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!
I can only imagine just how hard it would be to sit down with a large map with all of the SPECs cameras for every area and to try to work out which cameras to delete for EVERY possible journey on and off the motorway, without any inside information about how the cameras are paired, just guesswork!
And then, you'd have to do it all again tomorrow, when the roadworks and cameras move a mile up the road, and another few dozen reports of all the "missing" cameras have arrived.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
No you have not got the wrong end of the stick, I agree what you are proposing would be a daft thing to try to attempt but that was not my point. Sorry if I was not clear.
What I am saying is you do not need to know the SPECS pairing, the point is you have to accept that you dont and will not know it, so when driving it is necessary to maintain your speed through the whole section regardless of there being 2,3,4,5 or any number of cameras BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW. In fact from a Mio point of view the cameras do not even have to be where they are in reality - hold that thought in your head for a moment.
As for the other matter its just a graph theory problem, the complexity of which is actually well defined, many more complex problems are solved within communication networks but you must have the underlying topology data. The cameras are points in a number of possible paths, the motorway juntions are nodes in the topology and the roads are links between the nodes.
Going back to the other point, the one I suggested you hold in your head.
Suppose you have a stretch of motorway 6 junctions long, the whole of which is covered by specs. A vehicle could enter or leave at any junction, 6 points of entry with 6 possible exits, thats 36 discrete routes. 64 if you include through traffic. Sounds nasty! However; the motorway is just a link between each junction. So our section of motorway is just 6 links each of which is speed restricted therefore if I have a camera at the start and end of a link (ie just after a junction and just before the next whether there is one there or not) the mio will trigger for anyone already on the motorway AND for anyone joining it. Likewise anyone leaving at a junction will pass an end camera and their Mio will clear the speed limit because you will always hit them in pairs, you cannot get on without hitting a start and you cannot get off without hitting a finish.
The only data you need is the first camera position, the last camera position and the motorway junction positions and you can automate the rest (Resolve the links as vectors between the nodes and instantiate a camera 100 yards before/after the node on the line of the vector, this might give an issue with a *very* bendy motorway but I would be surprised given there are rules for how bendy they can be because of visibility requirements of the road ahead.).
This will give a deadband of 200 yards at the junction but the cones should remind you to maintain your speed and thats no worse than today where the mio kicks in and out of warning for each camera pair anyway.
There is one further challenge to automating the problem that I alluded to in my earlier post of setting an "inclusion distance". Basically how far away does another specs camera have to be before you regard it as part of another section. So if there are 2 sections on the M1 with a 3 mile gap between you need to identify these as discrete sections in the model. However if people continue to flag specs cameras as start and end as catered for in the database that obsticle is removed too.
At no point was I suggesting anyone on here tackle this I just thought it was an interesting discussion and wondered if anyone else had the same issue with their Mio or indeed some thoughts about how the problem could be tackled. _________________ Apologies to all my supporting users, the http://ukpostcodes.boldlygoingnowhere.org/ postcode converter has now been retired.
The ubiquity of full postcode lookups has made it somewhat redundant. I still have the code if anyone needs it.
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject:
I have problems with the MIO and SPECS, not the least being that by default the Mio gives the average speed in KPH not MPH. However I have never thought of the problem as you have above. I have given up with the Mio 'solution' and I just keep my speedo on the proscribed limit, or follow the traffic if slower. That seems to work quite well for me without a network of nodes.
It would have been good if the MIO just started the average speed calculation at the first specs and had the user cancel the function when out of the specs zone. It would also have been good for the readout to be in MPH in GB, but all of that is wishfull thinking now Mio have taken on the Navman software
I wonder how Igo 2008 handles SPECS?
Joined: Nov 28, 2007 Posts: 29 Location: East Sussex
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject:
My brand new iGO 2006 appears to have exactly the same problem - assuming SPECS cameras are in pairs, switching off after #2 camera and switching on at #3 (which may be the last in group), plus incorrect average speed reading (probably kph as referred to earlier).
The problem comes when the SPECS cameras are used as part of ordinary speed monitoring, as there is no indication when the checking has stopped [you have reached the end camera] (unlike their use with road works with a temporary reduced speed limit). Such as anticlockwise on M25 between junctions 28 & 27, with 3 cameras and no reduced speed indications.
It is good to see that the PGPSW database is holding start, middle, and end indicators, so it should be possible to include that as additional field in the csv files. That just leaves getting the iGO chaps to pick up the data and use it. How do we go about approaching Navngo?
Would it be possible to add another camera type that can be used in the speed camera files that specifically marks the end of an average speed zone? In the UK a lot of our average speed cameras work in 3's so the current method does not work well because you reach the 2nd camera and the warning stops. Then, when you get to the 3rd (and last camera) the warnings start again and don't end...!!
At the moment the camera types, as far as I am aware, are:
1 - static camera
2 - redlight and speed camera
3 - redlight camera
4 - average speed camera
5 - mobile camera van
An extra option of '6' for 'final average speed camera' would be good and this type would turn off any currently active average speed warnings (as long as the heading / directional data was correct - ie a 'stop' marker on the other side of the road would not affet us!)
I hope this makes sense and would be good if it can be incorporated!
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject:
As Miomap and Igo 'are the same', well software wise anyway, It's not surprising that The Mio and Igo behave the same with specs.
In case IGO read this, another alternative to what MaFt and et.al. have suggested, is to start the computation of average speed at the first cam, and leave it up to the driver to cancel the av speed calculations when he knows (or thinks) he is clear of the av speed zone.
Cancelling the av speed calc on the third cam, possibly won't work, what if there are four or more in a row)
It would also be good if they would get the av speed readout in MPH when MPH is selected as the speed unit.
I've made a lookup table for mine which converts KPH to MPH before display.
Joined: Nov 28, 2007 Posts: 29 Location: East Sussex
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject:
I saw your post earlier, M8TJT referring to modifying the patch.ui file. I do not have one in my data.zip file, but am happy to add one in, but can you tell me what I should be putting inside it to perform the kph to mph conversion, please?
Joined: Mar 01, 2005 Posts: 1513 Location: West Mids
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject:
M8TJT wrote:
In case IGO read this, another alternative to what MaFt and et.al. have suggested, is to start the computation of average speed at the first cam, and leave it up to the driver to cancel the av speed calculations when he knows (or thinks) he is clear of the av speed zone.
Cancelling the av speed calc on the third cam, possibly won't work, what if there are four or more in a row)
Reading between the lines of MaFt's post, I think he's thinking that "start" and "middle" Specs cameras can be linked to type 4 to start the zone and the "end" database camera can be linked to a new type 6 location on the unit to end it.
It would need all the specs zones in the database to be set correctly with start and end cameras and a change to the unit's programming but could be a solution. I could, of course, be completely wrong. _________________ Gerry
TomTom730T
Cameralert for Android
Brodit ProClip mount
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject:
GerryC wrote:
It would need all the specs zones in the database to be set correctly with start and end cameras and a change to the unit's programming but could be a solution. I could, of course, be completely wrong.
Yes, That's the angle that I was coming from. With the plethora of specs that are going up all over the place, especially on roadworks, what's the possibility of keeping them set correctly? Read the M40 specs thread saga to find out how unlikely that would be.
Obviously, MaFt's answer would be the ideal solution, but either his method, or mine would need Igo to change their software. Mio have been aware of the problem for ages, as, I suspect have Igo. But so far nothing has been done about the specs situation for several itterations of the software.
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject:
alab wrote:
I saw your post earlier, M8TJT referring to modifying the patch.ui file. I do not have one in my data.zip file, but am happy to add one in, but can you tell me what I should be putting inside it to perform the kph to mph conversion, please?
Many thanks in advance.
What software are you running. The mod is to the part of the code that displays the speed cams. This is in a file called patch.ui in the MioMap 3.2 S/W. I have a copy of the 3.3 S/W and ther is no Patch.ui but exactly the same code is in another file.
Joined: Nov 28, 2007 Posts: 29 Location: East Sussex
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject:
Not quite got the hang of being able to repeat previous post text M8TJT, but in answer to your question "What spoftware are you running?" - I have iGO 2006 plus (just purchased), which I run on a Pocket PC. I was hoping that it worked the same way as the Mio s/w.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I have iGO 2006 plus (just purchased), which I run on a Pocket PC. I was hoping that it worked the same way as the Mio s/w.
I have the same software. I've also looked for the file M8TJT mentioned but it's not on iGO. I'll have another look for code that displays the speed cams.
I learned, from this forum, that by tapping on the warning icon on screen, it stops.
I'm not too worried about the average speed showing kph, although it would be nice to have it right. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:37 am Post subject:
I have a copy of miomap 3.3 which, although I'm not using it, I believe is pretty close to igo 2006. The speedcam stuff is not in patch.ui as in the mio, but is there. I can't remeber where, but my mod should work OK on the 2006 if you can find out where to put it.
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
I have given up with the Mio 'solution' 
and I just keep my speedo on the proscribed limit, or follow the traffic if slower. That seems to work quite well for me without a network of nodes.
