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!
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject:
Quote:
They have run a very successful site for a number of years now, so must be getting it right.
And in all those years the mobile sites were not removed simply because people were not repeatedly notifying them. Only this last time have they been purged. _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
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?
Well said. I agree 100%. If the data exists then I really fail to see why it cannot be made available, and those that want to use it can do, and those that don't want to use it don't have to.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject:
alan_dr wrote:
Quote:
They have run a very successful site for a number of years now, so must be getting it right.
And in all those years the mobile sites were not removed simply because people were not repeatedly notifying them. Only this last time have they been purged.
NO, this is NOT the case!
The whole point is that it was only a few months ago, that whoever was in charge of the database at the time, decided to put these un-verified points in.
Now they are trying to get it back to where it was.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject:
Quote:
because people were not repeatedly notifying them
Because not one person had verified them.
Let's not forget the idea behind this site is 'self help'. The subscripion to the extras i.e competition - discounts - safety cameras, are an extra, people have a choice of subscribing or not, if they don't like the added benefits they can easily remain a registered user and choose elsewhere for POI's, including cameras.
The site will be run as the site owners want and I think by now people should have come to the conclusion that they are not going to change the site owners mind.
If people were to drive within the limits, taking into account road conditions, and drive with due regard to other road users, the roads would be a much safer place for all.
It's been said a couple of times in this post that the majority want the unverified cameras left in the database or as a serarate download. Check back in this post and see just how many the total of the 'majority' actually comes to. I think you'll find it's less than the total of the owners and mods.
And we mustn't forget the idea of the database was for safety reasons and to remind those who may stray over the limit, not to encourage people to break the law. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject:
Andy_P2002 wrote:
The whole point is that it was only a few months ago, that whoever was in charge of the database at the time, decided to put these un-verified points in.
Now they are trying to get it back to where it was.
I checked back on the new release notifications and the mobile numbers have been increasing steadily throughout that time. Nobody just decided to put in a load of unverified mobiles a few months ago, they have been there all the time.
Also why does Lost Property have to keep speaking for the site owners - why cant they respond themselves to the simple request that this thread is all about. A simple yes or no from somebody in authority would end this once and for all. _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
Check back in this post and see just how many the total of the 'majority' actually comes to. I think you'll find it's less than the total of the owners and mods.
Alternatively, look at the index where a quick "now" snapshot shows Replies 125 (of which how many are repeat posts by the same member?), Views 3139. Not quite "fire in the belly" stuff. _________________ Dennis
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?
Would it be wrong to go into a pub and tell people not to drink or smoke?
Would be be wrong to go into a bookmakers and tell people not to gamble?
Would it be wrong to go into a church and tell people that there is no God?
If any of the above are illegal then no it would not be wrong, what is so hard to understand regarding my comments.
Sema_4 does not accept critisism and yet has done nothing but critisize anybody else with a differing view to his own, I am not even going to respond to his last reply to me because he is now spouting off about racism ffs, and he is getting way to personal.
And now you are questioning my statement that it is wrong to break the law!!!
If this is what the camera database and this site is all about then you can stick it, because i'm obviously using it for different reasons.
I notice there is a link between Sema_4 and yourself, perhaps that explains your attitudes.
Well I find it ironic that neither of you accept critisism and yet you have just bullied me off the forum, well done give each other a pat on the back. _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject:
alan_dr wrote:
Nobody just decided to put in a load of unverified mobiles a few months ago, they have been there all the time.
Not so. A "few" months ago, "body" decided that as mobiles were difficult to verify, they'd go in on a single submission - the numbers of unconfirmed mobile cameras has been building ever since. "Body" has apparently now recruited a bunch of people (didn't MaFt say 27?) to verify cameras. "Body" is now, therefore, in a position to revert to the previous, sound policy of only including cameras which have been confirmed independently. Obviously a consequence of that is the need to remove those which haven't been confirmed during the "few" months ago since "body" started putting them in unconfirmed. Commonsense? _________________ Dennis
A simple yes or no from somebody in authority would end this once and for all.
I'll second that!! :D
It's quite possible that somebody already from PGPSW has already made a comment but it's been buried in the realms of other dross in this thread!! _________________ TT GO 1005
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject:
classy56, I did not critisize you for not wanting this extra catagory, I just asked why you think you have the right to tell those of us that want it, that we should not have it, just because you don't want it.
Its a simple question, really really simple...
If its there, and you don't want it, then don't use it, but all you keep saying is that you don't want it and the rest of us shouldn't have it because you dont want it.
At no time did I say you were blind, or in fact, critisize you in any way, your the one that crossed that line, I have just continually asked you to explain your reasons WHY you think the rest of us should not have the use of that file, just because YOU don't want it...
Then of course, your the one that brought racism in to the conversation too, so don't get all high and might with me like Im the one that brought it up.
Like someone else said in this thread, I don't use the 'red light camera' warnings, as I would never DREAM of running a light, but you don't hear me saying that others are wrong for wanting it, or using it. I would say that running a red light is FAR more dangerous than driving at 35mph, but thats just my opinion... the whole concept of a warning sound for red lights, telling you when it's safe to run one without a ticket, or not, is insane, but there you have it...
You can critisize my point of view on the topic of this extra catagory if you wish, as long as you can substantiate it with some kind of cohearent point of view, but when you resort to saying 'I must be blind' and other such personal remarks, then do not be surprised if I sharpen my pencil before I respond !
I say again, if you could the number of different names in this thread that are asking for this new catagory, and then count the number of different names that say NO you are not allowed to have that catagory because we don't want it and we don't want the hasstle of having to remove it from our units because it's too much work to untick a box, then I think its clear what the paying customers want, however the minority still feel they have the right to say we are wrong to want it.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: REDUCTION IN SPEED CAMERA DATABASE THIS MONTH
colinm345 wrote:
I see there seems to be a reduction in the total no of speed cameras in the latest database by some 1000 or so and I find that strange
I am sorry that my simple question has caused such a stir
I am new to this forum ,and without sounding patronising I would like to thank the forum owners and all those others for all the hard work they have put in and will no doubt continue to put in regarding the camera base
I particuly like thefact that we can look in a downloaded file and see whats in there
However as already mentioned it would be great to have a file for verified and unverified instead of just a verified file ,where we have a choice
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject:
I knew that I knew unverified mobile sites were getting into the DB from quite a few months ago. It has taken me some time to find something, but here is a quote from a post dated 4th May 2006 ...
"I read in another post that for some reason they have included a whole load of un-verified mobile sites in the recent database versions. Anyone know why?"
I know the reason was the difficulty of verifying "here today, gone tomorrow" cameras. Obviously, waiting for verification could create a backlog of entries for the DB which could only be cleared by some monumental verifying exercise, or adopt a (temporary) solution of putting them in unverified. I was one of many who protested against that solution, BUT accepted it on the basis that there was too much work involved. I and others nevertheless persisted in asking PGPSW to set up a limited-issue unconfirmed list for specific members who were proven to be selfless and trustworthy to assist with checking. MaFt has now told us all that such a list and such a group exists and is starting to work. It would be nice to think my grumbles were heeded, but I'm not that naiive!! - I reckon they're proud of their database's reputation and want to keep it that way. _________________ Dennis
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject:
classy56 wrote:
If any of the above are illegal then no it would not be wrong, what is so hard to understand regarding my comments.
What I'm trying to say is that the discussion of "if you didn't break the law then you wouldn't need the camera database" is a moot point, just like telling a smoker or drinker that they are damaging their health or trying to convince a religious person that God doesn't exist. _________________ Gone fishing!
classy56, I did not critisize you for not wanting this extra catagory, I just asked why you think you have the right to tell those of us that want it, that we should not have it, just because you don't want it.
Its a simple question, really really simple...
I promised I would not respond anymore but this is unbelievable, how many times do you want the answer to your really really simple question?
I have never once said you should NOT have it, if I have please point me to where I said that, what I did say is that you have no right to demand that the forum owners supply it to you, and if they choose not to then that is that, end of.
And no I personally don't want it for two reasons, firstly it is completley erronious, it is so inaccurate it is unbelievable, if you are happy having false alerts every mile then so be it, secondly I do not use the database to assist me in breaking the law, I use it to ensure that when I am approaching accident blackspots I am fully alert and aware of the heightened danger on that particular stretch of road.
This is something that you and others can't grasp, you assume that everybody who uses the database is a boy racer and uses it as a tool to break the law, you have both ripped the p**s out of me because I have stuck to my principals.
Quote:
If its there, and you don't want it, then don't use it, but all you keep saying is that you don't want it and the rest of us shouldn't have it because you dont want it.
Again please point me to the post which contains my statement that says "I don't want it, so you shouldn't have it"
Quote:
At no time did I say you were blind, or in fact, critisize you in any way, your the one that crossed that line, I have just continually asked you to explain your reasons WHY you think the rest of us should not have the use of that file, just because YOU don't want it...
Which line is that? It is my opinion that as a road user you should be able to see speed limit signs, if you can't see them and you rely on a gadget to inform you then it is my assumption that you may be visually impaired, nothing sinister just a normal assumption to make.
Quote:
Then of course, your the one that brought racism in to the conversation too, so don't get all high and might with me like Im the one that brought it up.
I did NOT bring racism into the conversation in the context that you are suggesting, and well you know it, it was YOU that twisted it and made it an issue.
Quote:
as long as you can substantiate it with some kind of cohearent point of view,
How more cohearent can you get than " it is up to the site owners what they supply, and you have no right to make demands"
Quote:
I say again, if you could the number of different names in this thread that are asking for this new catagory, and then count the number of different names that say NO you are not allowed to have that catagory because we don't want it and we don't want the hasstle of having to remove it from our units because it's too much work to untick a box, then I think its clear what the paying customers want, however the minority still feel they have the right to say we are wrong to want it.
Where do you get your facts from? name one person who has said " NO you are not allowed to have that catagory because we don't want it and we don't want the hasstle of having to remove it from our units because it's too much work to untick a box".
You are the one talking about "cohearent points of view" and yet you have not stated ONE fact, you are just making it up as you go along in an attempt to score one upmanship over me, if you want to debate at least try to add one or two facts in the pot!! _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
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
