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: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject:
Sorarse wrote:
p.s. I have a trip to Italy coming up later in the year, so I'm hoping to expand the European database, which has been a really useful addition in recent times as far as I am concerned. Keep up the good work guys.
And European cameras are a great way of getting your lifetime sub _________________ Darren Griffin
I've already submitted two that I spotted on my last trip that I didn't get a warning for. As I will be going further next time, here's hoping to add a few more.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15138 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:43 am Post subject:
Sorarse wrote:
p.s. I have a trip to Italy coming up later in the year, so I'm hoping to expand the European database, which has been a really useful addition in recent times as far as I am concerned. Keep up the good work guys.
we had a recent surge on the italian database so you picked the right place to go! thats not to say you wont find any others though!
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: Alternative Quick Verification Method?
Managing the submissions to the database must take a fair amount of effort on the part of several people. Unfortunately the physical verification system seems to fall flat for some locations where verifiers are limited.
I submitted a number of cameras in different States in the US in November 2007. Unfortunately it seems no one else has verified those to date.
So where it is available, why not use Google Street View to confirm camera existence? This would not only quickly verify camera orientation but also speed and camera type.
An example would be this one I submitted at the end of November:
32.8488029 -97.214112
Three traffic light cameras covering a 3-way intersection.
Google Street View showing cameras: [http://tinyurl.com/4j2kh2]
(Click on link, click on Street View, manipulate street view with mouse by click and hold to view cameras.)
Given the ever increasing cost of petrol, and accepting the availability of PocketGPS verifiers is very limited (or non existent?) in some parts of the world, would this not be an acceptable alternate verification method? Where available, a Google Street View link (like the one above) could be included with camera submissions to help the PocketGPS staff.
I am wondering if any of the PocketGPS staff would kindly weigh in with their comments.
Full disclosure - I am still waiting for a lifetime membership. But equally I want the PocketGPS GLOBAL database to be as complete as possible (it is in everyone's best interest.) I even have photos of some North American camera types which could be added to the FAQ (or elsewhere), if wished.
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject:
Are you based in NA? I ask because clearly whilst we are working to improve our penetration in all markets there is nothing like a locals recommendation to encourage new members.
Our recent change to allow non-subscribers to be eligible for lifetime memberships is juts one move towards improving our reporting levels in other regions. _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: Alternative Quick Verification Method?
worker wrote:
An example would be this one I submitted at the end of November:
32.8488029 -97.214112
Three traffic light cameras covering a 3-way intersection.
Google Street View showing cameras: [http://tinyurl.com/4j2kh2]
(Click on link, click on Street View, manipulate street view with mouse by click and hold to view cameras.)
Interesting. Where are the traffic light cameras? Are they those small things on the bar between the lights?
The main problem I can see with this is timing. How old are those pictures? How do we know they are still there now?
Are you based in NA? I ask because clearly whilst we are working to improve our penetration in all markets there is nothing like a locals recommendation to encourage new members.
Our recent change to allow non-subscribers to be eligible for lifetime memberships is juts one move towards improving our reporting levels in other regions.
I am based in the UK, but I go to NA a couple of times a year. I fly the PGPS recruitment flag while I am there. Unfortunately the comments I hear from NA friends most frequently are that the PGPS database coverage is currently too small for their area. -Sigh-. Hence my drive to think outside the box to help with the verification process.
I understand PGPS is UK based (with an eye to the world, hopefully!) And while I appreciate the willingness of PGPS to keep membership requirements dynamic, at the end of the day without local folks to verify cameras the present system seemingly fails members in some locations. (Unfortunately not everyone is as brilliant as some of the UK PGPS dedicated verifiers.)
I thought about offering to submit photographic evidence (pictures of traffic cameras with visible street signs) as another verification option, but really Google Street View (which recently went live for Texas - the example given above) would be the easiest independent source to use.
Ultimately I am keen to help PGPS verify international (well, NA anyway) submissions. But it seems a bit chicken and egg at the moment.
Last edited by worker on Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject:
worker wrote:
I am based in the UK, but I go to NA a couple of times a year. I fly the PGPS recruitment flag while I am there. Unfortunately the comments I hear from NA friends most frequently are that the PGPS database coverage is currently too small for their area. -Sigh-. Hence my drive to think outside the box to help with the verification process.
We're hoping our new eligibility requirements will assist here, they don't need to pay and submitting one camera could earn them a lifetime sub. Early indications are this is already having an effect.
I'll discuss the Street View suggestion as this may suffice in the interim at least if we are to get the ball fully rolling. _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject:
The trouble with Google Earth and Microsoft Live maps etc. is two-fold. Firstly, as said above, there is no way to know how upto date they are.
While it may work in the situation here where we are charting new territory, for a new UK camera that has just been installed today, we might not get a new aerial view for months or even years!
Secondly, the resolution of the photography for most of the UK is far lower then in the US, so even when you KNOW a camera is at a certain spot, all you can see is a long shadow on the ground that MIGHT be it.
Accepting photo evidence has been talked about before, and I think it was mentioned that it would need Lat/Long co-ordinates burned into the picture (maybe just a sat nav display held up in the corner of the photo?)
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: Re: Alternative Quick Verification Method?
bmuskett wrote:
worker wrote:
An example would be this one I submitted at the end of November:
32.8488029 -97.214112
Three traffic light cameras covering a 3-way intersection.
Google Street View showing cameras: [http://tinyurl.com/4j2kh2]
(Click on link, click on Street View, manipulate street view with mouse by click and hold to view cameras.)
Interesting. Where are the traffic light cameras? Are they those small things on the bar between the lights?
The main problem I can see with this is timing. How old are those pictures? How do we know they are still there now?
bmuskett, correct, the traffic light cameras cited above are mast mounted and look like standard CCTV cameras without a weather resistant housing. See here: [http://tinyurl.com/3qeodg]. Due to a US Constitutional issue (wherein a vehicle owner may not be liable for a traffic ticket unless the traffic camera photo positively identifies the driver), some States are adding a second driver-facing bank of ground mounted cameras with flashes (completely mad - blinding at night.)
Regarding your question concerning the timeliness of Google Street View, please refer to the Wikipedia article here: [http://tinyurl.com/32cdmb]. Google Street View began collecting image data in the middle of 2007. Parts of Texas were added in August and December 2007 and February 2008. The area cited above was added February 2008.
Again, no one solution is perfect. But I hope that tools like Google Street View (or user created photographic evidence) will be considered as viable options to reduce some of the verification latencies of positive submissions (particularly in areas where presently there are no PGPS verification staff.)
The trouble with Google Earth and Microsoft Live maps etc. is two-fold. Firstly, as said above, there is no way to know how upto date they are.
While it may work in the situation here where we are charting new territory, for a new UK camera that has just been installed today, we might not get a new aerial view for months or even years!
Secondly, the resolution of the photography for most of the UK is far lower then in the US, so even when you KNOW a camera is at a certain spot, all you can see is a long shadow on the ground that MIGHT be it.
Accepting photo evidence has been talked about before, and I think it was mentioned that it would need Lat/Long co-ordinates burned into the picture (maybe just a sat nav display held up in the corner of the photo?)
Andy_P2002, thank you for the comments.
If you follow the link here [http://tinyurl.com/6as2yh] to the Google Street View article on Wikipedia, you can find the exact date the image data collection process started. You can also find the exact date several US cities were added.
Agreed, for the near term publicly available commercial satellite image data lack resolutions to be a viable consideration. But street level images, such as with Google Street View (I am sick of typing that, I feel like they should be paying me now) have good enough resolution to allow accurate identification of camera type, location, etc.
And I thought user submitted photos might be challenged by some. Not sure about you, but while I am driving it is all I can do to safely add camera locations to GPS (the capture software does not work on my hardware.) Even stopping by the side of the road (not realistic on most of my journeys, but maybe for others?) I suspect it would be challenging to get a well focused picture showing not only a traffic camera but also a PDA with clearly visible co-ordinate data.
I am based in the UK, but I go to NA a couple of times a year. I fly the PGPS recruitment flag while I am there. Unfortunately the comments I hear from NA friends most frequently are that the PGPS database coverage is currently too small for their area. -Sigh-. Hence my drive to think outside the box to help with the verification process.
We're hoping our new eligibility requirements will assist here, they don't need to pay and submitting one camera could earn them a lifetime sub. Early indications are this is already having an effect.
I'll discuss the Street View suggestion as this may suffice in the interim at least if we are to get the ball fully rolling.
Daren,
thank you very much for the consideration. Whether or not tools like GoogleSV are ultimately chosen, I appreciate PGPS' willingness to consider alternative verification methods.
Hopefully we can all work together to grow the database and provide quality coverage for anyone who lives or travels through "developing" markets.
Thanks to everyone else for the comments. Having several points of view helps to strengthen the discussion.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject:
worker wrote:
Agreed, for the near term publicly available commercial satellite image data lack resolutions to be a viable consideration. But street level images, such as with Google Street View (I am sick of typing that, I feel like they should be paying me now) have good enough resolution to allow accurate identification of camera type, location, etc.
Yes they look good, and I can see their use in this situation. All I was saying was they would be of less use in the UK where cameras seem to be appearing and even disappearing all over the place so rapidly.
Quote:
And I thought user submitted photos might be challenged by some. Not sure about you, but while I am driving it is all I can do to safely add camera locations to GPS (the capture software does not work on my hardware.) Even stopping by the side of the road (not realistic on most of my journeys, but maybe for others?) I suspect it would be challenging to get a well focused picture showing not only a traffic camera but also a PDA with clearly visible co-ordinate data.
Yes. quite agree with the difficulty of getting shots. That's why it never really came to anything. I think it was just suggested to placate someone who was really insistent that his submission should be confirmed as fast as possible.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15138 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: Re: Alternative Quick Verification Method?
worker wrote:
An example would be this one I submitted at the end of November:
32.8488029 -97.214112
Three traffic light cameras covering a 3-way intersection.
Google Street View showing cameras: [http://tinyurl.com/4j2kh2]
(Click on link, click on Street View, manipulate street view with mouse by click and hold to view cameras.)
are those definately redlight enforcement cameras? they look like ctv / traffic monitoring to me but then i've never been to america so cannot comment...!
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
