Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Pocket GPS World - SatNavs | GPS | Speed Cameras: Forums

Pocket GPS World :: View topic - REDUCTION IN SPEED CAMERA DATABASE THIS MONTH
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in for private messagesLog in for private messages   Log inLog in 

REDUCTION IN SPEED CAMERA DATABASE THIS MONTH
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Database
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Darren
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bmuskett wrote:
Why restrict the content to pending mobiles? Why not all pending cameras? One of the benefits that I see of this file is that if I come across a pending site I can report what I find at that site, thus hopefully speeding up improving the accuracy of the database.

Let me just state for the record now that we have no plans to do this. The mobile issue is unique in that it is a database of potential sites and so there may or may not be a camera there. This makes verification difficult and slower than for fixed sites.

For all other camera types we employ a verification system that is proven and works. There is no need to make a seperate 'pending' file available because any user who comes across a camera that is not in their version of the database is encouraged to report it.
_________________
Darren Griffin - Editor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14881
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MaFt wrote:
this discussion has been about returning the database download to how it was (i.e. including the pending mobiles) which has now been agreed but with a slightly different format, i.e. we will distinguish the pending mobile sites.

MaFt

Will the new pending file be a permanent feature - always contain any new unconfirmed mobile submissions? Or will it reduce and eventually disappear as and when the current "how it was" pendings get confirmed as accepted onto the main DB (or rejected)?
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 14932
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DennisN

We're changing the software that makes all the format conversions etc so it will likely be permanent.

MaFt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Pocket GPS Moderator


Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I expect a rash of "Why is there no .ogg file for the pending cameras?" questions next, along with demands that "we" produce one pronto....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emjaiuk
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 335
Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MaFt

Just a thought, do you want members comments on unverfied sites they pass, and if you do in what format? e.g. using the existing camera reporting form.

Quote:


I expect a rash of "Why is there no .ogg file for the pending cameras?" questions next, along with demands that "we" produce one pronto....


From my experience of the members on this site, I wouldn't be at all suprised if some kind soul with more technical knowledge than me produces one before long. I don't recall anybody 'demanding' any sort of voice file in the past.
_________________
Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris_UK
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:41 pm    Post subject: . Reply with quote

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 14932
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emjaiuk wrote:
MaFt

Just a thought, do you want members comments on unverfied sites they pass, and if you do in what format? e.g. using the existing camera reporting form.



yes, please. also if peopl can continue to report mobile sites everytime they are seen.

MaFt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
trevor.dowle
Lifetime Member


Joined: 16/06/2003 05:22:14
Posts: 412

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bmuskett wrote:


Why restrict the content to pending mobiles? Why not all pending cameras? One of the benefits that I see of this file is that if I come across a pending site I can report what I find at that site, thus hopefully speeding up improving the accuracy of the database.


There is a difference to 'pending' and 'unverified'.

As I understand it, UNVERIFIED cameras are those that have been reported by a single contributer, and not presenty sunstantiated by a further report.
This does not make these cameras invalid and I would like to know about them. Being UNVERIFIED does not imply that they have yet to be installed (this is what I understand PENDING to mean).
_________________
Regards

Trev Dowle
TomTom 730 T
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bmuskett
Lifetime Member


Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darren wrote:
bmuskett wrote:
Why restrict the content to pending mobiles? Why not all pending cameras? One of the benefits that I see of this file is that if I come across a pending site I can report what I find at that site, thus hopefully speeding up improving the accuracy of the database.

Let me just state for the record now that we have no plans to do this. The mobile issue is unique in that it is a database of potential sites and so there may or may not be a camera there. This makes verification difficult and slower than for fixed sites.

For all other camera types we employ a verification system that is proven and works. There is no need to make a seperate 'pending' file available because any user who comes across a camera that is not in their version of the database is encouraged to report it.


Fair enough, understood. Thanks again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bmuskett
Lifetime Member


Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darren wrote:
bmuskett wrote:
Quote:

I won't even comment on the fact you need a database of ANY kind to "remind you to check your speed" Wink


So why do you use the database then?

?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bmuskett
Lifetime Member


Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bmuskett wrote:
bmuskett wrote:
Quote:

I won't even comment on the fact you need a database of ANY kind to "remind you to check your speed" Wink


So why do you use the database then?

?


Interesting. I posted this in reply to Darren's apparently empty post on page 17 in reply to my original post. I wondered what Darren meant to say. I could have sworn that when I previewed my post it showed an empty quote wrapper for Darren around my original post. I've just tried it again and it does show. But it's gone from this post.

Is there a problem with the BB software, or has someone edited my post?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darren
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was about to ask why you were incorrectly attributing the above comments to me until I noticed that I had quoted them in an otherwise empty post one page back!

No idea how that occurred but it was unintentional. They were not my comments btw.
_________________
Darren Griffin - Editor


Last edited by Darren on Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bmuskett
Lifetime Member


Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm cracking up. Now when I've returned from composing that post, Darrn's quote wrapper is back! What's going on????
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darren
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bmuskett wrote:
I'm cracking up. Now when I've returned from composing that post, Darrn's quote wrapper is back! What's going on????

Nothing to worry about, I thought you'd mistakenly attributed the comment to me and so edited the post. Then I realised it wasn't your mistake but mine as I had quoted that comment in an otherwise empty post and so re-instated it and posted my explanation above!

I hope that clarifies things!
_________________
Darren Griffin - Editor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Border_Collie
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 2543
Location: Rainham, Kent. England.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Lost_Property wrote:
Surely the camera warning signs are a bit of a giveaway, whether there is an unverified camera warning or not.

I think you are mixing up mobile and static sites. You don't often if ever get warning signs for mobile sites. We are only discussing here unverified *mobile* sites.
Sorry to disagree but not only are there a number in my area. In fact there are several just along the road I live, 4 each side. Several months ago I was getting a warning every time I passed a warning sign approaching the site where the camera van sits. Usually on a nice sunny day.

I've also had mobile warnings where there has been a flashing Slow Down xxmph, at flood lights where there have been, or is, road works, traffic monitoring cameras etc. All false warnings submitted by people who mistakenly thought they were mobiles, these will of course stay in the unverified camera database, as the chances of people verifying them as mobile sites is pretty remote.

The decision by PGPSW to include unverified mobiles would, I thought, make the 'majority' happy, but no, unverified statics were asked to be included. Maybe it wasn't so silly when I, tongue in cheek, suggested people may want unverified traffic light cameras and unverified laybys and bridges over dual carriageways. Maybe speed humps could go on the list. Where does it all end.

I'm wondering how the 27 verifiers will feel when they are asked to verify the 1000 unverified cameras, on top of new ones being submitted, which are about to go back into the database. Still, not to worry, it's only their extra time and extra fuel they will have to worry about. Plus of course, if they do travel to these sites and believe them to be unlikely, will there have to be an unverified camera database and another showing an unverified verifiers unlikely database?

I have asked several times what the advantages are of having the cameras included and said the reasons I thought it unneccesary, not one person has come up with a positive answer, so I'm still none the wiser. But I'm always willing to be enlightened and learn an alternative kind of logic. :P
_________________
Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message







Posted: Today    Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Database All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 18 of 19

 
Jump to:  
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

Make a Donation



CamerAlert Database

Click here for the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database

Download Speed Camera Database
21.035 (29 Mar 23)



WORLDWIDE SPEED CAMERA SPOTTERS WANTED!

Click here to submit camera positions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database


12mth Subscriber memberships awarded every week for verified new camera reports!

Submit Speed Camera Locations Now


CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







Terms & Privacy


GPS Shopping