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!
I would just like to add my thoughts to this discussion, and it’s a point of principal really.
The speed camera database is a good and valuable tool for the driver like me that drives much more than the average. I’ve always taken it that the database shows the locations of potential speed cameras, whether active or not. And the warnings my TomTom has given me has made me check my speed, and has possibly saved me from the dreaded 3 points!
So my point is this. If we take the M42 as an example, and the database is to show only KNOWN ACTIVE cameras then what about the inclusion of many other Gatso boxes that have the cameras moved about amongst them. For example camera 2307 has not had a camera in it for at least 12 months to my knowledge, but camera 2506 is active most of the time (but not always, I have seen it empty!). So do we delete cameras like 2307 from future releases until someone reports it as active again?
Also as MaFt suggests that it will take a long time for M42 cameras to be moved, and will be reported quickly. But what about people like me that often download the latest release a week or more after publication. This means the information could be (I estimate) 6 weeks out of date by the time its in my TomTom.
So what to do? Are only known active locations to be reported and recorded, or do we record all realistic potential locations?
By the very nature of the compilation of the database, ie people like us reporting things as seen from the drivers seat, it will never give a true map of ACTIVE locations, unless they are corroborated by people with detectors, or good FACTUAL information from original sources like the Highways Agency or Police or whoever implements these things.
For me, I vote that for passive satnavs like TomTom, we keep all the known REALISTIC POTENTIAL locations in the database.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14907 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject:
Funks wrote:
For me, I vote that for passive satnavs like TomTom, we keep all the known REALISTIC POTENTIAL locations in the database.
Well, I'd have to vote against. The M42 used to drive me nuts with so many warnings - it was like driving round with a panda car on my tail, siren wailing continuously.
I have to say I think the M42 is a poor example to support proposing inclusion of "potential" camera sites. Every time I drive it, when the cameras are likely to be active (namely when they've got the signs with speed limit reduced to 60, 50, 40, whatever - even more namely virtually all the time!!!), the first thing I see at the start of it all, whichever direction I'm going, is the overhead gantry lit up like Blackpool illuminations. I mean, that's really in your face, especially when every gantry repeats them - I don't need even ONE camera warning in circumstances like that. I KNOW there are cameras along that stretch, not potentially there might be, so I make sure I never forget the active speed limit and so do the overhead speed limit signs.
For you and me (I've done over 60K miles in the last year, 110K year before etc) a better argument would be for "potential" sites out in the sticks where you wouldn't realise it. Not that I'd support that vote either - I belong to the "Don't cry Wolf" camp. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Mar 15, 2006 Posts: 3219 Location: Windlesham, Surrey
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject:
I don't want more provisional or dummy sites, and agree with the reasons DennisN gave in his post.
I feared when the team agreed to the pmobile category that it would spawn requests by a few members for more categories that most don't want. _________________ Anita
TomTom VIA 135 - App 12.075
UK map 1130.12368
Samsung Galaxy S21
.... a better argument would be for "potential" sites out in the sticks where you wouldn't realise it. Not that I'd support that vote either - I belong to the "Don't cry Wolf" camp.
DennisN, I think you and I are of the same opinion just expressing it slightly differently. I've driven the M42 twice this week, and only sounding the live locations is great! I'm just concerned that the principal of the database - if I've understood it correctly - is to show the potential speed camera locations accurately, whether active or not.
We’d all have much more confidence in the database if only active boxes were shown, but unless you are checking and confirming each and every location regularly, (and by that I mean every few days!) it’s impossible to be accurate enough for people to trust and rely on the information.
I don’t like “crying wolf” all the time either, but then again I don’t like the idea of loosing all the hard work that everyone here has done in creating the database, by having out of date information when big brother decides to change some active locations.
My point is:
Are only known active locations to be reported and recorded, or do we record all realistic potential locations?
Hence my “vote” being to err on the side of caution and show known REALISTIC POTENTIAL LOCATIONS in the database.
As for Coconut’s suggestion for another category of Dummy Locations – Well that’s another discussion, and already looks like it will be a lively one.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14907 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject:
Funks wrote:
My point is:
Are only known active locations to be reported and recorded, or do we record all realistic potential locations?
I think you are looking a bit too far with this. The way I see it is we want to report (that we have seen) actual cameras. There aren't any where they've been dropped from the M42 - the non-existent ones got into the database through people thinking there were cameras up there when there weren't any. A Gatso (box) without (a camera with) film is still a Gatso.
"All realistic potential locations" is a mouthful. You're talking ALL lay-bys, ALL overbridges, ALL roads with a bit of width big enough for a camera van to park, ALL verges ditto, ALL footpaths wide enough for a policeman to stand holding a camera, the list is endless. We all know we shouldn't exceed the speed limit. The database tells us where cameras have been seen and (to match the authorities' policy) assists us in identifying areas where speed has been determined as a problem. My concern with "realistic potential" is that it will simply become crying wolf as soon as I drive off and devalue the database. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Mar 18, 2004 Posts: 789 Location: Midlands UK
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject:
If people know that a camera is a dummy, then it should be an individual decision to remove the cameras from the database. The same applies to to the mobile sites on routes we know that there are never any mobile cameras there.
I feel that since the removal of the M42 cameras from the PGPS database, drivers are deliberately driving far in excess of the posted speed limits, and I am talking up to 20mph over the posted speed.
This is creating a dangerous situation on the M42, and I do drive this road every day.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14907 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject:
technik wrote:
I feel that since the removal of the M42 cameras from the PGPS database, drivers are deliberately driving far in excess of the posted speed limits.
Ye Gods and little fishes, I didn't realise all the M42 drivers are members. Just goes to show you never know who's round the corner. Must remember to wave next time. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Jan 10, 2004 Posts: 2777 Location: Bonnie Scotland (West Central)
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
technik wrote:
I feel that since the removal of the M42 cameras from the PGPS database, drivers are deliberately driving far in excess of the posted speed limits.
Ye Gods and little fishes, I didn't realise all the M42 drivers are members. Just goes to show you never know who's round the corner. Must remember to wave next time.
I've never travelled the Variable Speed Limit part of the M42 at a time when I could drive faster than half the posted speed! _________________ Jock
TomTom Go 940 LIVE (9.510, Europe v915.5074 on SD & 8.371, WCE v875.3613 on board)
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15388 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:47 am Post subject:
technik wrote:
I feel that since the removal of the M42 cameras from the PGPS database, drivers are deliberately driving far in excess of the posted speed limits, and I am talking up to 20mph over the posted speed.
This is creating a dangerous situation on the M42, and I do drive this road every day.
i'm sorry but you can't blame us for peoples bad driving habits!
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
