[Kremmen]

I've been going through all the outstanding cameras via Streetview, as you will have seen.

Streetview have been very active recently and it's like the Forth Bridge. By the time I get up to date some older ones are now covered.

One of the recent ones I SV verified was Dec 21 so SV are also quick at getting them online.

I fully agree with a system whereby the location can be quickly logged and then confirmed later with more detail.

[marksfish]

Nothing controversial about that Kremmen, makes perfect sense. Certainly not safe to submit on the move, but stopping to add is much safer. If it doesn't submit to PGPSW, how about the submissions being stored locally so that the user can check before submission? Street View is good, but isn't always updated that quickly in the more rural areas. A lot of the main roads in my area haven't been updated for 2+ years, so by the time the specs have been added/ taken away, there still wouldn't have been any updates.

[Kremmen]

Can I be controversial......just my experiences.....

I never used the CA camera report function, but, what I did see was the errors it produced.

On many occasions I went out to physically verify a camera, only to find the submission was many hundreds of yards out, especially on fast roads. I also saw repetitive submissions where I guessed someone had been 'playing' with CA.

I also wondered how safe it is to try and submit 'live' whilst on the move ?

Now we have Streetview this highlights some 'silly' submissions with cameras being reported on residential side streets which cannot be easily verified. When I look at these submissions they are CA submissions.

As CA is incompatible with newer Android OS the error submissions are reducing.

[marksfish]

Thanks for the input Leo. I don't think CA imported directly to the database as the submissions needed to be verified first. However, if the submissions went to Matt (or whoever) on a daily/ per camera basis. It is just the capturing the cameras and type that I can't do at the moment.

[Leo_A]

There is no way to report from STA directly to PGPSW database.

This is quickly made draft API to get reported cameras:
https://speedtrap-alert.cc/api/v1/uk/realtime?interval=P1M

this is map visualization (poor):
https://geojson.tools/?url=https://speedtrap-alert.cc/api/v1/uk/realtime?interval=P1M

query parameter "interval" is the duration in ISO-8601 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Durations).

function /api/v1/uk/realtime returns all submitted cameras alive after[DateTime.UtcNow minus Duration].

from PGPSW side it is possible to make some scheduled bot requesting the API.
Current result format is GeoJson.

[marksfish]

I did see a request for a separate STA board, but it isn't available yet, so i'll ask my question here.

STA has it's own option to submit cameras, but we don't seem to know where they go and where they would be used. What if PGPSW approached the dev for a PGPSW branded version? That way the branded paid for version could submit the cameras to PGPSW and then STA is basically the complete new version of Camalert? CamAlert could then be removed from the stores (and all the negative feedback it is getting, why is it still available??) I for one don't submit as many cameras now as I don't have a all singing, all dancing dash cam to capture the co- ordinates, neither can I always identify the areas on Google maps.