| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ecotrojan
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 31
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: Ipswich Speed Cams |
 |
|
Good day,
I have twice attempted to remove obsolete speed cameras / traffic master (mis-representations) from the database for the Ipswich area over two months.
I travel the same route Monday through Friday and with the exception of some of the cameras that have been removed (dont know if this was me or someone else) - several (that I have already tried to remove) are still showing on the DB.
What more can I do as a subscriber? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Oldboy
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Dec 08, 2004
Posts: 10642
Location: Suffolk, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could you give us the ID numbers?
Or the location of the camera(s)?
Then, at least, we will know which ones you're talking about. 
_________________
Richard
TT 910 V7.903: Europe Map v1045
TT Via 135 App 12.075: Europe Map v1120 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14893
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What camera ID numbers and types were they and what did you say in the comments box of the submission page?
We get lots of removal requests for mobiles which just say "I've never seen a mobile camera there", which doesn't take consideration of the fact that probably the submitter is driving at the same time each day and that's not the time when a mobile camera is operating.
It might be worth adding that the latest database issue is (comparatively) old - MaFt, the database administrator, has been away both on business and holiday, so we've missed a fortnightly update. I can't remember the last time it went so long between updates, but he came back to a backlog of over 600 camera reports. I think he's getting close to issuing a new one, so maybe your removes will have happened when that comes out.
Just at present on my list of Removes for checking, there's only one for Ipswich (I don't normally cover Ipswich area, but I get the list just in case I'm going that way).
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecotrojan
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Herewith my third submission regarding the same Ipswich cams
MOBILE:21134@40
MOBILE:24436@40
MOBILE:21162@40
MOBILE:21130@70
MOBILE:47354@70
The above cams are not there. I travel this road daily at different times and these are not to be seen.
Resubmitted removal using the online map. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well... as we guessed, these are MOBILE camera sites, where camera vans will occasionally park and operate..
99% of the time there will NOT be a camera there, so just saying "no camera there" is NOT going to get them removed from the database.
It only takes ONE sighting in 6 months or so to ensure a mobile site is still considered active, and there will have been at least two confirmed sightings for them to have been added in the first place.
Unless you have specific knowledge (such as "I live opposite this site and have tasked my aged granny to watch it 12 hours a day and she has not seen one visit by a camera van in 18 months") then I suggest you leave them alone. If there is no FURTHER report in 6 months then under the new rules they probably will get dropped eventually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecotrojan
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andy_P wrote: | Well... as we guessed, these are MOBILE camera sites, where camera vans will occasionally park and operate..
99% of the time there will NOT be a camera there, so just saying "no camera there" is NOT going to get them removed from the database.
It only takes ONE sighting in 6 months or so to ensure a mobile site is still considered active, and there will have been at least two confirmed sightings for them to have been added in the first place.
Unless you have specific knowledge (such as "I live opposite this site and have tasked my aged granny to watch it 12 hours a day and she has not seen one visit by a camera van in 18 months") then I suggest you leave them alone. If there is no FURTHER report in 6 months then under the new rules they probably will get dropped eventually. |
Ok when was the last sighting for these as i originaly reported last September |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006
Posts: 9323
Location: Durham, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ok when was the last sighting for these as i originaly reported last September |
You reported them as not being there or you originally reported them as being there??
| Quote: | | I have twice attempted to remove obsolete speed cameras / traffic master (mis-representations) from the database for the Ipswich area over two months. |
Which of those 5 Mobiles are the mis-represented Traffic Master Cameras?
As Andy_P has already said Mobile cameras are subject to a cull after a while if they are not repeatedly reported as being "seen again". So if these really are not active sites they will be dropped from the database in due course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecotrojan
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You reported them as not being there or you originally reported them as being there??
|
Read my 1st post
| Quote: |
Which of those 5 Mobiles are the mis-represented Traffic Master Cameras?
|
1
| Quote: |
As Andy_P has already said Mobile cameras are subject to a cull after a while if they are not repeatedly reported as being "seen again". So if these really are not active sites they will be dropped from the database in due course. |
Yes excellent - so of the 5 I am advising - have any been reported since my 1st post last Sept 2007. (see 1st post) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006
Posts: 9323
Location: Durham, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Is this a question or are you trying to quote me ? |
I quoted you and then followed it with a question about the quote.
You said
| Quote: | | I have twice attempted to remove obsolete speed cameras / traffic master (mis-representations) |
I took that to mean you considered some of the 5 Mobile cameras you listed above as being Traffic Master cameras and not any form of speed camera. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldboy
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Dec 08, 2004
Posts: 10642
Location: Suffolk, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecotrojan wrote: | | Quote: |
Which of those 5 Mobiles are the mis-represented Traffic Master Cameras?
|
1 |
In answer to your question (before you edited it to a quantity), it is a question.
I think the one in question is probably 21130 and it could have been quite feasible as a camera location.
_________________
Richard
TT 910 V7.903: Europe Map v1045
TT Via 135 App 12.075: Europe Map v1120 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a verifier of cameras, I have no access to the original comments made in all submissions, ONLY those that get through to the lists of submissions that we are given to check out.
As none of the mobile locations you have quoted appear on the present lists we have for checking, I can only assume that EITHER your original submissions were not deemed to have enough corroborative detail to get included, or they were included on a previous version and another verifier rejected them for some reason.
Only the database manager has access to all the details and he's incredibly busy, so you'll have to wait and see if/when he can do all the extra work looking up the history of your case.
The general point is that MOBILE sites are not removed from the database lightly, as it is so difficult to get solid proof that they will never be used again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecotrojan wrote: |
Yes excellent - so of the 5 I am advising - have any been reported since my 1st post last Sept 2007. (see 1st post) |
The 6 month rule has only recently been introduced so has not yet had time to 'expire' 'your' cams. 
Not wishing to appear controversial or flaming on this topic, MaFt, our database administrator does not really have time to answer every question such as yours, because he has, amongst other things, a database to maintain. Would you rather he spent the time investigating your mobile removals, or adding the fixed cam that is likely to catch you tomorrow. I know which I would prefer. 
EDIT: Sorry Andy, we 'crossed in the post' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mhvideos
Regular Visitor
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
Posts: 98
Location: Ipswich Suffolk
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldboy wrote: |
I think the one in question is probably 21130 and it could have been quite feasible as a camera location. |
As a local to the area I have some input. The Trafficmaster cameras are on the other bridge of this roundabout. I have seen Traffic cars sitting here but I can not confirm if they were measuring speed or just waiting for a lorry to fall over which is very common here. This is the infamous Copdock Mill interchange which often features on National traffic reports. Of the original list I would regard 24436 as being a bit dubious but the others are fine in my book
martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mhvideos
| mhvideos wrote: |
As a local to the area I have some input. The Trafficmaster cameras are ...... Of the original list I would regard 24436 as being a bit dubious but the others are fine in my book
martin |
Could this possibly be because it's located on the southeast facing surface of someone's roof on Peewit road?  However the submission comments seem pretty good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daggers
Lifetime Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Solihull, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andy_P wrote: | | Unless you have specific knowledge (such as "I live opposite this site and have tasked my aged granny to watch it 12 hours a day and she has not seen one visit by a camera van in 18 months") then I suggest you leave them alone. |
... and even then there were another 12 hours a day when your aged granny wasn't watching the site - a camera van would have had plenty of time to park up, take some photos and leave before she got back from the shops!
I have suggested the removal of mobile sites in the past, but only where it was obvious that there was nowhere for a camera van to park safely (e.g. a dual carriageway with no hard shoulder and a 6-foot embankment by the side of the road!). I certainly wouldn't consider requesting a removal just because I hadn't happened to have seen a van there recently; I wouldn't have the evidence to back it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() 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!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
