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: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:54 pm Post subject:
In Dennis's defence, I didn't read his post as being sarcastic to anyone else posting here.
Rather, it seemed to me he was being sarcastic about TomTom's (lack of) ability to:
1. implement the genuine corrections people send them, and
2. sort out the wheat from the chaff of submissions from other agencies
I think he was saying it shouldn't NEED a personal intervention from anyone having a better means of communicating with TT, if Mapshare was working properly.
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject:
Before this becomes something it isn't, I was presuming Dennis's comments were aimed at TomTom and Mapshare in general rather than anyone here. _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject:
Ye Gods!! Good job I had to go out earlier or I might have responded unwisely before Andy and Darren!
Nobody warned me that going over 70 (and I don't mean speed-wise) meant being misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Andy and Darren have it right - I am royally (and unapologetically) sarcastic about Mapshare, but that's not personal to anybody who isn't, or who swears by it, or who wholeheartedly supports it.
DennisN wrote:
Not being the world's greatest Mapshare contributor
is another way of exaggerating the fact that I've done and uploaded nine Mapshare corrections. Three mini roundabouts, four no u-turns (two dual carriageway breaks) one no right turn and one one-way road. On reflection, there's another - that non-existent roundabout for which I gave the coordinates earlier. So I've done ten, all of which regularly make me see red - not a week goes by without me grumbling my way across most of them. Anybody agree maybe I'm not the world's greatest Mapshare contributor?
I too trust PaulB. But I'm not TomTom, so as far as I know, to them he's just one more punter. Morals? £400? I don't verify cameras in order that somebody should get a £400 lifetime membership. I verify and submit cameras for exactly the same reason as I upload my nine Mapshare corrections - to get it right for my benefit and for anybody else who can benefit from up to date cameras and maps. More to the point, I do NOT trust TomTom, so I do NOT EVER download Mapshare corrections.
Yes, my latest satnav is yet another TomTom, so I now have four TT systems on my windscreen, all different versions competing for my custom to follow their guidance.. Plain and simple, I think it's the best device on the market of all the ones I've tried - Garmin Nuvi, Garmin Mobile XT, Route 66, McGuider and the one on my SE C702 phone. None of the others cut the mustard, in my opinion. But that doesn't obligate me to support TomTom slavishly where they are performing rubbish.
So compare Mapshare to PGPSW cameras. I know what goes on here, not because I'm a Moderator in the "in crowd", the information of what goes on and how, is available to every single user of this forum. Mapshare is simply "Report it" - end of! There is (to the best of my knowledge) no information available to me saying when TT will even read my submission, far less what they'll do to verify and publish it. If I download corrections, it doesn't say how many or what they were and I can't go look to see for myself. I've been reporting my non-existent roundabout for at least four years, first to TeleAtlas and then for two years with Mapshare directly to TomTom, and bear in mind, with Mapshare I've reported it with TEN different devices on several different map versions, so they've had at least ten different users multiplied by a number of different maps all submit that there's no roundabout. How many is "Submitted by many" for goodness' sake? "We" might just as well spit into the wind - TT don't even acknowledge "our" submissions.
This thread is about the A1(M) where TT have got the verification seriously wrong - in other words, I don't think they've verified properly - anybody disagree? In the few days from last Wednesday, I have verified 54 cameras on major routes and 3 rather off the beaten track. As with all verifiers, I'm an unpaid volunteer, so I only verify cameras which are on my route whilst travelling, hence I don't often get off the beaten track, so I don't often cover such cameras. I have no information about TT's verification system, but please God, let it not be unpaid volunteers! So why the heck have they not got somebody available along the A1(M). Off the beaten track you might possibly (only possibly, though) forgive them, but a major arterial road? Words fail me (if you ignore what I've just churned out!!).
I'm off to get out my time machine to go back to 69. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
I have no information about TT's verification system, but please God, let it not be unpaid volunteers!
Well PGPSW seems to do alright on unpaid volunteers, all of which do their bit. I'm no Dennis as I think that I have verified about 4 cams (they don't change much in East Sussex, and I don't get out much) which he does in about two mins on a good day. Thank goodnes PGPSW does run with volunteers and is as transparent as it is, that way you get the trust of all. I strongly suspect that if MaFt got ten reports about a cam, he would at least put it forward for Dennis (or one of us) to verify.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:57 pm Post subject:
M8TJT wrote:
I strongly suspect that if MaFt got ten reports about a cam, he would at least put it forward for Dennis (or one of us) to verify.
I strongly suspect if MaFt got ten reports of a camera with the same coordinates, he wouldn't even mention it to you and me! His problem with "Submitted by many" is like the M4 at junction 6 - he got ten submissions (actually, probably forty) for only four cameras. As a Verifier, you know that's what happens with most cameras and MaFt usually does some sort of magical calculation on the scattergun effect and gives us the mean point.
But Mapshare is surely easier than cameras - it refers to a road or a junction, so it's not that difficult to get multiple accurately located submissions ("High Street closed, pedestrianised", "High Street one way eastbound"). Similarly it would be easy to verify, especially with a paid team which TT could direct to wherever the need arises.
My major grumble with Mapshare is that it is NOT transparent, so we are unable to judge its worth. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
it is NOT transparent, so we are unable to judge its worth.
I disagree, its worthless as far as I am concerned - a great idea BUT sadly let down by very poor implementation/ verification - why the heck should I degrade my new map by subscribing to changes that don't get true verification and get added to the pool of map share updates.
Great ploy by the marketing department, but without serious check control/ quality control this is a waste of time, what I really fear is some of these incorrect/ unverified map changes make it through to the next map release so even opting out of map share could potentialy degrade the quality of the supplied map.
This would require a major brand shift as the map data provider is in question. (TomTom or TeleAtlas - take your pick as they are the same company to all intents)
If they are prepared to accept poor submissions with no true verification in place then the map on the device will degrade in accuracy from every update, this is a cost cutting measure but one that could take years to resolve properly once the map data gets screwed up in this way.
Please don't take this the wrong way, there are very dilligent users submitting changes, but for every person that knows what they are doing there are a few users trying to add a roundabout that ends in a road blockage etc
The sad fact is these stupid errors make it through the verification process being validated by dubious sources resulting in motorway/ A road closures - far from ideal.
Map Share = Map Degradation from my experiance- as I said a great idea in principle but could do with considerably better implementation - Mike
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject:
I agree with you completely Mike, hence I don't download mapshare stuff. But I base my judgement on guesswork, not transparency. I simply don't know if they've got verifiers - it says "Verified by TomTom", but not how. There was the infamous case of them half listening to an out of date traffic broadcast wasn't there! If I could filter my downloads to accept only PaulB's and a few others I personally trust, it'd be worth a try. But I can't, so it isn't.
You are quite right that some people will get it wrong. We see it here on pgpsw cameras all the time. Somebody who doesn't do mapshare very often may make a mistake which has enormous consequences - I once tried to alter the speed limit on M4 round Newport because they've introduced a permanent 50mph limit, but it was so difficult I gave up and cancelled it rather than change the entire M4 from London to beyond Swansea to 50mph!! Other people have not been so caring and one of my local dual carriageways had a 20mph limit!
Quote:
Great ploy by the marketing department, but without serious check control/ quality control this is a waste of time....
a great idea in principle but could do with considerably better implementation.
The sad fact is that for the last couple of years we so often say this about several TomTom features that we don't know which hype to accept.
I fondly dream of a TomTom device which has all its bells ringing and whistles belting out Pedro the Fisherman. _________________ 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
