Removal of Mobile Camera Positions

Chris444

Can someone explain what is the criteria for the removal of mobile camera positions. I have noticed two sites recently which are not on the downloaded database although they are still shown on the site database with a red cross through them.
The first was mobile position 6540 on the A49 which still has the white marks on the carriageway although they are a little worn.
The second was mobile position 6969 on the A4103 which still had the marks clearly on the carriageway and also the purpose built parking spot for the camera vans.
Although I did not see a camera van at either site I wondered why they were not left on the database as possible positions or what information led to their removal.

Oldboy · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject:

At a guess I would say that they have been removed because they had not been reported as seen again, and had been removed in a recent purge.

See http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=65776&highlight=
_________________
Richard

TT 910 V7.903: Europe Map v1045
TT Via 135 App 12.075: Europe Map v1145

DennisN · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject:

Ooops. The link above takes you to the April Fool joke of 1st April 2008. Embarassed

A more believable link is HERE
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

Chris444 · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject:

Thanks for both replies and I have looked at the links.
I accept that they were probably removed because they had not been reported for some time but in the case of position 6969 there was a purpose built layby. I would think that this type of site is more permanent even if it has not been verified recently.
Chris.

JockTamsonsBairn · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject:

Chris444 · Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject:

Yes fair comment but personally I would prefer to be warned of a possible mobile site and think that it needs longer than 12 months without a report before they are removed from the database.
I don't know how other members feel about this.
Do you get many "seen again" reports and what proportion of the membership puts in these reports? The only carrot for a "seen again" report is obviously a more accurate database.

DennisN · Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject:

If you look back again at the link I posted, you'll see MaFt said that 6,000 mobiles had not been reported "seen again" in the last six months and 5,500 not in the last 12 months.

You preference to have them retained is raising "The Great PMobile Debate" all over again. The database was becoming a minefield of mobile camera warnings because no purging was done - you'd like to hear them, others were getting sick of them.

I think if you consider MaFt's statement about no seen again reports for six/twelve months, you might be persuaded that to purge them is no really bad thing. Those camera vans haven't been seen for a very long time, so one conclusion is that they've stopped using that particular site.

The PGPSW database has a huge reputation and I think the general consensus has been that purging unseen mobiles is a good thing to protect and preserve that reputation. Nobody wants to remove active sites, but crying Wolf has a history.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

Chris444 · Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject:

Thanks for that information.
Being a relatively new member I did not realise that there had been so much discussion on this subject in the past anyway at least my original question has been answered.
Sorry for raising the pmobile debate again.
Chris.

DennisN · Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject:

Chris, you have just earned my undying respect. This subject crops up very regularly and it is rare that the originator of such a thread accepts the situation as gracefully as you - more often than not we have to go through another "Great PMobile Debate".

Not Worthy

Thank you.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

lochaber · Lifetime Member Joined: May 08, 2006 Posts: 3

crowvalley · Occasional Visitor Joined: May 04, 2007 Posts: 11

I have passed a mobile camera today on the A4042 that was in the camera database up to Version 6.112 ---05 November 2008. Unfortunately I am running V8 navcore so am unable to report it as being seen again. I can fully understand why the database is being purged but unfortunately as the newer TomToms come to market there is less and less TomTom owners that can report the camera's. Sad

DennisN · Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject:

crowvalley · Occasional Visitor Joined: May 04, 2007 Posts: 11

Well thats an easy question to answer, we are not all computer literate and I do not know how to get the latitude and longtitude, also the camera capture software does not work on a TomTom with V7 & 8 navcore. Unless of course I have missed something in which case I am sure I will be quickly corrected for every ones benefit.

DennisN · Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject:

crowvalley · Occasional Visitor Joined: May 04, 2007 Posts: 11

P.M sent

	PocketGPS
	Web