Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Brixly - Fast, Reliable, Secure UK Web Hosting
Pocket GPS World - SatNavs | GPS | Speed Cameras: Forums

Pocket GPS World :: View topic - Proliferation of mobile cameras on database
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in for private messagesLog in for private messages   Log inLog in 

Proliferation of mobile cameras on database
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> TomTom Software-Only Products
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
weelogic
Regular Visitor


Joined: Oct 18, 2004
Posts: 111
Location: South of Glasgow, West of Scotland

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:08 pm    Post subject: Proliferation of mobile cameras on database Reply with quote

[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]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JockTamsonsBairn
Lifetime Member


Joined: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 2777
Location: Bonnie Scotland (West Central)

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:59 am    Post subject: Re: Proliferation of mobile cameras on database Reply with quote

weelogic wrote:
[rant]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]
On the Submissions page, there is the option to submit a camera removal. If you put lots of info, indicating your local knowledge, into the "Details & Description:" box I'm sure that will count for a great deal when the site is reviewed.

If I understand the way the camera site verifications works, when a mobile site is reviewed, then, unless there is actually a camera van there, the site has to be judged as being "viable" or not. I'm afraid that a few sites will get into the database, that a local would know were never used!
_________________
Jock

TomTom Go 940 LIVE (9.510, Europe v915.5074 on SD & 8.371, WCE v875.3613 on board)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bmuskett
Lifetime Member


Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:12 am    Post subject: Re: Proliferation of mobile cameras on database Reply with quote

weelogic wrote:
[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 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]


As a long time forum member, did you see the recent discussion about the removal of unverified mobiles into a separate file? That should have improved things for you, by cutting down the number of mobiles by over 1000, unless you're continuing to use the pmobiles file.

And as BGF says, you can use the camera submissions page to ask for a camera to be updated or removed based on your local knowledge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zzr1200
Lifetime Member


Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Posts: 205
Location: Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I delete the pmobile files now and I think it is running a lot better for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bmuskett
Lifetime Member


Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny_D
Regular Visitor


Joined: Mar 04, 2006
Posts: 119
Location: West Suffolk

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GJF
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Feb 08, 2007
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alan_sh
Lifetime Member


Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Posts: 545
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

Alan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrequentFlyer
Lifetime Member


Joined: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 962
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JockTamsonsBairn
Lifetime Member


Joined: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 2777
Location: Bonnie Scotland (West Central)

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bmuskett wrote:
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?
If that is area that weelogic was referring to (when I looked up G74 in AutoRoute it pointed me out to EK??), then there is obviously a serious speeding problem there - if I remember correctly, REDLIGHT:9664@30 and/or REDLIGHT:20772@30 are for PEDESTRIAN crossings Rolling Eyes While I agree that marking every site where sandwiches are eaten doesn't gain us anything, I think that in an area like this, I'd rather get the warnings!
_________________
Jock

TomTom Go 940 LIVE (9.510, Europe v915.5074 on SD & 8.371, WCE v875.3613 on board)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15258
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
weelogic
Regular Visitor


Joined: Oct 18, 2004
Posts: 111
Location: South of Glasgow, West of Scotland

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darren
Frequent Visitor


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

weelogic wrote:
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.

It takes more than one submission to add a new Mobile site. We apply the same logic to removals as we do additions, we need more than one independent report. Are you suggesting that they're all erroneous even when multiple individuals have submitted that location for inclusion?
Quote:
What you have here is a user who considers all the speed warning signs to be cameras.

That would only be true if multiple users thought the same thing. Not impossible but how else do you suggest we manage these?
Quote:
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.

If we get removal requests for these cameras from other users then they will be actioned. As you will appreciate, Mobiles are very difficult to physically verify, there is one close to me that I have never seen but my Wife has. We employ a weighting and scoring system for mobiles as we cannot physically verify and this is the best system we can think of. Mobiles are the cameras most likely to catch you unawares and so are an important feature of our database that many others lack but it isn't perfect.
_________________
Darren Griffin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
GJF
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Feb 08, 2007
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darren wrote:
Quote:
If we get removal requests for these cameras from other users then they will be actioned. As you will appreciate, Mobiles are very difficult to physically verify, there is one close to me that I have never seen but my Wife has. We employ a weighting and scoring system for mobiles as we cannot physically verify and this is the best system we can think of. Mobiles are the cameras most likely to catch you unawares and so are an important feature of our database that many others lack but it isn't perfect.


I would have thought that if you were to remove cameras on the say so of an individual who has lived there for a 100 years the whole database would be come a mess and un-trustworthy.

It has take pgpsw time to get us to trust the info and i feel your response above is the only reaction suitable.

I would rather get p****d off with warnings than get caught, the safety camera partnership purposely uses some sites on a rare occasion to try and catch us out.

With all due respect weelogic if the positions were removed and one of us were caught - would you say you were driving, take the points and pay the 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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
weelogic
Regular Visitor


Joined: Oct 18, 2004
Posts: 111
Location: South of Glasgow, West of Scotland

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message







Posted: Today    Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> TomTom Software-Only Products All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
Jump to:  
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

Make a Donation



CamerAlert Database

Click here for the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database

Download Speed Camera Database
22.105 (30 Oct 24)



WORLDWIDE SPEED CAMERA SPOTTERS WANTED!

Click here to submit camera positions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database


12mth Subscriber memberships awarded every week for verified new camera reports!

Submit Speed Camera Locations Now


CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







© Terms & Privacy


GPS Shopping