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!
As I have said before, they are indeed free to run their business as they see fit. However, part of their business is running an open discussion forum so their decisions will be discussed in the forum.
What have they got to consult you about? the fact they have removed unverified mobile cameras from a database they want to be as accurate as possible?
Your logic doesn't make sense _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject:
His logic may not make sense to you, but then you are the one that suggested we all drive around and don't break the speed limit, which as I already said in my previous post, renders this entire website and everything it stands for, both pointless and superfluous.
I think that being 'accurate' is only realistically attainable
as far as static camera's go, as they are not likely to 'up sticks' and move to another location 2 or 3 times a day, mobile cameras however, are, and just because they have been verified at one location at one time in the day, doesn't mean that they will not be some place else in an hours time, however that location remains unverified, and as a result, it's a ticket waiting to happen.
Is that any more logical ? or are you having a hard time with that theory also...
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm Post subject:
Sema_4 wrote:
don't break the speed limit, which as I already said in my previous post, renders this entire website and everything it stands for, both pointless and superfluous.
My first post on this website was asking how to submit cameras, my next was about using postcodes on a Tom Tom GO. Subsequently I've often asked for and given advice on how to work a TT GO. If you browse around the site, you'll find dozens, hundreds of comments that the advice and information members have received here is more than worth the membership fee - I'm satisfied I've still got a working device which I was about to dump and replace, because of advice I received here. I've absolutely no idea of the distribution of posts, but I'd bet good money a hell of a lot are nothing at all to do with the site's speed camera database.
You received pretty good advice here yourself when you asked about speed. You commented usefully about the Holux.
Unfortunately (for whom??) I don't have a website of my own, but as you do, perhaps you could confirm who decides what goes out on it? You or your visitors? _________________ Dennis
His logic may not make sense to you, but then you are the one that suggested we all drive around and don't break the speed limit, which as I already said in my previous post, renders this entire website and everything it stands for, both pointless and superfluous.
So am I wrong to suggest you don't break the law? come on lets get down to the bones here, am I wrong or not?
If you think that the speed camera database is the only reason for this site existing you must be blind, which is probably why you can't see the roadsigns warning you of a speed camera!!
Quote:
Is that any more logical ? or are you having a hard time with that theory also...
I'm not having a hard time at all, I can drive without the camera database, and you? _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
I don't have a website of my own, but as you do, perhaps you could confirm who decides what goes out on it? You or your visitors?
I see we have left the whole 'argue the case for and against the database' topic, and got back on to the 'lets get personal and critisize others for things that have nothing to do with the database' all over again...
Ok, well seeing as you have opened that door again, let me say that first, my web site is just a personal site, I take no subscriptions, I offer no services, its just a place to put a page so that I don't need to answer the same questions over and over again, and for that purpose, it does it's job well. If I was charging money to access it, and my intention was to make more money, then I would be wise to increase my customer base, rather than tell them Im not going to give them what they want.
But I don't charge money, and I don't limit access to any part of the site, use it, or don't, it doesn't matter to me... The fact of who decides what goes on it, or not, there for, is mine, Im not in business and Im obliged to please any one but my self, I have no paying customers to upset.
Regarding the other things this site provides outwith the database, I can only say that manufacturers offer their own support pages and websites, which are still used by lots of people despite the existance of this place.
Im not saying this site has nothing to offer outside of the database, but it's nothing that you can't get else where, it's the database that keeps this place as busy as it is.
classy56 wrote:
I'm not having a hard time at all, I can drive without the camera database, and you?
You said you were having a hard time with his logic, I thought I could help clarify things, at no time I didn't say you couldn't drive or stay within the law, I simply stated the fact of what brought me to this website and I asked the question 'why do most people come to this website'.
Furthermore, if you 'can drive without the database', why is it so important to you that you feel the need argue what should be included in it and what should not be in it ?
If they include an unverified catagory, you are at libery to not use it, just as you are at libery to not use the database at all, why oh why oh why put up such a fight over something you can live without and at the same time, to seem to want to openly critisize others for using ?
I don't drink coffee, but Im not about to critisize those that do, if the database is so unimportant to you, what motivates you to disagree with those of us that appreciate its potential ?
Now Im sorry, sorry for getting off topic and getting personal, I hate that, really... I do.... I try and stay on topic at all times and I hate with a passion, pointlessly critisizing people about things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, namley, the inclusion of unverified camera's in the database, however when people imply that I can't drive without speeding, or that I have no rights to decide what I put on my personal webpage, then I have no alternative to respond in kind.
Any chance we can stick to the topic at hand rather than bashing people for their life choices ? I have have just as much right as you to decide what I want, and I don't expect to be critisized for my choices!
Furthermore, if you 'can drive without the database', why is it so important to you that you feel the need argue what should be included in it and what should not be in it ?[quote]
Another great bit of logic! I've never been racially abused, does that mean I can't argue against racism? I've never been terrorised does that mean I can't argue against terrorism? do you see where this is going?
Quote:
I have have just as much right as you to decide what I want, and I don't expect to be critisized for my choices!
If you don't expect to be critisized for your choices then don't critisize others for their choices. _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject:
classy56 wrote:
Another great bit of logic! I've never been racially abused, does that mean I can't argue against racism? I've never been terrorised does that mean I can't argue against terrorism? do you see where this is going?.
So you feel you have the right to dictate to others, what is and what is not 'racist' ? What you consider to be a non-racist remark, may be very offensive to others, but they do not have that right to be offended by the remark because you don't consider it offensive ? Yes, indeed I do see where this is going...
You make this big point that the database doesn't matter to you and that you can get by without it, but at the same time you critisize others who request a feature... if you have a valid point to make as to why the database should not contain unverified cameras then I am all ears, but all you seem to be doing is telling people their logic doesn't make sense to you and when others try and clarify, you insult them too...
Quote:
If you don't expect to be critisized for your choices then don't critisize others for their choices.
Did I critisize you then ? Where did I tell you that you were wrong for not wanting to have this 'optional catagory' ? Show me... I put forward my reasons for wanting this catagory, and I asked a couple of questions on points you raised, but at no time did I say you were wrong or imply that you were blind, or say you couldn't drive without the database, etc..
Can we please stay on topic ? Or do you consider my asking that question an implication that you are incabable of doing so, and subsequently
that I am being covertly offensive...
(Yes, ok, that was rather pointed, but Im tired of you having a go)
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject:
Hijacker
It's rude to interrupt somebodies argumet , but no, I think thats just the mobiles awaiting clarification as to the speed limit, not the ones that are being discussed in a calm, logical and friendly manner. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Dec 22, 2006 Posts: 19 Location: Tadley, Hampshire
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: Unverified Speed Camera Locations
Whether to include unverified camera locations or not in the Speed Camera downloads has indeed caused a lot of comment, some of it getting quite hot under the collar and close to becoming personal.
Pocketgpsworld has the right to determine what it wishes to include in it's downloads, but being a customer oriented site, I would hope it listens to it's users, especially the paying members and does what the majority would like.
The controversy over whether unverified camera locations should be included in the database could quickly be defused by Pocketgpsworld holding a survey. How about when members log-on; a question is asked do you wish to include unverified cameras yes or no. All we need to do is click the appropriate button/check box. I am sure within a couple of weeks Pocketgpsworld would have an undisputed reaction from those members who regularly use the site. To avoid multiple voting from the same member, once you have voted the question will not appear again when you log-on. Simple really.
Joined: Sep 22, 2006 Posts: 30 Location: Suffolk, UK
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:36 am Post subject:
Andy_P2002 wrote:
Have you actually seen a speed camera set up there then, InDeNiaL?
There are loads of "Police Vehicle Only" signs round my way that have never been used for cameras.
Guidelines from the submission page:
Quote:
Do not submit locations of camera warning signs, just the locations of cameras themselves.
{snip}
Please only submit them (mobile sites) when you actually see a mobile unit present ....
Yes I have in the past. And the vans are due there on Wednesday, check the schedule.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:50 am Post subject:
Good enough for me!
And I'm sure if the database admin are made aware of lists like that, it would be good enough for them too. They have always said they use "a variety" of methods to confirm sites. This sort of thing must be one of them.
It would probably be really useful if you put a note in the comments box when you submit a site, giving the web address of coroborative evidence like this.
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:08 am Post subject:
Goodness me this is getting ridiculously out of hand!
If we were asking for something that could be a problem for others I could understand the debate. But it has already been stated that the unverified mobiles are still in the database, just not released for download. All we want is access to these in their own file. If the owners think this may confuse people who might accidentally include the file in their download, then make it a separate link. Or even a checkbox to ask if you wish unverified locations to be included. The files are created dynamically so this really should be no problem. If there is a solution that pleases everybody, as I suggest, then what is there to lose implemeting it? _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
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
, but no, I think thats just the mobiles awaiting clarification as to the speed limit, not the ones that are being discussed in a calm, logical and friendly manner.
