| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| DennisN wrote: | | All it needs next is another email to Highways Agency to confirm it's OK to drive across at 70mph. |
I don't think that will work!!    |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SteveMPS
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 30, 2010
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm more likely to email them over the stupid toll booths (a long long story peppered with idiot statements from the minister concerned but not actually owt to do with cams or this forum)
Interesting official reply - however as the the phrase goes "he would say that wouldn't he".
I really do hope JaTe had someone else driving when he goes cam spotting. I drove over at 8.30 last night and straining my eyes I couldn't see a speck of yellow. There is an awful lot of grey and grimy gantry though. And yes at 49 mph I was being a serious danger to the other traffic overtaking me, no cop cars this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14893
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveMPS wrote: | | I really do hope JaTe had someone else driving when he goes cam spotting. |
Underneath JaTe's name you can see "PocketGPS Verifier". That means he's one of the team of Verifiers and is very experienced at spotting the things. If he says they are there and they are yellow, you've got a hard job to persuade us not to believe him.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveMPS
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 30, 2010
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
This part of the debate really isn't about Dartford cams but . . . . .
| MaFt wrote: | | SteveMPS wrote: | | Oh yes Skippy it has an off switch and it gets used on that bridge. It stays off past the junction with the A2 as there's a false variable entry there |
i'd take this up with inforad. there are no cameras here in our database. there is a mobile site further on on teh A225 but this should be ignored due to it's directional date. there WAS a specs camera in the vicinity but this was 50mph, not variable, and was removed in september 2008...
. . |
Interesting. It may well be that InfoRad have very basic directional sensing. But the A225 cam (Lat 51.42 Lon 0.231) is in your fixed cam database as a Truvelo (5390).
| MaFt wrote: | . . | SteveMPS wrote: | | and it stays off down through the A21 as there's a wrong 60mph entry there for a 70 limit. |
again, i see no cameras on the A21 (farnborough area) other than some redlights but these appear to be in a 40mph stretch. . . |
Wrong piece of A21, go the other way, try Lat 51.84 Lon .25. But I can confirm that you have it dead right and yet the InfoRad still shouts off over 60mph. Unless you've just changed the database then they have it wrong and are lying and product libelling you when they say it's your database they use. 
| MaFt wrote: | . . | SteveMPS wrote: | | The off switch also gets used through the SW M25 Variable areas from the A3 to the M4. |
why's that then? cos you get warned of the variable speed cameras? again, feel free to contact inforad to see if they can amend their software with regards to how it deals with the variable speed cameras.
MaFt |
The database has many in that area with @0 settings indicating camera set for 0mph speed limit. Their algorithm is logically correct to beep at any finite speed HOWEVER having driven that zone twice today I can confirm several stop beeping on the InforRad if you slow below 60 and some if you slow below 50 indicating they are editing the database yet still asserting it is yours to get sales. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveMPS
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 30, 2010
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DennisN wrote: | | SteveMPS wrote: | | I really do hope JaTe had someone else driving when he goes cam spotting. |
Underneath JaTe's name you can see "PocketGPS Verifier". That means he's one of the team of Verifiers and is very experienced at spotting the things. If he says they are there and they are yellow, you've got a hard job to persuade us not to believe him. |
Oh I'll concede that but IIRC the original quote was
| Quote: | | . . . and suddenly there's a bunch of big yellow bluddy cameras staring at me? . . . |
and that's not what they are at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15145
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveMPS wrote: | | Interesting. It may well be that InfoRad have very basic directional sensing. But the A225 cam (Lat 51.42 Lon 0.231) is in your fixed cam database as a Truvelo (5390). |
oops! missed that one  yes, looks like their directional warnings are a bit iffy as this camera has a heading of 350deg (almost north) which shouldn;t be picked up from the motorway.
| SteveMPS wrote: | | Wrong piece of A21, go the other way, try Lat 51.84 Lon .25. But I can confirm that you have it dead right and yet the InfoRad still shouts off over 60mph. Unless you've just changed the database then they have it wrong and are lying and product libelling you when they say it's your database they use. |
thatnks, but i can;t see an A21 near those coordinates. can you give a camera id i can check or some more accurate coordinates (preferably 5 decimal places)
| SteveMPS wrote: | | The database has many in that area with @0 settings indicating camera set for 0mph speed limit. Their algorithm is logically correct to beep at any finite speed HOWEVER having driven that zone twice today I can confirm several stop beeping on the InforRad if you slow below 60 and some if you slow below 50 indicating they are editing the database yet still asserting it is yours to get sales. |
we have always used @0 to signify a variable speed limit. inforad should be aware of this and adjust their software accordingly. we have not, as far as i am aware, been asked to provide it in any different format for them.
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveMPS
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 30, 2010
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MaFt wrote: | | . .thatnks, but i can;t see an A21 near those coordinates. can you give a camera id i can check or some more accurate coordinates (preferably 5 decimal places) . . . |
My typo didn't help
It's camera Truvelo 5472 at Lon: 0.25029 Lat: 51.18355 and you have it right in your Feb 10 database, they didn't in last weekends update. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14893
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveMPS wrote: | IIRC the original quote was
| Quote: | | . . . and suddenly there's a bunch of big yellow bluddy cameras staring at me? . . . |
and that's not what they are at all. |
So if we're into pedantry here.....
"bunch" - I think four qualifies for bunch, certainly more than a couple, unless you think I mean 4 all stuck together. But I think 4 within a two mile stretch is good enough for use of "bunch"ing.
"big" - well, allow me a bit of imagery here - as in "Big bad wolf", not an appealing sight.
"yellow" - no wriggling here, JaTe says "yellow", they were "yellow" when I saw them myself some time ago. I think they're yellow.
"cameras" - again, JaTe says "cameras", they were "cameras" when I saw them myself some time ago. I think they're cameras.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skippy
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12
Posts: 2946
Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveMPS wrote: | | The database has many in that area with @0 settings indicating camera set for 0mph speed limit. Their algorithm is logically correct to beep at any finite speed |
I don't think a zero in the database means literally 0 MPH, my logic is that it indicates an undefined value. I would think that this is because the speed limit is either Unknown and not verified yet (in the verifiers database) or Variable (in the members database).
If Inforad see this as literally zero MPH and warn at any speed then perhaps they should change their logic to deal with this type of camera in a different way. I do agree that it's a tricky one to deal with intuitively though. You need to warn for the camera but not excessively.
Perhaps it could sound a special warning tone for a few seconds to indicate variable camera ahead, check signs then silence.
_________________
Gone fishing! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14893
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't that the difference between my many hundreds of pounds worth of gewgaws and his 40 pound one?
Mine can be configured to shout "Variable Speed Limit" or "Speed Limit Unknown" depending on what type of camera it is. His can't.
I'm broke, he's quids in.
In fact, on my database, the variable cameras are identified as Gatso:12345@var, not Gatso:12345@0. The former shouts "Variable", the latter would shout "Unknown". But the point is well made - Inforad should adapt their system to treat these in a different way, not warning of overspeed. The variable category is identified, Inforad should use it.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveMPS wrote: | | It's camera Truvelo 5472 at Lon: 0.25029 Lat: 51.18355 and you have it right in your Feb 10 database, they didn't in last weekends update. |
This cam has been a 70MPH cam as long as I can remember, and checking my records, it certainly was correct at 70MPH, heading 99deg. on 21/1/10 and 27/1/10 and 3/2/10 So it was certainly not 'corrected' in the 10/2/10 issue of the db.
Edit: But this is rather drifting off the Dartford Bridge crossing subject |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15145
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveMPS wrote: | | MaFt wrote: | | . .thatnks, but i can;t see an A21 near those coordinates. can you give a camera id i can check or some more accurate coordinates (preferably 5 decimal places) . . . |
My typo didn't help
It's camera Truvelo 5472 at Lon: 0.25029 Lat: 51.18355 and you have it right in your Feb 10 database, they didn't in last weekends update. |
this camera hasn;t been changed in our database since 8th january 2007. and then that was only to correct the heading data.
so it certainly should have been in last week's database!! 
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What about mobile 32019@70 112deg? It's a couple of hundred yards at the entrance to the layby before you get to the Truvelo. Thats been there for a long time, and hasn't been changed to my knowledge either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveMPS
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 30, 2010
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That mobile entry is fine
So I now know InfoRad are definitely lying, they are not using your database but a bastardised version of it. Shame really as price was never the issue to me, the K1 is in many ways the easiest SCD to use. Are GPS World happy that someone is lying about your database?
Back to the bridge no Dennis we are not into pedantry. You got me looking for the "big cams" you told me were there. Thanks for wasting my time on that wild goose chase.
Point question to the management. Since it's 9 months they've been sitting idle yet they're still in the database issuing pointless warnings, is there no expiry point you'd consider? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15145
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveMPS wrote: | | Point question to the management. Since it's 9 months they've been sitting idle yet they're still in the database issuing pointless warnings, is there no expiry point you'd consider? |
difficult one... if i remove them from the database (as the email mentioned they are not active) then how do i know when they ARE active? if cameras are there then i WILL get submissions for them. at what point do i activate them? how frequently do we need to email to get their current status? what's the difference between these and a gatso on 'smith lane' that doesn't have any film in it?
MaFt |
|
| 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
