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!
Simple arithmetic Darren. Add 50 and remove 1000; what are the best odds?
As those 50 are confirmed I'd rather have them, and if you save last month's mobile file you can have the 1000 unconfirmed too if you really wish!
Problem is Darren, if I use last months mobile file it wont include any new mobiles that have been added and verified .................... _________________ Regards
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject:
Personally (and rather OT) I have no issue with such Police 'Traps' as they have the option of giving you a verbal warning if you are only just over the limit (and being an ex-traffic officer that was a common occurrence). It is camera partnerships and other robotic traps that issue tickets regardless that annoy me and most other drivers!
However, to avoid any more sniping, such sites are logged in our mobile database! _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject:
FWIW, until recently I was living just off Hangleton Road in Hove nr Brighton, this road is a continuation of King George VI Mansions Avenue, which does have a mobile camera listed in the database.
However, in the years I drove this road on my way home, I have personally seen mobile camera's operating at various points along this road, 4 seperate locations along the length of it with each location being a mile or two away from the others, however only 1 is listed in the database...
I understand the concerns over unverified camera's, however personally, I would rather know if there is even the slightest risk that there may be a mobile camera on the road I am on, its then up to me if I choose to keep up with the rest of the traffic and not be an obstruction, or not...
Lets weigh up the differences:-
The damage caused by false alerts V the damage caused by no alert at an active mobile camera.
If the database is supposed to be a resource for the benefit of the motorist instead of just a money making venture, then I fail to understand why the idea of an 'unverified cameras' section seems so objectionable to the management...
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:12 am Post subject:
Quote:
However, in the years I drove this road on my way home, I have personally seen mobile camera's operating at various points along this road, 4 seperate locations along the length of it with each location being a mile or two away from the others, however only 1 is listed in the database...
You didn't say whether you reported the cameras not listed. If you did, would you really expect it to be put on the database without verification?
If that's the case, what's to stop me reporting a non existant mobile camera outside my house? Or even report a non existant Gatso and have it verified by a neighbour to enable me to get a free lifetime subscription?
Only recently I reported a position which was showing as a speed camera when it fact it was twin cameras on a pole monitoring traffic flow at a roundabout.
Another was were a mobile site was shown but would have been impossible, narrow two lane road, narrow footpaths and hedges both sides. What someone had done was to report the warning sign of the Truvelo further up the road over the brow of a hill. That's two of the removals accounted for.
Quote:
The damage caused by false alerts V the damage caused by no alert at an active mobile camera.
I see it more as 'the damage caused by a database that may not be 100% v. not having a database at all. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:19 am Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
You didn't say whether you reported the cameras not listed. If you did, would you really expect it to be put on the database without verification?
If that's the case, what's to stop me reporting a non existant mobile camera outside my house? Or even report a non existant Gatso and have it verified by a neighbour to enable me to get a free lifetime subscription?
As far as I know, you don't get a lifetime membership for mobile camera reports, so the idea of reporting them, and having them verified, has nothing to do with 'getting a free membership' and everything to do with 'not getting a speeding ticket'.
Perhaps this whole, 'life time membership' thing that goes on here, does more harm than it does good, at the end of the day, it encourages people to lie and report false camera's in order for them to get a membership, if I understand what your saying correctly...
Lost_Property wrote:
I see it more as 'the damage caused by a database that may not be 100% v. not having a database at all.
My original post was not directed at anyone and was trying to be constructive and weigh up the pro's and cons of having false alerts for the benefit of the comunity, and while you are entitled to think that an inaccurate database is better than no database at all, I, for one, would like to see it improved where ever possible, if thats alright with you.
If your truely happy to settle for an inaccurate database, then there are plenty of others to choose from...
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15154 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:44 am Post subject:
Sema_4 wrote:
I would rather know if there is even the slightest risk that there may be a mobile camera on the road I am on
well, that would be ANYWHERE then... hence why a lot of our users don't even bother installing the mobile files.
unfortunately these people don't seem to be posting in this thread so we only see the complaints and not so much of the praise.
if we take every submission and make it active do you also want us to take every removal submission for a mobile site and remove the relevant mobile site straight away too? we get an awful lot of removal requests for mobile sites. by having sites confirmed / verified it will mean we can safely ignore certain removal requests for mobile sites as we will have visited the site or had a few confirmations. surely that is better?
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:48 am Post subject:
alan_dr wrote:
DennisN wrote:
Mikealder has already pointed out the problem with two reports for one camera.
Sorry I missed that. What exactly is the problem?
Which one is accurate or are there two (or more)? There's a thread somewhere about how many submissions go in for a new fixed camera - dozens, and nary a one with identical coordinates. It degrades the validity or the reputation or both of the database.
After travelling through Wales, I reported last week Mobile6044@70 and Mobile21270@70. See A449 about 1.5 miles south of A40 Raglan junction (still not dealt with by this latest update, presumably awaiting some checker person). One is at the start of the layby, the other at the end of it, about 200 feet apart. Since I learned about mobile cameras going into the database on first report, not checked, I now understand how this can happen. But a more critical mind (which I used to have!!) would react with the comment "Are they blind? Don't they check? What a bunch of woodentops!!". But most dangerous of all is the Cry Wolf syndrome - if they can't get this one right, how right are all the rest? But now I understand and simply send in a report saying there's a duplication. For my sins as a whitevanman visiting the outer reaches of the world, I just happen to have "seen" (not) the two Iola cameras mentioned and my thoughts were "you must be joking - narrow winding country lane, hedges both sides, come off it! I don't need this when I'm hunting round for some little cottage name" With absolutely no implications to Iola, who obviously was indeed offering excellent information, it seems this was quite simply a couple of submissions with inaccurate locations. Actually, he inadvertently made it worse by submitting it twice with slightly different coordinates (I've done second submissions myself when "they" haven't acted on my first one). It happens (he said one of the others was in the North Sea just due to a slight mistype).
Sorry - I've gone on and on with this. My entire attitude is that I need the database to be accurate and reliable. Whitevanmen with 12 points don't work, don't earn!! Over 1,000 miles a week to all points of the compass and I welcome any move to improving it. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Aug 17, 2006 Posts: 35 Location: Sheffield
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:33 am Post subject:
MaFt wrote:
Sema_4 wrote:
I would rather know if there is even the slightest risk that there may be a mobile camera on the road I am on
well, that would be ANYWHERE then... hence why a lot of our users don't even bother installing the mobile files.
unfortunately these people don't seem to be posting in this thread so we only see the complaints and not so much of the praise.
if we take every submission and make it active do you also want us to take every removal submission for a mobile site and remove the relevant mobile site straight away too? we get an awful lot of removal requests for mobile sites. by having sites confirmed / verified it will mean we can safely ignore certain removal requests for mobile sites as we will have visited the site or had a few confirmations. surely that is better?
MaFt
I really can't see the problem - why is it necessary to argue about this? It all seems a bit too emotive to me. Why try to prove who is right and who is wrong?
Both sides of the argument are right - those that don't want false warnings of mobile sites are right, because that's what they prefer - those that do want the false warnings (just in case) are also right, because that's what they prefer.
Yes, its good to make the "official" database as accurate as possible. That may well suit half the people who use the database.
However, for the other half, please explain to me the harm in offering a separate download of unconfirmed mobile camera sites (perhaps with a warning that it can't be relied upon). They can then choose to use if if they wish, and if they find the quality bothers them, they can just stop using it.
These users prefer to have false warnings of possible sites. So, obviously you only remove mobile cameras when the removal is verified in the normal way. New mobile cameras should be added to this file as per the policy that previously applied.
Isn't this simple? Wouldn't this ensure that you keep the high quality of the official database and still make the other half of your subscribers happy?
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:09 am Post subject:
I think that's a great post apwood, I agree 100%
MaFt, I do realise the amount of work you must have trying to make sense of the variety of submissions you must get. I'd imagine you must be tearing your hair out on occasions! I also fully understand that PocketGPSW.com want to maintain or increase the value of their product. However, the direction of this thread seems to be concentrating on mobile sites, and surely they should be treated differently from statics. As an earlier poster said, all mobile warnings are false unless there happens to be a mobile unit there at the time, but people can choose to use them or not.
I also don't really understand DennisN's attitued to this. Surely as his licence is valuable, as mine is, it's better to have 100 false warnings rather than miss the one that's going to add 3 or more points. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Nov 04, 2003 Posts: 2225 Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject:
emjaiuk wrote:
Surely as his licence is valuable, as mine is, it's better to have 100 false warnings rather than miss the one that's going to add 3 or more points.
One thing that not yet been raised in this thread is the accuracy of the submissions - many mobile cameras have the wrong speed limit, so the "cry wolf" is even worse when your unit is sitting there bleating it's heart out about you going 30mph over what it believes is the speed limit. The advantage of PGPSW putting effort into cleaning and keeping clean the database is less worry when your SatNav nags you about the wrong speed limit.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject:
Quote:
As far as I know, you don't get a lifetime membership for mobile camera reports, so the idea of reporting them,
Is it a case of 'No lifetime membership so I won't bother to report them'? In which case the database will be inaccurate.
Quote:
and having them verified, has nothing to do with 'getting a free membership' and everything to do with 'not getting a speeding ticket'.
The one sure way of not getting a ticket is to stick to the speed limits. No database will be 100%
Quote:
Perhaps this whole, 'life time membership' thing that goes on here, does more harm than it does good, at the end of the day, it encourages people to lie and report false camera's in order for them to get a membership, if I understand what your saying correctly...
That's my feeling, but now the PGPSW team have 27 (unpaid) verifiers, the chances of errors or false reporting should diminish greatly.
Quote:
Lost_Property wrote:
I see it more as 'the damage caused by a database that may not be 100% v. not having a database at all.
Quote:
My original post was not directed at anyone and was trying to be constructive and weigh up the pro's and cons of having false alerts for the benefit of the comunity, and while you are entitled to think that an inaccurate database is better than no database at all, I, for one, would like to see it improved where ever possible, if thats alright with you.
The reason I say I would prefer an inaccurate database rather than none at all is because mobile sites are not manned that often. Two nearby to where I live you are lucky to see them there more than 2 or 3 times each year. The chances of getting caught at these sites is pretty remote, so if they were not on the database and you travelled past one on a weekly basis, you stand a 1 in 26 (or 1 in 17) chance of getting a ticket, even then only if you are exceeding the limit by the limit + 10% + 2 MPH. Speedo's can over read by 10% so in a 40MPH limit your speedo would have to be reading 46MPH + the possible 10% speedo error = 50.6MPH. To be honest, I believe anyone sitting watching their speedo showing this in a 40MPH zone, deserves to get a ticket.
Quote:
If your truely happy to settle for an inaccurate database, then there are plenty of others to choose from...
Verifiers have already been mentioned and I believe you will find the database will as the weeks go by, get more and more accurate. Many of the removed mobiles were ones reported many months back and never verified, maybe because of the very few occasions they are at a particular point or maybe a malicious or erroneous submission. Who's to know?
If the mods wish to do a separate file for unverified cameras, and people use it, that's fine by me, I shall continue to observe the Camera Warning signs and adjust my speed accordingly, whether I get a warning on my device or not. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject:
Lost_Property - whats your problem ? I come here and make a non-personally directed, non-offensive post about the pro's and con's of including all possible camera sites, and all you seem interested in is quoting my posts and tell me why Im wrong ! Get off my back !!
As I understand it, lifetime memberships are ONLY given for reporting STATIC cameras, NOT MOBILE ones, so I don't know why you continue to attack me over this point.
apwood makes a post saying basically the same thing I did, and no body is attacking his post, so I don't know what I said to rattle your cage, but what ever it was, get over it !
People here want the option to be alerted to possible camera sites, just read the posts here, its plain to see that a large percentage of people want this. Evidently, there is just as large a number that don't want this, and thats where another ov2 catagory would please a greater percentage of the customer base.
If they include it, you are not obliged to use it and I don't understand where you get off telling those of us that DO want it, that we are wrong to want it. If you dont want it, don't use it, but stop critizising those of us that do, at no time have I said that you are wrong for not wanting to use such an ov2, its your choice if you want to use it or not, and your right to make that choice.
As it stands, those of us that 'do' want to use it, are being denied that right, we have no choice, exactly because of the attitude of people like you that don't seem to want it, and who are only to happy to tell us that we are wrong to want it, grrrrrrrr.
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:
