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 31, 2005 Posts: 15265 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:
just to reiterate:
THESE CAMERAS HAVE NOT BEEN DELETED!
we still have them all in the database, they are just awaiting verification - just like all the other camera's need verification before they are released.
If it bothers you so much feel free to use last months mobile file instead of this one
at present we have 2052 cameras awaiting verification. 1140 of these are pending mobiles. my personal opinion is that the mobile sites should have been verified in this way, the same as the other cameras, a long time ago. it's only that it's done later that it appeas to cause an issue. if the mobile sites get checked out just like the other cameras then surely this can only help to improve the database?
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:23 am Post subject:
a wrote:
Must say I am miffed that the mobile camera that I reported (and caught a van ahead of me) has been removed.
I now don't know how many more are missing. I do understand the point of view that some folks may have added them for their own sakes - but I doubt it.
Don't know what to do - keep my old PGPS database or use the TT cameras which is included in TTPLUS subscription though this doesn't have mobiles. There is no point in paying additional cost for PGPS when the TT database is as good.
Pardon me, I'm not picking your post out for special treatment, it just seems to have several useful points.
First, from what the pgpsw guy (MaFt) says above, it seems there has been a change of policy, but not of principal. i.e. Principal - this Forum provides free details of cameras to subscribed members. Policy - they'll include on the database cameras which are proved to exist. This is a bit of a change if they used to put mobile cameras in just on one say-so, as opposed to putting fixed cameras in only after they had been checked. Now that seems a wise move to me (and I think I'm on record somewhere in another post complaining that mobiles shouldn't go into the database without the same checks as fixed cameras). What we'll now get is factual warning, not "possible site" - let's face it the little black camera signs already do the "possible site" thing, and we all know the motorway speed limit is 70mph, yet we still subscribe to get actuals!
That camera which you say shouldn't have been removed? - go ahead and report it again and see how quick it gets back in - he says the next report will be treated as confirmation. There are a number of places I've been warned of mobile cameras when I'm quite sure there's no way one could be used there - I went past one two days ago in a school gateway, and another on the A303 just west of A36 junction, where there was crash barrier on both edges of the road!! And if villagers are capable of putting up pseudo cameras and/or standing at the roadside pretending to snap you, they're perfectly able to stick in a false report to get their own private mobile site!
I've asked these questions before, but nobody ever answers them ... can you??
1. How many cameras are there on the TT and Garmin databases?
2. How frequently are they updated?
In the time since I first started using the cameras from here, I've had three new Tom Tom Gos (May 2006, December 2006 and January 2007), each one of them coming with free pre-installed cameras. Each time I have given them a trial and found them to be woefully inaccurate and incomplete. They don't offer a first update free in order to get the trial to evaluate properly. Anybody can get a month's trial of this site's cameras for just £2 and the recent rate of updates would indicate they can expect at least two downloads for that price. I quote the TT database is as good - you've just got to be joking!!
Anyway, I do 60,000 miles a year as a courier, all over the country and I'm sticking with this database which has not let me down over the last 18 months. By the time I get home at night, it's often late for me to put in a report of a camera, but I still make an effort to do so, because if we all report cameras, it benefits us all - I don't know who reported the mobile camera in Devauden, but thanks mate.
Like the guy says, if cameras are checked before they go into the list, it can only be a good improvement. I note that Lola has reported a mobile in the past (and hopefully will continue to do so), but I sneakily wonder just how many others who have posted here have also reported cameras, or do they just sit back and let others do the work for them? _________________ Dennis
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:33 am Post subject:
I must admit that I'm extremely concerned that PocketGPSW.com Ltd. have arbitrarily decided to change the way the database is offered to it's customers. I realise that this is a commercial enterprise, but surely it's not unreasonable to expect your customers wishes to be taken into account. I was under the impression that a substantial number of your customers would prefer to have the option of a having a false warning rather than the possibility of not being warned for an active camera.
With regard to the M42 dummy boxes referred to in another post, and any other currently empty boxes which may be listed, unless you are 100% certain that there is never going to be a possibility of them having cameras in them, I for one would prefer to have them in the database. Apart from avoiding the remote risk of being caught, leaving them in the database gives you warning that the driver in front may brake suddenly, and will also avoid strangers to the area submitting what they think is a new camera, and then starting indignant posts that their submission hasn't been added to the database.
I find MaFt's statement that
"however, now we have so many members and a good team of moderators / verifiers it's been decided to treat the mobile sites in exactly the same way as all the other cameras. i.e. we wait until a specific number of submissions are made for that area and/or the site is verified by one of us."
absolutely amazing. Apart from the fact that unless something has changed very recently, as far as I can gather the verification process for static cameras is neither 100% guaranteed or particularly fast. If you start using the same criteria for a mobile site which may only be in use once a month or less, how long is the verification process going to take! There's a mobile site near me that although I use the road frequently and I have only ever seen once, friends and colleagues have reported it eight or nine times a year. How would you cope with that? I can forsee many mobile sites never being verified.
Members of this site have on several occasions asked for an additional category of unverified cameras. I'm aware that the site owners don't post on the forums very often, but would it be possible to have a definitive answer as to why it would not be possible to have this unverified category available if people would like to use it. At the end of the day its an individuals choice as to which POI files to activate.
Finally, as I said at the beginning of this post, PocketGPSw.com is a commercial enterprise, and the directors are entitled to run their company as they see fit. But as a matter of good customer relations, rather than make arbitrary decisions on the way the database is offered, couldn't you have a poll to see what your customers would prefer? I also use the GPSPassion French camera database, and being very heavily orientated towards mobile sites, this gives many many apparent ghost warnings. However its my choice to have these activated. I consider the irritation of having constant warnings less than the irritation of having to visit the nearest ATM machine! _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
I thought that this principle had been discussed before, and the general consensus was that it is better to have a false alert than to miss a camera out, only for a subscriber find out (too late), that it was active.
I for one don't mind how many 'false alerts' I get!
Added as I can't edit.
If there are only 50 added thisd month and 1000 deleted, I think I will take a chance and not update this month.
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:43 am Post subject:
Yes, a new category of 'unverified' or 'all' mobile cameras should be made available for those who want to be extra cautious. Whats the harm in it? It cant be much work to do. _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:52 am Post subject:
WHAT !!!! ?????
You're asking pgpsw to give you false sites and charge you real money for it???
Next time I get the scam e-mails from Africa about loadsa money in an account just needing me to send them a few Ks to get it into my account, I'll post it here for you to take advantage of. _________________ Dennis
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:11 pm Post subject:
colinm345 wrote:
I find this quite worrying as it is a toss up wheaher to subsribe to this database or the garmin one,as I have just had a Nuvi 300 I was going with this one but now I am a little unsureas it looks like empty boxes are being deleated but what happens if they go live again
The decision of course assumes that Garmin's database is better! There is no perfect system for collating and verifying this type of database but we work very hard to make ours as good as it can be. Garmin buy in their data and my experience of their provider is that whilst the data is good it is far from complete.
If a camera location goes 'live' again then we will receive a report and it will be added. _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject:
trevor.dowle wrote:
I thought that this principle had been discussed before, and the general consensus was that it is better to have a false alert than to miss a camera out, only for a subscriber find out (too late), that it was active.
I for one don't mind how many 'false alerts' I get!
We get a great many complaints about false alerts, primarily these relate to the mobile database which by its very nature generates a lot of alerts for sites that more often than not are not active. We've implemented this policy to reduce such false alerts where it is possible to do so as it improves 'faith' in the quality of the data.
Quote:
If there are only 50 added thisd month and 1000 deleted, I think I will take a chance and not update this month.
That's rather contradictory, you would rather have false alerts yet are also willing to take a risk by not updating this month! It only takes one camera after all! _________________ Darren Griffin
WHAT !!!! ?????
You're asking pgpsw to give you false sites and charge you real money for it???
Next time I get the scam e-mails from Africa about loadsa money in an account just needing me to send them a few Ks to get it into my account, I'll post it here for you to take advantage of.
ALL mobiles are false unless there is a camera there when you pass. Many users would like to know of the possibility before the 3 and 60 happens.
When prompted of a unverified location a user may be more likely to enter the process and confirm.
No points for taking another thread off topic, use a spam filter like everyone else.
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject:
a wrote:
Must say I am miffed that the mobile camera that I reported (and caught a van ahead of me) has been removed.
I now don't know how many more are missing. I do understand the point of view that some folks may have added them for their own sakes - but I doubt it.
Don't know what to do - keep my old PGPS database or use the TT cameras which is included in TTPLUS subscription though this doesn't have mobiles. There is no point in paying additional cost for PGPS when the TT database is as good.
We have to verify sites to ensure the data is accurate, your reported location has not been removed but has been stored as 'pending' until it is independently reported or verified by one of our team. Sadly we do get malicious reports and it's simply not possible to take every report on trust.
TomTom don't have Mobiles, don't update as often, are more expensive and IMHO have a much less concise database. There is also no feedback forum for their data and no-one to listen to and respond to complaints and suggestions. We are very proud of our system and work feverishly to improve it constantly! _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject:
Darren
Yes you do work hard to give us the best DB. So why not have an unverified category for those who want to play it safe?? _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:
Quote:
We have to verify sites to ensure the data is accurate, your reported location has not been removed but has been stored as 'pending' until it is independently reported or verified by one of our team. Sadly we do get malicious reports and it's simply not possible to take every report on trust.
Perhaps if you explained in detail how cameras are verified it would help. I for one do not understand how you feel you will be able to verify occasional mobile sites within a reasonable amount of time. I've no idea where it is, but when do you expect Iola's submission to be verfied.
I STILL do not understand why its not possible to have a unverified category available should customers choose to use it. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject:
OK my 6 pennyworth....
Normally I would include lots of individual quotes, but I'm in a hurry today, so forgive me if you can sort out for yourselves who's post I'm referring to..
As far as I'm concerned, the one big mistake was when a whole lot of un-verified mobiles were dumped into the database fairly recently. THAT was the policy change, and to me they are just going back to what it should always have been.
People who compare this database to the TomTom one (especially when they go on to say there are NO mobiles in the TT one) seem to be making a faintly ridiculous comparison.
MaFt made passing reference to a team of Moderators/Verifiers.... Someone then said they found the concept "amazing", basically saying nothing had changed. Well, I'll leave it up to MaFt to make any "official" announcement, but let's say you should see my fuel bill recently!
Darren
Yes you do work hard to give us the best DB. So why not have an unverified category for those who want to play it safe??
I'd also agree with this. I can't see any reason why the unverified sites could not be published in a separate file, and give subscribers the option of whether they want to play it safe (and accept that they will get a number of false alerts), or just load the confirmed sites.
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
a wrote:
