Proliferation of mobile cameras on database

[weelogic]

[rant]

As a long time PgpsW forum member and Tomtom user, I regularly download the latest camera database. I have warnings set for all the various types at varying distances. However, in recent months I have become increasingly frustrated at the number of new mobile "locations" that are popping up, and in the latest version it has descended into farce.

I live in the G74 postal code, and have lived within a 5 mile radius of that all my life (38 long years). There are now numerous "cameras" in the vicinity at locations where I have never, not once, not in all my time, seen a police unit, mobile or on foot. On one road close by, there is one genuine location which has become common in the past 2 years, but the database records more than 5!

There have been a number of occasions where my well-meaning local authority has placed solar-powered signs that advise you of exceeding the limit, but these are not speed cameras and being "caught" by them carries no penalty other than a flashing speed limit sign... The dubious camera locations are not restricted just to these, however.

The result is that I have had to switch off the warnings, as I can no longer carry out a simple local trip without being driven mad by unnecessary warnings for cameras that are not there, never have been there and most probably never will be there. The value of the database thus becomes wholly diminished.

I understand that the mods and staff at PgpsW cannot personally verify all cameras, but also we users can't just blithely delete the locations that are incorrect as they reappear whenever the database is next downloaded. There clearly are some users out there who think that, every time they see a police car, that is a valid reason for sending a new camera location to this site. There are probably locations listed where the cops were just knocking on a miscreant's door, or parked up eating a sandwich!

I would ask if there is a mechanism for refuting cameras and having them removed. I would also ask for a sense of perspective among those who notify new locations. If it's a real camera, fine, but if it's a police unit, make sure it's truly a common feature before jumping in. One swallow does not make a summer and all that.

[end rant]

[JockTamsonsBairn]

[bmuskett]

[zzr1200]

I delete the pmobile files now and I think it is running a lot better for it.

[bmuskett]

I'm sorry. Having just had a look around G74 on the map I can see your problem. Particularly the area centred on the junction of Glasgow Road/Mill St/Main St at Centre Latitude: 55.82857660565934 Longitude: -4.2194366455078125, zoomed out so the scale shows 2000 ft/1 km. The Gatsos and red light cameras are bad enough without all the mobiles in there as well. There must be some scope for rationalisation of the mobiles.

Perhaps if you discussed them with someone like MaFt you might be able to get some removed quickly.

They don't want you speeding around there, do they?

[Johnny_D]

I'd like to make an observation.

As a long term member, more reader than poster, i often find
that just because someone has not personally witnessed a camera
in a location that is no justification for it's removal.

Their are 3 mobile locations around my postcode. I have only ever, personally, witnessed one.

Mrs J has seen one at one location no less than 3 times. I have never seen this!

Camera units tend to move around and i am sure that they are never there longer than a few hours (quite conveivably less)

We have one unit that positions it's self for about 40 mins trying catch mum's doing the school run!!!

JD
_________________
TTG 300 Died the death of a cracked screen
Navman F20 USB Fell off
TTG 520 Third time lucky?
Bloody Superb PGPSW Camera Database.
Not much else!

[GJF]

I too feel that having mobiles removed just because they haven't been personally seen is asking for trouble.

I live in the CT area of Kent and it is just as bad here, i am being constantly reminded that there is a mobile where i have never seen one (but others i know have) or where they haven't sat for over nine months, but you know what will happen when the warning is removed, as its sod's law they will turn up.
I feel sympathy with weelogic in the G74 area but it is better to be nagged than caught.

It is better to chill out and be warned, than get three points and a fine.
_________________
TomTom Go 60
Garmin Nüvi 660, Firmware v4.90
Drive-Smart GPS with Loader v1.4.16
HTC Advantage X7500 MS 6.1 Tchart Speed Sentry
Satmap Active 10, Software v1.16
Fuzion 32 HUD Bluetooth GPS receiver

[alan_sh]

But you can download the separate types of camera files and just not install the mobile ones.....

Alan

[FrequentFlyer]

I received an email acknowledgement about deleting a very local mobile site to me, that I've never, ever, seen after living here for 34 years, but 3 updates later it's still on show...I just manually delete it each time.

[JockTamsonsBairn]

[MaFt]

as mentioned by a few people, if you submit a remove request (or any submission for that matter) then the more information the better.

there are lots of remove requests for mobile sites that have no info at all - how can i tell if it is a genuine remove request where someone KNOWS that it does not get used? how can i tell if the submitter is just saying that there was no camera at the time they passed the site?

without the extra info it's very difficult ot make a decision for the mobile sites.

also, comments such as "i pass this every day going to work and i've never seen a camera here for the last 25 years" isn't really helpful. what they're saying there is "there's no camera here at 8.45am" - but does that mean there's no camera there in the afternoon while they're actually AT work (when the roads are quieter and people more likely to speed)

MaFt

[weelogic]

MaFt,

I take your point about the "genuine" nature of remove requests, but the same logic has to apply to adding locations as well. There is no more justification for these locations to be added than to be removed. In the case of the "cameras" in my vicinity, I have submitted removal requests. The basis is simple: I have lived and driven in the area all my life, I drive these roads every single day at various times (I am self-employed and do not have a daily commute at 8.15 returning at 5.25). My pal works in the local police station (just off the area in question) and agrees that he and his traffic buddies have never been at these sites.

The fact is that most of the sites are speed warning signs, not (and never) cameras, and the others simply are not genuine at all. In one case (25954@60) there is nowhere for a police unit to stop. A van there would have to occupy the inside lane of a busy dual carriageway. There would be no need for the camera - their vehicle would cause such an obstruction that the average speed would fall to walking pace!

To BGF, I also take your point that the proliferation of cameras at the Glasgow Road/Mill Street junction would suggest a major speeding problem. That would be true if ANY of the camera locations were genuine. I would accept the warnings if there was a problem. I know from a lifetime of local knowledge that there is no such problem.

What you have here is a user who considers all the speed warning signs to be cameras. Why the local council saw fit to place all these warnings no one locally knows. The local accident blackspots remain stubbornly camera-free (mobile or permanent), while main roads where traffic volume dictates a maximum speed that is almost permanently below the limit get peppered with useless signs.

I will wait and see if the remove requests are actioned. In the meantime I will follow others' leads and simply delete them from my own copy of the database.

[Darren]

[GJF]

Darren wrote:

[weelogic]

To Darren,

That's all well and good, but a physical check of several of the sites I have logged will show them as warning signs, which your submissions page explicitly states are not to be classed as cameras. At others, you will see that there is nowhere for a mobile unit to stop.

To GJF, fine if you would rather be over-warned, but for me (and I suspect others, or the option to submit a removal request would not exist) the key to the validity of the database is accuracy. As it stands, in my opinion (and possibly only mine, that's the way of things in society) the database in my locale is inaccurate. To be constantly warned of cameras that don't exist while going about your daily business is a distraction at best, a frustration at worst and undermines the value of the database per se.

As for the flippant remark about taking someone's points, apart from the criminality of the suggestion, my own clean licence is a testament to the fact that the database up until relatively recently was accurate in listing regular sites. On many of the locations listed, exceeding the speed limit at any time other than the wee small hours is a practical impossibility, and my local plod don't bring the cameras out at night (they must not have night vision lenses...)

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!