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: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:21 am Post subject:
Quote:
All it needs is either a second sighting from anyone else OR a verifier's "It's possible"
But it will never get a *second* sighting if it gets deleted (because it may only appear every few months and itsn't deemed 'possible'), it will only ever get a first sighting. _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:12 am Post subject:
alan_dr wrote:
But it will never get a *second* sighting if it gets deleted (because it may only appear every few months and itsn't deemed 'possible'), it will only ever get a first sighting.
Not necessarily so - there are 150,000 members. It is well known that new cameras get a flood of submissions on their very first day (I wonder how many reported the Specs cameras on the M4 between J14 and J15? - last time they were reported before the holes were dug - no chance of me getting the first submission in!), so it's quite possible that in some places a mobile will get more than one submission - a strong reason for asking EVERYBODY to submit. Yesterday on an overbridge of the M4 I saw a van again (Browse Map to Mobiles 14114 and 7029 near Swindon) - it would have been there for some time and I sincerely hope at least one other member reported it. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15156 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:34 am Post subject:
a wrote:
But isnt on the database which some poor whitevanman got done at. So obviously the fact that the verifiers dont think it a credible position outweighs an actual sighting. So we have to rely on the subjective assessment of the verifiers who werent actually there to witness the camera. Subjective is never as good as Actual.
i've received an email about the camera in question that you submitted twice (both with quite varied co-ordinates) - with a few photos of the area.
the description you gave in this forum does not match that of the co-ordinates you submitted so the verifier in question did not believe it could be possible there. the team of verifiers can only check the points of submission, not drive around and second guess and say 'well, it could be a few hundred meters further on' as that's just pointless.
can you double and triple heck the co-ordinates and either pm me or post them here.
i can email you the photo's of the actual point of submission (according to your co-ordinates that were sent in) if you, again, pm me with your emil address.
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:56 am Post subject:
classy56 wrote:
And i'm taking it personally
Seems that way, Im not the one critisizing your driving abilities or suggesting you must be a criminal who uses the database to break the law, if you really want me to get personal.... your out of luck.
classy56 wrote:
Your reason for wanting it is beyond belief, correct me if I am wrong, you don't like driving in a line of traffic, you want to keep up with the flow of traffic, but not if that traffic is flowing at 30mph? and if somebody wants to overtake you, then going faster to prevent them is your solution?
Consider your self corrected, check your PM's. Thats not what I wrote and you know it...
Quote:
the fact is how I drive is my concern,
I stand by that statement, how I drive is my concern, not yours, why do you suggest that my statement means I have no regard for other road users ?
Quote:
Didn't you infact say at one point 'if you want to have false alerts every 10 miles, so be it'
No ???
I had no trouble finding your quote, which actually said...
Quote:
if you are happy having false alerts every mile then so be it
and thats close enough in my book, if you can't remeber saying that, read your own posts...
Quote:
Look I have made my position very very clear, I can't make it any clearer for you
Ditto, post after post you just use personal insults to fight your corner, that may be acceptable where you come from, but I will not resort to suggesting you must be a criminal to put my point across, I said all I have to say in my PM, read it, or shove it, Im past caring.
On the original subject of the database, I dissaprove of the decision, but if thats how it is, thats how it is, so be it, I use the plane more than the car anyways, and we have not got to the stage of 'gatsos in the sky' yet..
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:25 am Post subject:
PGPSW Team - Please lock this thread and put an end to this sort of thing. It's going nowhere. Free speech is one thing, but trading insults is not what most of us come here for.
I have continued to watch the thread to see if anything of value developed, but it hasn't. It's just degenerated into "Last Word, Last Word", so please stop it. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15156 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
PGPSW Team - Please lock this thread and put an end to this sort of thing. It's going nowhere. Free speech is one thing, but trading insults is not what most of us come here for.
I have continued to watch the thread to see if anything of value developed, but it hasn't. It's just degenerated into "Last Word, Last Word", so please stop it.
To be honest it'd be brought up in another thread anyway.
Guys, feel free to discuss but keep away from personal attacks.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject:
I went into B&Q's lunchtime and a bloke dressed in orange came over and said 'D'ya want decking'? Well I got the first punch in and it was all over quickly and I went on my way. :D :P _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject:
MaFt wrote:
Guys, feel free to discuss but keep away from personal attacks.
Well, I think all the points have been covered, I don't think there is much more to add.
The team have obviously considered the matter and made a decision (which I respect even if I disagree), so that's the end of it for me. I'll shut up now. _________________ Gone fishing!
Sema_4 you are a two faced hypocrite you go on about me taking it personal well with PM's like you send its no wonder is it? At least I have never threatened you like you have me, I have not called you names like you have me, you complained that I called you blind, but it seems you don't mind calling me blind, you refute the claim that you have disregard for other road users etc, well perhaps your PM will make it quite clear what type of driver you are !!!!
Here are some snippets refresh your memory.......
Sema_4 says...Are you sure that english is your first language ? because Im really not certain you understand the written word.
I consider driving on the roads in the same context. HOW I DRIVE IS MY CONCERN, I DO NOT DRIVE FOR THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF OTHER ROAD USERS,
You can choose to blindly following the letter of the law if you wish, sadly the law can not take in to account EVERY POSSIBLE EVENTUALLITY, and as such, some times it's not possible to stay within the law to drive safely.
If you ARE telling me you never exceed 30, then you are exactly one of these people that cause accidents to occur by being indecisive and hesitating at junctions, pulling out then stopping suddenly because your not sure, travelling too slowly for the road conditions causing faster traffic behind you to brake sharply to avoid you etc, etc.
People like you shouldn't be on the road, all too often I have had to clean up the mess you cause when you cause an accident, most often, the car that had to avoid you, hit something else and didn't actually hit you, so you end up driving away totally oblivious to the fact that YOU just caused an accident, your the worst kind of motorist.
One day, it may be me thats flying the air ambulance helicopter that comes to take you to the hospital after the fire service have cut you out your car, just be glad I won't ever know its you because I would leave you at the side of the road.
I would be totally ashamed of my son if he spoke to someone in the manor that you have to me without a reason, what the hell do you think I have done to deserve your persistant attacks on my driving ability ?
Are you under the mistake impression that I said you were stupid ?
Or that you couldn't drive ?
Or that you smelled ?
Or that you have no friends ?
Or that you are a terrorist ?
Or a racist ?
What exactly is going on in that tiny mind of yours, that makes you think I am insulting you in public ? and why the HELL do you continue to do it to me ?
Are you mad ?
If my husband read the stuff your posting he would want me to fly him to Dorset, perhaps I should show it to him...
ENOUGH ALREADY !
YOU DONT WANT IT, FINE, STOP ATTACKING ME IN THE FORUMS FOR NO REASON YOU DELUDED IGNORAMOUS! Sema_4 PM ends
Well Sema_4, not quite the sweet and innocent person you are trying to make yourself look in the public forum are you?
Where have I called you names? and trust me if I ever came across you in an accident I would do everything I could to help you, and i'm NOT an alleged profesional in the air ambulance service!!!!!
And for your information 40 years driving...Not one single accident and never been prosecuted for any driving offence
Please don't PM me again you are a vile person and if you do bring your hubby down make sure he is upto the job, he will need to be. _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:32 am Post subject:
Whilst you two are carrying out your playtime squabbling in public, bear in mind that you are ruining what I would have thought was a fairly important thread. Nearly 5000 views and less than 200 posts, ever stop to think that other members, particually the newer ones don't want to get involved in your petty rows.
And save your fingures, I'm stopping the watch on this thread now. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:35 am Post subject:
Enough is enough - discussion yes, but going to this level is pretty low by all standards, and I am not singling any individual out here - just take a look at what you lot should be discussing rather than arguing about trivial personal tit for tat.
You have had sufficient warning to tow the line
mikealder wrote:
Lets cut the sniping at each other and get this thread back on track (if there is one)
MaFt wrote:
Guys, feel free to discuss but keep away from personal attacks.MaFt
So consider this a Yellow card, next its thread locked, get it on topic
AND QUIT THE PERSONAL STUFF
Its not what we tolerate on this forum (Public or PM its OUT OF ORDER). I appreciate this thread could be started up again elsewhere (preferably not on this board) but this has gone quite far enough unless it returns to the sensible levels - Mike
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:43 am Post subject:
MaFt wrote:
bmuskett wrote:
In his original post in this thread, MaFt said "can I request that people submit mobile cameras whenever you see them even if they are already in the database" and "The idea is that in 6 months time we may be able to reduce the number of mobile locations if they haven't been used for a considerable amount of time."
very different reason. we get lots of remove requests for mobile sites as people say 'there was no camera there, please remove from database' - the idea of having a 'last reported' section for mobile sites is so that when we get a remove request we can see how frequently it is being used and whether or not the remove request is valid or not.
we have only held back the unverified sites not all the ones with remove requests sitting next to them - as an estimate about 250 sites.
MaFt
(Sorry to carry this on but I've been away for a couple of days. I need to just answer a couple of points here, but I keep off the personal stuff.)
So the point I want to make here is that you removed 1000 mobile cameras from the database with no warning or explanation. Why didn't you just include a note with the announcement of the release, or in a separate thread, just explaining what you were doing and why? I'm sure there would have been some discussion of that but none of the crazy speculation that started the thread and maybe less argument.
Then after posting your explanation on the first page you just let the arguments rage for days while people were asking for clarification. I think as paying customers (site or cameras, take your pick), we are entitled to the courtesy of timely information from the owners. I wouldn't dream of treating the customers I deal with in that way - I wouldn't keep them long.
So that's all I'm asking - tell us what's going on, please.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:52 am Post subject:
a wrote:
If I report a mobile - it gets ignored. I dont know it is unconfirmed because it isnt on the database - so I cant be bothered reporting it - because reporting hasnt worked for me...catch 22 anyone?
I think we just have to report cameras or errors that we find and trust in the verification process, otherwise the database won't improve. Just because it appears to have failed for you in this case doesn't mean it always will.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject:
I should probably stay away from classy56, but I can't let this one pass.
classy56 wrote:
I have said why you should not be getting it. ( You have no right to make such demands once that decision was made)
That's not a fact, that's your opinion. Apart from the fact that no-one has demanded the unverified file, in my opinion, as a paying customer I do have the right to request that they change their mind. They can turn my request down, and I can disagree with their reasoning, but I don't have to take their decision unquestioningly.
Quote:
... people are STILL asking for an official explanation which I believe was given on the first page of this topic, and still they are asking for it on page 11 !!!!
But they let the arguments run or for days when a further clarifying post might have quietened things down. That's my main complaint, lack of explanation and communication from the owners.
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:
