 houses to the east of that driveway

Your verifier must have been having a bad day

I believe that positional information is important

If you have any doubts about the accuracy of what I am saying I could easily visit the site and submit photographs from the corners of Grosvenor Road and Hadley Street

I could also just submit an amendment to the location via the P0cket GPS World Site

[MaFt]

[JimPrice]

Done

Can you tell me whether or not I was credited with being the 1st to report this Gatso - not that it really makes much difference to me as I am already a life member it's just that I would like to know

In fact I believe I have been 1st to report a number of cameras over the last few years, do you keep a record as I might include it on my Post info to show other members that it can be done

[Anita]

Jim, I know you're not asking where your lifetime membership award is, but I think it's still worth drawing your attention to the following exerpt from this thread.

"The problem for us is that to investigate someone's submission and give an individual answer takes a surprisingly long time and this is time our Database Administrator could otherwise be spending on the vital work of administering and maintaining the database."
_________________
Anita
TomTom VIA 135 - App 12.075
UK map 1125.12264
Samsung Galaxy S21

[JimPrice]

Okay, but for me it's all about quality of information

As I see it I reported a couple of nrw fixed camera's quite near to each as soon as I saw them

I put a fair amount of effort into ensuring that the locations were accurate

I was a bit disappointed that only one of them made it to the previous release which is why I checked the database and found out that I was the first to report it presumably at that location

I was glad to see that the other fixed camera was included in the last release, that was until I drove along that road and found that the location was a considerble distance out

Clearly the one on the database was not at the location I reported, so I am assuming that somebody else had submitted the wrong location, whether or not that was before me I do not know and as such I am not really bothered

But what does concern me is that apparantly it appears that the wrong location was verified

I think in fairness to other camera spotters who are not already lifetime members that I should raise this matter but if it is going to cause a problem for your administrator then leave it as it is it just makes it look that the submission I initially made was inaccurate, when in fact that was the accurate one

[DennisN]

I would prefer not to lock this thread which is a heavy handed approach. Anita gave a reasonable comment and a link. The Verifiers try their best, doing it for no recompense, indeed at their own expense, and the odds are that occasionally they'll get one wrong. For free, the Verifiers do a damn good job and I wouldn't want any of them chucking it in for the sake of too much criticism of one error. Can we then just leave this as being an instance of a Verifier getting one wrong? Please?

http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/verifier-day-in-life-of-a1036.php
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

[falkirk81]

Well said DennisN, but also lets point out that the fixed camera was correctly verified, albeit in an incorrect location. There are all sorts of reasons why or how, but everyone makes a mistake and as DennisN said, we all do our best by volunteering our time and effort.
_________________
Tomtom GO 1005 LIVE

iPhone 12

[JimPrice]

I started this post by asking a question about the submissin I had made.

I was not being critical of the verifier, as I said in an earlier post I can guess how the error came about.

I can quite willingly accept that a genuine error was made and I would not want any of your verifyers to think that I was in any way critical of what they do, in their own time and at their own expense. In fact isn't that what people like myself do who submit new camera's, amended locations and update other POI's etc - do it in their own time, and occasionally at their own expense when checking the location.

I have already amended the location via the submissions page, I do not know if you will need to have it verified or not, but hopefully it will be amended to show the correct position by the time of the next release of the database thereby continuing to demonstrate that this is truly the most accurate speed camera database currently available.

The only reason I asked for additional information is that I have noticed on other threads that such statistics have been quoted and therefore I thought it would be readily available, but if that is not the case so be it.

I would however ask if consideration could be for including unverified static cameras on the database as a separate caegory, asking for members to verify location, speed etc which in my humble opinion would add to the valued work of the verifyers, as well as ensuring that possible locations of such cameras are being notified to members at the earliest opportunity

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!