| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| alan_dr wrote: | | Goodness me this is getting ridiculously out of hand! |
Too right!!
The thread started with an observation which was immediately jumped on, calling the change (towards veracity) "a scam" to generate more income. It has since escalated into demands that the site owners should publish unsubstantiated information, which they are no longer willing to do.
I and some others have attempted to offer support to the site owners (whose efforts we appreciate). The complainants seem to think the site owners don't have the right to decide what goes on their site.
I choose not to exceed speed limits in my vehicle - some folk believe that gives them the right to blow their horns and give me the finger as they roar past. Hence "this is getting ridiculously out of hand".
_________________
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: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My own personal view on the whole debate: I have only occasionally seen mobile cameras at any of the mobile locations on the database. Some of the mobile locations are in completely impractical places for vans to park (e.g. Sites on the M5 where there is no police observation point - the van would have to park on the hard shoulder!).
I believe that there are too many mobile locations on the database, but I appreciate that cameras could be in many of the locations, so I do use this file to warn me of potential cameras. However, I am aware that I am not very wary of these warnings - I do occasionally ignore them!
I would prefer the database to be as reliable as possible, so this would mean that unverified cameras should NOT be included in the main database. I would have no objection to a file of unverified cameras (assuming there are no technical reasons why this may be impossible), but I personally would not use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colinm345
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 10, 2007
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well being a trusting soul I have decided to download the forums latest database only to find that a camera near to me is missing although it shows as still live and not greyed out on your map the location?
London Road Coventry A4114
I expect there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this?   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colinm345
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 10, 2007
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Added to this I cannot see any Trevelo in the downloads? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colinm345 wrote: | Well being a trusting soul I have decided to download the forums latest database only to find that a camera near to me is missing although it shows as still live and not greyed out on your map the location?
London Road Coventry A4114
I expect there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this? |
Two Gatsos on A4114 London Road, 2461 & 2462 both @40mph, show on my download and live on the location map.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colinm345 wrote: | | Added to this I cannot see any Trevelo in the downloads? |
I have 277 Truvelos on my download.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RavingDave
Lifetime Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alan_dr wrote: | Goodness me this is getting ridiculously out of hand!
If we were asking for something that could be a problem for others I could understand the debate. But it has already been stated that the unverified mobiles are still in the database, just not released for download. All we want is access to these in their own file. If the owners think this may confuse people who might accidentally include the file in their download, then make it a separate link. Or even a checkbox to ask if you wish unverified locations to be included. The files are created dynamically so this really should be no problem. If there is a solution that pleases everybody, as I suggest, then what is there to lose implemeting it? |
Well said. I agree 100%. If the data exists then I really fail to see why it cannot be made available, and those that want to use it can do, and those that don't want to use it don't have to.
End result - everyone is happy :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmuskett
Lifetime Member
Joined: May 12, 2006
Posts: 710
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MaFt wrote: |
| Sema_4 wrote: | | I would rather know if there is even the slightest risk that there may be a mobile camera on the road I am on |
well, that would be ANYWHERE then... hence why a lot of our users don't even bother installing the mobile files.
MaFt |
There's been a lot of discussion but not a peep on the subject from the Pocket GPS team since this post of MaFt's on Friday morning.
As he says, a lot of users don't bother installing the mobile files. Personally I don't use the red light warning file but I'm not asking that it be removed from the database. But I would like the option of using an unverified camera file - why not give me that choice if the data is there?
MaFt? Darren? Anybody from the team? Can we have a decision please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colinm345
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 10, 2007
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DennisN wrote: | | colinm345 wrote: | Well being a trusting soul I have decided to download the forums latest database only to find that a camera near to me is missing although it shows as still live and not greyed out on your map the location?
London Road Coventry A4114
I expect there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this? |
Two Gatsos on A4114 London Road, 2461 & 2462 both @40mph, show on my download and live on the location map. |
Spot on thanks for that
It just shows how careless I am I still had my location as Oxford
Thanks once again  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colinm345
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 10, 2007
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DennisN wrote: | | colinm345 wrote: | | Added to this I cannot see any Trevelo in the downloads? |
I have 277 Truvelos on my download. |
Thanks mate seemed to have found them now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colinm345 wrote: | | I still had my location as Oxford |
Don't worry about it mate - would you believe, some people have their location as London, or Essex, that sort of place? 
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colinm345
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 10, 2007
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RavingDave wrote: | | alan_dr wrote: | Goodness me this is getting ridiculously out of hand!
If we were asking for something that could be a problem for others I could understand the debate. But it has already been stated that the unverified mobiles are still in the database, just not released for download. All we want is access to these in their own file. If the owners think this may confuse people who might accidentally include the file in their download, then make it a separate link. Or even a checkbox to ask if you wish unverified locations to be included. The files are created dynamically so this really should be no problem. If there is a solution that pleases everybody, as I suggest, then what is there to lose implemeting it? |
Well said. I agree 100%. If the data exists then I really fail to see why it cannot be made available, and those that want to use it can do, and those that don't want to use it don't have to.
End result - everyone is happy :-) |
Sounds a good idea to me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colinm345
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 10, 2007
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Could we not have a poll on this |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alan_dr
Lifetime Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006
Posts: 316
Location: Portsmouth, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure a poll is relevant. Those who dont want/need the unverified mobiles as a separate file will vote no. Making it available if users want it gives no problem to those people, but helps us who do.
_________________
Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Border_Collie
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 2543
Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Goodness me this is getting ridiculously out of hand! |
It certainly has. The PGPSW Team have decided not to include unverified cameras and explained the reason, they read all the posts and none of which has been said earlier has made any difference to their decision. They have run a very successful site for a number of years now, so must be getting it right.
The database may not be as some like but as was pointed out to me, earlier in this post, if I don't like it there are many others to choose from.
If I were unhappy with the site in any way I know what I would do.
The PGPSW Team have a choice as to what is and is not included on their site and members, whether registered or subscribed also have a choice as to which database they would prefer to use.
_________________
Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar. |
|
| 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
