| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tafia14
Regular Visitor
Joined: Jan 29, 2014
Posts: 86
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:57 am Post subject: False removal requests? |
 |
|
Hi,
Still checking out the user manual for the PGPSW. Not being a techie, it takes a while!!
Haven't tried it on the road yet.
I see there is an option to remove mobile camera sites and wonder what is to prevent speed trappers such as Go Safe in North Wales hitting the Remove camera site button in order to fool the database.
I was also surprised to see from the version I have just updated that a highly used site at Brynford, Holywell, North Wales does not appear on the mapping.
The limit in that area has been lowered from 60 to 30 for over a year now and the trap van is parked by the football ground so often, I was thinking of asking for a toilet block to be built so the poor lad doesn't have to use a pop bottle.
I have heard that over 100 drivers were caught at under 40 mph in the first few months of trapping thus suggesting that the limit should have been lowered to 40 and not 30.
Any thoughts?
T
(Title slightly edited by mod (AP) to make question clearer) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15130
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:25 pm Post subject: Re: False removal request |
|
|
| Tafia14 wrote: | I see there is an option to remove mobile camera sites and wonder what is to prevent speed trappers such as Go Safe in North Wales hitting the Remove camera site button in order to fool the database.
|
In general removal requests for mobile sites are 'ignored' unless a photo, voice note or comment is included that gives a good reason why it should be removed. For example - the location they used is now a housing estate, or the road layout has changed and there's physically no space left to park etc.
Sites that have been unused for some time (eg a year) will be purged (although I've not had time to do this for a while, it's a semi-manual process so takes some time). For other remove requests we require multiple reports of it being removed as well as a verifier (or other 'trusted' member) to submit reports before they are removed.
| Tafia14 wrote: | | I was also surprised to see from the version I have just updated that a highly used site at Brynford, Holywell, North Wales does not appear on the mapping. |
Get it submitted on the map :D
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tafia14
Regular Visitor
Joined: Jan 29, 2014
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: False removal request |
|
|
| MaFt wrote: | | Tafia14 wrote: | I see there is an option to remove mobile camera sites and wonder what is to prevent speed trappers such as Go Safe in North Wales hitting the Remove camera site button in order to fool the database.
|
In general removal requests for mobile sites are 'ignored' unless a photo, voice note or comment is included that gives a good reason why it should be removed. For example - the location they used is now a housing estate, or the road layout has changed and there's physically no space left to park etc.
Sites that have been unused for some time (eg a year) will be purged (although I've not had time to do this for a while, it's a semi-manual process so takes some time). For other remove requests we require multiple reports of it being removed as well as a verifier (or other 'trusted' member) to submit reports before they are removed.
| Tafia14 wrote: | | I was also surprised to see from the version I have just updated that a highly used site at Brynford, Holywell, North Wales does not appear on the mapping. |
Get it submitted on the map :D
MaFt |
Aye, good tip. Free subs for Tafia?
Odd that it has not been logged though; can it be that no PGPSW users have driven that road and seen the van in a whole year. There are two more sites within half a mile of that one taking advantage of the too-low limit.
Good to know it is not too easy to remove a site.
Cheers
T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15130
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:49 am Post subject: Re: False removal request |
|
|
| Tafia14 wrote: | | Aye, good tip. Free subs for Tafia? |
If you meet the criteria. I.e. subscribed member at time of submission and at time of award. Remember mobiles take longer to verify, mainly because they're not always there!  . We need to verify the location matches the description (eg if you say it's outside a pub and there's no pub then it will get rejected) and we also need them to have further reports from other users to validate that it gets used.
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tafia14
Regular Visitor
Joined: Jan 29, 2014
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:16 am Post subject: Re: False removal request |
|
|
| MaFt wrote: | | Tafia14 wrote: | | Aye, good tip. Free subs for Tafia? |
If you meet the criteria. I.e. subscribed member at time of submission and at time of award. Remember mobiles take longer to verify, mainly because they're not always there! . We need to verify the location matches the description (eg if you say it's outside a pub and there's no pub then it will get rejected) and we also need them to have further reports from other users to validate that it gets used.
MaFt |
The need for reports from others is understandable but as I said, I am surprised that no one has reported the hot site I mentioned when there has been activity there almost weekly for around a year. Seems that if I report it and no one else does, it won't be listed.
Would a picture of the trap van on site be enough to verify it?
Do you have an idea of how many PGPSW users there are in the Flintshire area? The trap points I mentioned are not through roads or major routes and are usually just used by locals.
Thanks for your response
T. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: False removal request |
|
|
| Tafia14 wrote: | | Seems that if I report it and no one else does, it won't be listed. |
No, that's not quite right...........
The PGPSW database download comes in two parts -
1. The main VERIFIED portion (of fixed cameras, Mobile sites, Average speed cams etc.) and
2. A second optional part which contains UN-VERIFIED Mobile sites only.
This second section was created because (due to their very nature) mobile sites can take longer to get verified than fixed sites.
And it was made optional as some people prefer to be notified of EVERY possible trap, while others feel that they get too many "false alarms" if they get alerts for every single reported site.
| Tafia14 wrote: | | Would a picture of the trap van on site be enough to verify it? |
Probably.....(or it would certainly help!) But MaFt would have to give you PGPSW's definitive policy on that.
_________________
"Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:20 pm Post subject: Re: False removal request |
|
|
| Tafia14 wrote: | | Would a picture of the trap van on site be enough to verify it? |
And it would have to have enough background detail so that the site can be identified on streetview, otherwise it's just another picture of a camera van which could be anywhere.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15130
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: False removal request |
|
|
| Tafia14 wrote: | | The need for reports from others is understandable but as I said, I am surprised that no one has reported the hot site I mentioned when there has been activity there almost weekly for around a year. Seems that if I report it and no one else does, it won't be listed. |
It will be listed straight away as a 'pMobile' site. After further sightings OR a verifier visit it will be in the main, active Mobile set. After BOTH a verifier visit AND further sightings you will get eh 1yr free subscription.
| Tafia14 wrote: | | Would a picture of the trap van on site be enough to verify it? |
Yes, that can skip out the verification stage - but would still need further sightings for the free sub.
| Tafia14 wrote: | | Do you have an idea of how many PGPSW users there are in the Flintshire area? The trap points I mentioned are not through roads or major routes and are usually just used by locals. |
No idea. Probably more than 3  .
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tafia14
Regular Visitor
Joined: Jan 29, 2014
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks to all for your responses
Regards
T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() 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!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
