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: Aug 10, 2007 Posts: 49 Location: Leeds. West Yorks
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: Mobile Camera Verification
I submitted a mobile camera on 27/09/09 and as I cannot see it on the submission map I presume I was not the first one to submit it. How long does it take for a verification to take place? I realise it is more difficult with a mobile rather than a fixed site but if it takes so long what is the point of submitting such sites, after all if it is a mobile then it will be there today, not tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe not? I did previously submit another mobile site near to my home but was told that as I didn't actually 'see' a camers in use I wasn't eligible for lifetime membership but low and behold tha site is now on my warnings!!!
New reports of Mobile sites will also now qualify BUT because such sites are very difficult to verify, it should be noted that validation may take significantly longer than for other types of site. Note that the Free Subscription will only be added after both verification (once it goes 'active' in the database) AND further reports have been received.
We verify all submissions and you will be notified yours qualifies - for more information regarding verification, please see this report by DennisN. If you are successful we'll let you know (there is no need to send us an email to check) and automatically extend your current membership.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:42 am Post subject:
Please have a read of the article linked in my signature for an indication concerning timescales. We are very well aware that mobile sites are in use this morning and never again until three months in the future, or tomorrow afternoon, hence the longer process to verify - we have to make a judgement as to whether the invisible camera actually would be viable at the coordinates supplied in the submission. But make no mistake, if there was a mobile camera there "today", we'll happily guess it'll come back some day in the future, so we want it on our database. On the basis that we trust people not to submit frivolous or false reports, we tend to lean towards accepting rather than rejecting if the site reported looks viable - bear in mind that the comments written in the submission can make all the difference - "In the layby opposite the Pink Partridge Pub" is far more use than "Seen a mobile cam here today" (this latter is fairly likely to be rejected as too vague).
I'm confused as to how you could "previously" submit a site without seeing a camera? We don't want theoretical sites or good ideas for a site, we only want reports of cameras you actually see in operation.
"What is the point of submitting (mobile sites)?" Well, exactly the same point as for submitting any camera site. My own reason for submitting them is so that they can be taken into the database after due consideration and verification and so that anybody else can reap the benefit of my report BECAUSE I see it as a two way street - I scratch your back and you'll scratch mine - I report cameras I see, you report cameras you see and we've got another couple in the database - when I drive round your way, your camera will be on my satnav, when you drive my way, mine will be on your satnav. I drive thousands of miles a year all over the UK, so I really need your and everybody else's cameras on my satnav.
Of course, it's a PITA when you report something and don't see it appear on the database. That'll be down to any number of reasons - the very first of which is, I believe, accuracy. We really do get a surprising number well out of bounds - with the very best of intentions, some submissions land up in the middle of a field, the sea, a lake (I rejected one in the middle of Longleat Safari Park lake some time ago - it only takes a slight move of the cursor to jigger up the coordinates - I've done it myself more than once), another is maybe half a dozen reports of the same mobile camera all give different locations - our administrator MaFt did once post a graphic showing so many, all spread across half a mile or more, he really has a difficult task trying to decide which one to plumb for to pass to us Verifiers.
Maybe you still have a copy of your auto-response email? It'll have the coordinates and if you look at them you can check if that's where you intended it to be. If you publish them here, I can look to see if there's another submission from somebody else which beat you to it (I can see all pending submissions, whereas you can only see your own (crosshairs).
Can I just repeat my oft repeated litany - we have no desire not to accept any camera submission - if there's a camera there, we want it on our database. We don't care who submits it and we verifiers have no idea who submits it. Every submission is automatically logged (date/time stamped) and the first accurate one is the potential winner in the race to free membership. Every week, our Newsletter announces the usernames of the latest batch of winners. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Aug 10, 2007 Posts: 49 Location: Leeds. West Yorks
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:07 am Post subject:
[quote]I'm confused as to how you could "previously" submit a site without seeing a camera? We don't want theoretical sites or good ideas for a site, we only want reports of cameras you actually see in operation.
I DID actually see a Police car on this motorway mound but because i didn't ACTUALLY SEE a camera, I was travelling at 69 MPH, I was informed I wasn't eligible for lifetime membership, but now that site is on the warnings! Not fair in my opinion. The site I DID see a camera is (within a few metres) was Centre Latitude: 53.71008506702283 Longitude: -1.4747361838817596
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15145 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:10 am Post subject:
all mobile submissions WILL be accepted as pMobiles so long as:
it isn't in a field/north sea etc
the submitted comments describe the location adequately
the submitted comments don't imply it was an anpr set up
it isn't a community camera
chances are your submission failed on one of those 4
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:38 am Post subject:
Ledgepie wrote:
I DID actually see a Police car on this motorway mound but because i didn't ACTUALLY SEE a camera, I was travelling at 69 MPH, I was informed I wasn't eligible for lifetime membership, but now that site is on the warnings! Not fair in my opinion. The site I DID see a camera is (within a few metres) was Centre Latitude: 53.71008506702283 Longitude: -1.4747361838817596
I wish I had a pound for every time I've seen a car on a mound (without a camera operating) - they sit there for availability as often as not - on the M4 eastbound there's a site east of junction 18 where they sit as part of ANPR trapping.
We have no provisional submission at those coordinates - did you take them from your auto-response email, which reports back the exact coordinates you submitted, or from looking back at the submission map? Interestingly, I visited my aunt not far from that location (my former home, Rothwell) only Tuesday last week.
I think MaFt has given the answer, namely that you must have failed on one of the criteria. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Aug 10, 2007 Posts: 49 Location: Leeds. West Yorks
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:56 am Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
Ledgepie wrote:
I DID actually see a Police car on this motorway mound but because i didn't ACTUALLY SEE a camera, I was travelling at 69 MPH, I was informed I wasn't eligible for lifetime membership, but now that site is on the warnings! Not fair in my opinion. The site I DID see a camera is (within a few metres) was Centre Latitude: 53.71008506702283 Longitude: -1.4747361838817596
I wish I had a pound for every time I've seen a car on a mound (without a camera operating)
So why is that position (on the M1 motorway) now on the warninings!
We have no provisional submission at those coordinates - did you take them from your auto-response email, which reports back the exact coordinates you submitted, or from looking back at the submission map? Interestingly, I visited my aunt not far from that location (my former home, Rothwell) only Tuesday last week.
I took the co-ordinates from my confirmation e mail, as I said in my response to MatF I was driving when I hit the location button on my TomTom. I have looked at the submissions map and the ACTUAL co-ordinates of my sighting are Latitude: 53.71022794381143 Longitude: -1.4747321605682373. I also live in Rothwell and pass this location almost daily and I have seen the location 'manned' on two occasions including my initial sighting.
I think MaFt has given the answer, namely that you must have failed on one of the criteria.
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:43 am Post subject:
Ledgepie
What was the point of your last two posts that just quoted other posts with no comment from you?
Rest assured, we do want your cam submissions
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:57 am Post subject:
M8TJT wrote:
Ledgepie
What was the point of your last two posts that just quoted other posts with no comment from you?
Rest assured, we do want your cam submissions
Hang on a bit, he's got his quote stuff and comments mixed together. I was editing them to try to split them up to be easier to read, but the connection dropped out. I'll be back shortly after I get out of the bath!! _________________ Dennis
Joined: Aug 10, 2007 Posts: 49 Location: Leeds. West Yorks
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:59 am Post subject:
M8TJT wrote:
Ledgepie
What was the point of your last two posts that just quoted other posts with no comment from you?
Rest assured, we do want your cam submissions
Re read my last two posts, you will see I have made a comment after quoting their comments!
i.e.
MaFt: all mobile submissions WILL be accepted as pMobiles so long as:
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:52 am Post subject:
Right ho. First off, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT get the idea I/we are trying to evade accepting your camera, or trying to evade awarding you a free membership if you qualify. All I'm trying to do is get to the bottom of it.
You haven't yet come back with the submission comments from your confirmation email. This particular submission is beginning to look like failure due to the comments box. When MaFt says
Quote:
the submitted comments describe the location adequately
you need to fully understand that statement - in fact I do believe we have an automatic filter which subsequently drops any mobile submission which has blank comments box, then MaFt will also look at actual comments to see if they are useful - see my earlier comment....
Quote:
bear in mind that the comments written in the submission can make all the difference - "In the layby opposite the Pink Partridge Pub" is far more use than "Seen a mobile cam here today" (this latter is fairly likely to be rejected as too vague).
I have twice gone out on special trips to "Verify" submissions - at a personal cost of 18 pence a mile. The first was a 60 mile round trip to re-check a mobile which the submitter queried just like you are doing. I even took photographs of the location according to his coordinates and he eventually agreed he'd got it wrong, but couldn't remember just where it should have been (that cost me over £10). The second was a couple of weeks ago when I saw there were a load of average speed camera submissions on the M5 near Bristol. We already had a decent set there, so I was concerned about these new additional ones. Off I went, 50 miles round trip (and incidentally two hours out of my day - I'm self employed) and rejected all ten of them - they were additional submissions all with inaccurate coordinates for the existing ones, from people who had not quite updated their database downloads and who also hit the button whilst driving and got them a few metres away from "true". Another £9. This is NOT a complaint, it's an explanation of why we need to try to filter out anything which can be a wasted journey for the unpaid verifiers. MaFt gets it in the neck from us if he sends us out on a wild goose chase!
Excuse me now - I have to take Vera to the shops to exchange something. But in the words of that bloke - "I'll be back" to see how you got on with this. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Aug 10, 2007 Posts: 49 Location: Leeds. West Yorks
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:40 am Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
OK, whilst I'm in the bath, can you also quote from the confirmation email the comments you submitted please.
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL - THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE
Hi Ledgepie,
Many thanks for your submission, it is very much appreciated. As a direct result of such contributions the speed camera database will continue to be widely regarded as the best available.
For your information, the details of the camera(s) you have submitted are shown below:
Addition of: Single Direction Mobile (ID#0), Heading: 45, Lat:53.711847180172, Lon:-1.4732837677002 (United Kingdom), Speed:unknown, Mobile Police Estate Car seen parked and using a speed gun at approx 8.30am on Thursday 24th Sept
Please note the co-ordinates in this confirmation are not correct they are approx 10-15 meteres from the junction (I have since posted the EXACT co-ordinates in this thread). Surely when submitting a camera the co-ordinates are necessary as not every lay by etc. is "opposite the Pig & Partridge pub"
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject:
Ledgepie wrote:
Speed:unknown, Mobile Police Estate Car seen parked and using a speed gun at approx 8.30am on Thursday 24th Sept
So may I make two points
1. Speed unknown. Whilst we appreciate that it happens, not reporting the speed leaves some small doubt in our minds about how sure the submitter is of the circumstances.
2. Really, you have only said what I mentioned earlier "Seen a mobile cam here today". Quite, of course it's not the pink partridge, but for example, it was smack in the middle of - (blocking?) first, that entrance to the big property, second Water Lane. Edit to add You now say 10-15 metres from the junction - but is that north or south of the junction? Could be 30 metres adrift.
I think my guess that the comments let you down is accurate.
To cut this back to where we want to be, may I suggest you resubmit afresh, this time make sure you zoom in on the submission map way, way down and position the cursor tighter to where you've seen it operating (Hybrid View shows trees and stuff better than the Map view, but come back out into Map view to position the cursor on the road, not in the field or somebody's garden) and add descriptive comments of the site - we're not looking for a police estate car, we're looking for your description of where the police car was parked - in the farm gateway, in the entrance to the big house/property, on the centre white line of Water Lane, on the grass patch between Water Lane and the big house, wherever. As a regular traveller there, you should be able to get nice and precise for us to look at.
My next planned visit even remotely that way is not until February, so let's hope another Verifier can look before then. _________________ Dennis
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
