View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Daggers Lifetime Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2005 Posts: 1096 Location: Solihull, UK
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forddriver wrote: | As for the exact locations/I.D. numbers of cameras, I can't obtain that information unless you can tell me where the information is listed. That said I will be only too pleased to pass the information to you.
Regards
Dave M. |
It's all available via the map on the Submit Cameras page. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anita Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Mar 15, 2006 Posts: 3219 Location: Windlesham, Surrey
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not if the cameras have been removed! _________________ Anita
TomTom VIA 135 - App 12.075
UK map 1125.12264
Samsung Galaxy S21 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15144 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a removed 'active' mobile will show on the map but a removed pMobile will not.
coordinates will do as i can look in the master database to see what cameras were in the vicinity
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anita Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Mar 15, 2006 Posts: 3219 Location: Windlesham, Surrey
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's nothing in that area in the map on the submissions page.
Try Mobiles 7591 & 7592, MaFt. They are in one of my September backups but not my current map. _________________ Anita
TomTom VIA 135 - App 12.075
UK map 1125.12264
Samsung Galaxy S21 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15144 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They were both removed due to no reports of having been 'seen again' - ever
i'll look tomorrow as to why they are not showing as inactive on the map
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snudge Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 22, 2007 Posts: 211 Location: Peterborough
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
batties wrote: |
There are two Gatso's adjacent to each other on the A127 near to where I live. They both have orange "not in use" covers and they have been removed from your database! (now that is what I call up-to-date). Presumably as soon as the covers come off your database would be updated soon afterwards. |
Is this correct? The covers could be removed on thurs morning and cameras be active again so would need to be reported and verified before being added to database again - could take 2 weeks? I thought a fixed camera would only be removed from database if it's permanently removed from it's site? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
batties Lifetime Member
Joined: Jul 07, 2006 Posts: 111
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snudge Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 22, 2007 Posts: 211 Location: Peterborough
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Batties - sorry I worded my message wrongly. I didn't mean to suggest you were not correct; I meant was the pgpsw procedure correct in removing a camera from the database just because it has a cover over it temporarily. There is one near me that is regularly vandalised and has a red cover for a few days before it is mended. I would prefer it to stay on the database as it will be back in use. Thanks for link though.
...so what is the official view on this please? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
batties Lifetime Member
Joined: Jul 07, 2006 Posts: 111
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Snudge,
No worries mate. I didn't think for one minute you were trying to suggest I wasn't correct. I thought I would post the link (with actual camera) as I too was a bit surprised these cameras are being removed from the PGPSW database. Like you say smudge, these type of cameras could be come active again at very short notice!
Regards, |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15144 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Snudge wrote: | ...so what is the official view on this please? |
each instance is treated as an individual case.
sometimes they are removed from teh database, sometimes kept in. if a camera has a history of being vandalised then quickly replaced then it would stay in.
however, there are some cameras that have been bagged over for 6months in which case they are removed. it depends entirely on the information we have and can get!
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snudge Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 22, 2007 Posts: 211 Location: Peterborough
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok thanks for clarification MaFt - fair enough. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Funny, you know. I'm a Verifier who wanders a lot, as opposed to Verifiers who "patrol" their own localities. So sometimes I'll go one way only once in a year, another time I'll go that same route 4 times in a month. That's what happened with a couple of Gatsos on the A420 east of Swindon. They were bagged during roadworks and I did nothing. They remained bagged afterwards and on the guess that they'd be up and running again any day, again I declined to remove them. They stayed bagged for months, but I still thought they should be kept on there - the posts and boxes were still definitely sitting there. I haven't been that route for months now and I now see they've been removed from the database - whether because they've come down, or another Verifier has been that way and concluded enough is enough.
We make a judgement call. For weeks, I refused to accept a mobile camera reported on a motorway overbridge - I'd been up there, stopped, got out and stood looking to be quite sure there was no way a camera van could possibly operate in that small width of bridge. A couple of weeks ago, the flaming van was sitting there happy snapping like no tomorrow. Red face? Too true!! Happy ending, we gave the submitter a free lifetime membership and the mobile is now in the database.
As for "seen again" reports. I do them EVERY TIME. That means the inactivity period is reset back to zero, extending the life of the mobile for another x months. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Daggers Lifetime Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2005 Posts: 1096 Location: Solihull, UK
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DennisN wrote: | ... That's what happened with a couple of Gatsos on the A420 east of Swindon. They were bagged during roadworks and I did nothing. They remained bagged afterwards and on the guess that they'd be up and running again any day, again I declined to remove them. They stayed bagged for months, but I still thought they should be kept on there - the posts and boxes were still definitely sitting there. I haven't been that route for months now and I now see they've been removed from the database - whether because they've come down, or another Verifier has been that way and concluded enough is enough.
|
Given today's news about Swindon council deciding to remove speed cameras, I suspect that these particular cameras may not come back into service. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Forddriver Occasional Visitor
Joined: Mar 07, 2006 Posts: 35 Location: St Austell
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: Speedcamera Updates |
|
|
Hi Guys,
Sorry been away in "sunny" Scotland!
All I can say is the TomTom worked on the mobile sites I drove past in Scotland. Whether that was a complete set of mobiles I can't say.
I will work on the other TomTom when I get the chance over the next couple of days. However mine is still "missing" the sites mentioned, so if they have been withdrawn, lets wait to see if the sites are re-used. I will re-submit.
Thank you for all of the replies, I will update my machine again and recheck the results.
Your work is really appreciated.
Dave M. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheers for the update, if you seem them shout loudly _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
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 |
|
|
|