Unreliable Data

lakegirl · Occasional Visitor Joined: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 3

As one now has to pay for the database, is the current one significantly more accurate than that available late 2005?

I loaded the database, dated around Nov/Dec 2005. I soon saw that the accuracy of camera positions in my area (Lake District) was dismal but assumed that was maybe because I lived in a fairly remote area. I actually started to make a note of the many corrections with the intention of feeding the information back.
But recently I travelled down the M6 to Wales and I got so fed up of hearing the alarm when clearly no camera was present that I disabled the facility. If cameras are shown where none exist then it is reasonable to conclude that others exist but are not in the database, (as I know to be a fact in my area.) Such a system cannot be relied upon and is therefore worse than useless.
The original model, ie users building the database, sounds good in theory, but such a model is fundamentally flawed as it is at great risk that the final product will always contain a great number of inaccuracies. This appears to be the case with this product, and essentially it is simply not in a fit state to be marketed.

PaulB2005 · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject:

Can you be sure that the cameras don't exist? Many cameras on motorways are Mobile units. This means they are only present at certain times. You'll still be alerted to the location as the database won't if the Mobile Unit is there or not.

As i understand it each submitted camera has to be verified to be included so it makes the database even more accurate. They don';t just bung in every camera submitted.

Obviously there will always be some sort of inaccuracy because as soon as the database is release cameras might be put up or taken down. Finally it might take a bit longer to verify some cameras than others delaying their including / removal.

I have done many 1000's of miles with the database and found it very accurate.

PaulB2005 · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject:

You'll still be alerted to the location as the database won't KNOW if the Mobile Unit is there or not.

Doh!

MaFt · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject:

i'd estimate that there have been over 3000 changes made since december 05's release...

the last couple of months have had approx 700 new camera's added each month along with numerous deletions and changed mobile sites etc.

it's like saying 'my 1998 map of bradford is rubbish, there's roads on it that have been closed and they don't even show the latest roadworks that are in place! - i'm not going to buy another map incase it's just as bad'. basically, something like speed camera sites change on a daily basis throughout the whole of the uk and a database that's over 6months old will be considerably out of date!

for 2 quids (less than a pint) why not just give it a try with the latest release (release a few days ago)?

MaFt

Piromania · Occasional Visitor Joined: Mar 10, 2006 Posts: 3

I got a list of mobile sites from a local police station and they all seemed to match up, every time the database has beeped at me for a static camera (you would know which these are if you used the seperate file POI's) the static camera has been there in over 10,000 miles worth of driving.

Privateer · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject:

Hi lakegirl,

Are/were you using the single, the separate camera type, or the speed-zoned database(s)?

Bo Peep and I had a holiday in the Lake District in April 2005, in Grasmere. We found that there were no fixed cameras in the surrounding area at that time, however there were a number of mobile sites that had been reported to the PocketGPSWorld camera database.

Some of the mobile sites had been reported without a speed limit, so we made a note of each location and sent in updates to the PocketGPSWorld Camera Database Administrator when we returned home.

Whilst none of the mobile sites were in use when we went past them, the recorded mobile sites were in viable locations where camera vans would be able to park up and operate.

Regards,
_________________
Robert.
iPhone 6s Plus, iOS 14.0.1: iOS CamerAlert v2.0.7
TomTom GO Mobile iOS 2.3.1; TomTom (UK & ROI and Europe) iOS apps v1.29
Garmin Camper 770 LMT-D

xda · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:27 am Post subject:

Andy_P · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:38 am Post subject:

I read in another post that for some reason they have included a whole load of un-verified mobile sites in the recent database versions.
Anyone know why?

lbendlin · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:45 am Post subject:

Better safe than sorry ?
_________________
Lutz

Report Map Errors here:
TomTom/TeleAtlas NAVTEQ

Andy_P · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 2:14 am Post subject:

Until you get so many false alarms you give up on it?

DeeSee · Lifetime Member Joined: Jul 01, 2005 Posts: 91

Lakegirl,

Most of the camera positions in the South Lakes area (and the M6/A65 near this area) are accurate - I have, over the last year, sent in EXACT locations of lots of them.

The mobile camera locations frequently, helpfully, have "police vehicles only" bays so it is easy to get the exact location.

There are still some areas, which don't have marked bays, where the cameras need to be seen in operation to correctly identify them but they are usually in the database, some albeit in the wrong place (in my opinion they could be 100 - 200 yds out).

PocketGPS - I have noticed that a couple of cams that I sent in have moved in the database by 50 yds or so. I am assuming that this is due to averaging of peoples' submissions. I don't regularly travel with my satnav in my area but will reobtain the exact locations of these cameras and send in marked as exact.

I have also sent in a number throughout the Lakes generally, except the west coast area but as this is quite populated I would expect that a number of people have submitted for that area.

DeeSee

lakegirl · Occasional Visitor Joined: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 3

While I fully acknowledge that my database is a few months out of date, I was merely querying whether the accuracy, and therefore the value, of the current database was much improved from that which I have.
For example, take the area of the M6 around J36, can I really be expected to believe that there are 7 fixed cameras over a 2.5 mile stretch of motorway? (namely:206, 244, 245, 246, 249, 250, 251.)
Furthermore, I agree with xda, that very often the submitter has simply used the location of the black/white speed camera sign as the basis of his/her entry. However if the existance of such a sign justified an entry, then almost every village in Snowdonia would have a mobile entry. Surely mobile entries should be based on known possible camera locations.

PaulB2005 · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject:

MaFt · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject:

i believe all the camera's were renumbered in january... yet another reason just to spend £2 fora trial of th latest version!

MaFt

neil01 · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject:

When considering the 'false' reporting of cameras, it should be remembered that the locations are often just co-ordinates to the application, it often (usually/allways?) has little idea as to which road they belong. Cosequently, any camera which is located in the corridor you are driving along will be reported.

This is why setting the reporting distance away from your route (not the advanced warning) to an appropriate value (in the CoPilot I use, being either under 200 yards, or half a mile) is so important.

If you want proof that cameras can be located close together - try the M42 around the NEC. I checked them out (as a passenger looking out of the back window) and can confirm that there weren't any false alarms, that is unless some of the cameras were dummies of course. Sections of the M25 around Heathrow are similar.

Mobile camera sites will as a previous poster mentioned be a problem, because they are only sites where they have been seen to be, but in their defence, on a journey of around 180 miles which we make regularly, I had never seen any cameras in any of the locations warned, except on a single journey (over a year after I first started using the database - so I know that they were not locations which had been added) when there were cameras in three of the locations.

I try to make a note of any errors in the locations I drive, but have to say that I have generally found the accuracy to be good, with the majority of the errors being related to temporary speed limit cameras (in roadworks for example) where they seem (in my limited experience) to appear very quickly, but can take some time to be removed. But this could be that more people report new cameras, than those who take the time to report missing/mis-sited ones.

	PocketGPS
	Web