M6 cameras J9 - J10a

[Daggers]

Can someone tell me what the policy is for adding cameras to the database when they are not yet in use?

A number of SPECS cameras with unknown speed have appeared in the database this week (on the M6 between J9 & J10a). On the ground, each one of these cameras has a sign next to it saying "Camera not in use."

They are clearly preparing for some roadworks which are going to commence shortly, but these are quite clearly not active cameras yet.

I thought there was a policy of not adding cameras to the database until they were actually being used. Am I mistaken in this belief?
_________________
Garmin DriveSmart 50 LMT-D

[MaFt]

it's a tough one... admin-wise it means i don't keep having to fend off submissions. if i hold off a week or two then all the submissions will be telling me there is a new camera - when do i finally give in and put them in? how do i confirm the cameras are actually active?

database-wise it makes sense to leave them out until they are active.

as a compromise they are added as unknown speed (i.e. we acknowledge they are there but the speed enforcement isn't set yet)

MaFt

[mjdj1689]

According to traffic radio they will be live any day now, its to make the hard shoulder a lane to be used in the rush hour and a sign says they start on sept 7th till march next year.

[Andy_P]

Good answer, MaFt...

(First person to suggest a "pSPECS" set of files gets banned!)

[Daggers]

Thanks, MaFt - that makes it clear, and I understand why you add them before they are live.

In that case, I'll submit those that have been missed later today. It seems they might be live by the time of the next database release anyway!

Andy -
_________________
Garmin DriveSmart 50 LMT-D

[Daggers]

In line with the policy above, I have recently submitted another 3 'pSpecs' cameras, this time between J8 & J9 of the M6 (e.g. below). They aren't yet in use, but are very definitely in position at the side of the road

For some reason they haven't yet been included in the database (OK if a verifier hasn't been past yet), AND don't appear on my submission map with a square grid around the icon to indicate that my submission is awaiting verification.

I'm still not sure that I understand the process properly - I thought that I should see indication of my own provisional submissions until they were accepted/rejected.

So either (a) I've misunderstood the process and there are somecircumstances in which I don't see a record of my submissions on the map or (b) my submissions have been rejected and the policy described by MaFt above has now been changed (although that doesn't explain why cameras 77997/77998 have been included).

Any ideas, anyone?

(e.g. Addition of: Single Direction Specs (ID#0), Heading: 300, Lat:52.561579755921, Lon:-1.9843411445618 (United Kingdom), Speed:unknown, New camera outside current roadworks area. Camera not yet in use.)
_________________
Garmin DriveSmart 50 LMT-D

[MaFt]

Probably 1) not first and 2) not verified yet.

you only see your submissions if they are the first.

MaFt

[Daggers]

Ok; that's clear now - I don't need to worry about whether I was first or not!

However, I do wonder about the length of time it takes for cameras to appear on the database. I'm not criticising the work that verifiers do - far from it; I know that their work is entirely voluntary and in their own time (and getting out and about has been difficult in the past couple of weeks!)

These cameras are fixed cameras on a major motorway through Britain's second-biggest city, and obvious to anyone who passes. PGPSW is rightly proud of the fact that its database is more accurate and more up-to-date than other similar products, and yet the time-lag in adding cameras to the database appears to be growing (based on a number of observations; not just those during the recent bad weather).

Is it time to revisit the process to see if it can be speeded up? Perhaps more verifiers could be used? Perhaps if cameras are reported several times by a significant number of different people (choose your own number!) then they could be added without the need for verification?
_________________
Garmin DriveSmart 50 LMT-D

[MaFt]

[Daggers]

OK - that's good, but there are still examples of fixed (specs) cameras on busy motorways which take over a month to reach the main database, which should surely be considered too long - I initially reported at least one of the cameras mentioned above on 15th Dec (and as we've already established, I can't have been the first to report it).

I still think that consideration should be given to speeding up the process - the two suggestions I gave earlier were just off the top of my head - there may be other ways. However, I have fully appreciate the need for a camera to be seen by more than one person, so verification or multiple reports must be a pre-requisite whatever approach is taken.
_________________
Garmin DriveSmart 50 LMT-D

[falkirk81]

If the route is a busy one, which it does sound like it is, then there should be many people like yourself thinking 'Hang on, that camera isn't on the database, i`ll report it!' which would mean a lot of submissions in a very small area.

MaFt has his own criteria to decide, but the busier or more major the road, the more people pass and so the more people should be reporting a missing camera. This would therefore get added to the database without a verifier even being asked to go to the location!

Verifiers are chosen based on their previous submission history and accuracy I believe in different parts of the country. One has to be careful to balance the need to promptly add/ remove cameras with the accuracy of the database.

Specs cameras are usually advertised many times before and during their catchment area, and you would be very hard pushed to not notice a Specs zone on your route. Unlike some fixed cameras with one small camera sign, sometimes behind a road sign or hedge line!

I'm not saying they are not as important as permanent fixed cameras, but Specs zones are a lot easier to see than a solitary fixed camera behind a tree/ bush/ sign!
_________________
Tomtom GO 1005 LIVE

iPhone 12

[MaFt]

as the user who first submitted these is already a lifetime member i have decided to add these. if they are wrong then they will not gain anything in terms of free subscription anyway...

MaFt

[Andy_P]

[Daggers]

Apologies for not replying to this earlier, but I've been out of the loop for a couple of weeks.

Thanks for adding those cameras MaFt - they have in fact now been activated since then. But I was only using these an example of what I believed was a wider issue - certain cameras not getting added to the database quickly enough.

Having thought about it over the last couple of weeks, I now wonder whether the database is a victim of its own efficiency. When it was only updated every month, if a new camera wasn't added within a couple of releases it was very unusual. However, now a "couple of releases" does not give verifiers very much time at all,and perhaps (my) expectations are too high.

I still think it would be good to look at speeding up the process - it's so frustrating to pass an unrecorded camera on a daily/regular basis - but perhaps it's not the urgent issue that I thought earlier.

I can see Andy_P's point that it would take a lot more verifiers to reach the perfect situation, but I wonder what would happen if only a few more verifiers were used? Would it improve the situation? Would it reduce the workload for existing verifiers? It's difficult to tell, but perhaps it's worth experimenting in one area?
_________________
Garmin DriveSmart 50 LMT-D

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!