Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:
Darren wrote:
In recognition of all the comments posted here I will discuss with the team some possible options to appease those of you who have felt so strongly about our removal of the unverified locations (that were only inserted last month in error).
You might care to consider the following ...
At the time of writing this, this thread has attracted 6875 viewers. There have been 224 replies. 35 contributors, of whom 16 appear to want an unverified release, 13 don't and 6 don't say one way or the other.
My figures are inaccurate to the extent that I have only recorded 222 posts and can't be bothered to go through it all again! _________________ Dennis
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
Alternatively, look at the index where a quick "now" snapshot shows Replies 125 (of which how many are repeat posts by the same member?), Views 3139. Not quite "fire in the belly" stuff.
I'm just doing my own count and at this point you're the top poster with 15.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
You might care to consider the following ...
At the time of writing this, this thread has attracted 6875 viewers. There have been 224 replies. 35 contributors, of whom 16 appear to want an unverified release, 13 don't and 6 don't say one way or the other.
My figures are inaccurate to the extent that I have only recorded 222 posts and can't be bothered to go through it all again!
That 13 seemed a bit high to me so I've just gone through it myself (I had a bit of time on my hands).
I also make it 35 posters, and 16 definitely in favour, but I only get 5 definitely expressing an opinion against, 6 if you include Darren who has now agreed to reconsider. And you finished up as high poster with 25.
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject:
It's rock and a hard place stuff isn't it! The number of people who think strongly enough about this to post here is a very small fraction of the userbase.
If we react and make available a specific download for those here who are unhappy then were do we draw the line in future. If we don't then those sufficiently incensed will continue to stoke the fire and raise merry hell _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject:
Darren
I've no wish to 'stoke the fire and raise merry hell' , but leaving aside any potential administration problems, if this unverfied data is completely seperate from the main PGPSW world speed camera database I really can't see the problem in some members wanting access to potential mobile sites as soon as it is available.
I honestly can't understand those posters who are so strongly against this data being made available if it's technically possible. They don't have to downlod it or use it. All I want is a warning that there may or not be a potential mobile camera/unit on the stretch of road I'm approching, if nothing else it reminds me to check my speed.
This all revolves around the fact that mobile sites are totaly different from fixed or temporary sites and I feel they need to be treated differently. Although I don't do a very high mileage, I think that in all the time that the database has been available, I've only ever seen 4 or 5 mobile sites in use, and I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of figure is common amongst members, but I still want the warnings of potential danger. As I ahve said before, I choose to install the multitude GPSPassion French mobile camera warnings, which do on occasions annoy me no end, but that's my choice
If MaFt decides that he truly dosn't have the time to implement this, or that ne feels that it's technically to difficult to do then I will reluctantly accept it, but I strongly feel that it should be made available if possible. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Dec 28, 2005 Posts: 2003 Location: Antrobus, Cheshire
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject:
As far as I see it...
ALL mobile sites are 'potential' sites - they are often not in place when I have been past them - I wouldn't think of reporting them as unused though. I would be in favour of having a separate list of potential cameras (all types) as it may assist in more rapid verification of them.
Perhaps a "pocketgps_uk_please_varify.ov2" in the database.
Wait for the feed back and amend the database accordingly?
Even a spoken .ogg alert in the case of TomTom .ov2?
If those who feel strongly enough on either side of the fence contribute the whole issue could be quickly cleared.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject:
bmuskett wrote:
That 13 seemed a bit high to me so I've just gone through it myself (I had a bit of time on my hands).
I also make it 35 posters, and 16 definitely in favour, but I only get 5 definitely expressing an opinion against, 6 if you include Darren who has now agreed to reconsider. And you finished up as high poster with 25One of my deliberate inaccuracies? I only counted 24.
I counted all Moderators and Team members as against on the basis that they would have been part of the corporate decision to exclude unverified cameras. Plus I read all the posts again and found enough sentiment I suppose to class as against. Maybe I had more time on my hands than you. You didn't do too badly with posts yourself. Also there was quite a lot of irrelevant comment (definitely including me) to make up the numbers.
With the best will in the world, it doesn't make a huge difference though, does it? There were still less than a score of people who wanted pgpsw to change their policy. _________________ Dennis
All I want is a warning that there may or not be a potential mobile camera/unit on the stretch of road I'm approching, if nothing else it reminds me to check my speed.
All sorted then, I can save you the download time, ANY stretch of road you are approaching could potentially have a mobile camera/unit on it.
I won't even comment on the fact you need a database of ANY kind to "remind you to check your speed" _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
ALL mobile sites are 'potential' sites - they are often not in place when I have been past them - I wouldn't think of reporting them as unused though. I would be in favour of having a separate list of potential cameras (all types) as it may assist in more rapid verification of them.
When you say "they are often not in place" on a scale of 1-10 (1 being extremely accurate, 10 being I've never seen a mobile unit in a reported location)how accurate in YOUR experience is the mobile database? _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject:
First I would like to say I'm not taking a 'pop' at you personally emjaiuk by quoting from your post, you're not the only one to have said it and I've quoted you because I was too lazy too go back through the posts and cut and paste from others contributions.
Quote:
All I want is a warning that there may or not be a potential mobile camera/unit on the stretch of road I'm approching
Surely the camera warning signs are a bit of a giveaway, whether there is an unverified camera warning or not.
Quote:
if nothing else it reminds me to check my speed.
There are repeater signs for the speed of the road except for 30, no repeater signs assume it's a 30mph road.
The way I see it, and I may be wrong, is that people want the unverified cameras included to enable them to set a warning that a camera may be there and adjust their speed as necessary. This implies they will be driving over the limit, whether accidently or on purpose.
So what happens when they are exceeding the limit, see camera warning signs but get no warning from their device, carry on at the same speed? Unlikely, so a warning on the device is not that important.
No one has convinced me that an unverified database is of any use to anyone, likewise the red light camera database. Which makes me think, maybe we should have a database of every traffic light in the UK, just incase there is an unreported or unverified camera there. Then we could have another for all laybys and every road bridge over dual carriageways, just incase there is an unreported or unverified camera there.
Just remember the speed limits are the maximum we should drive at, they are not a compulsory minimum. The safest bet is to drive at the maximum speed taking into account road, traffic and weather conditions.
Having said all that, I'd be happy if someone could convince me of the benefits to people, if the data is supplied, of downloading and using it. Maybe then I could come off the fence and argue for it. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Doesnt sound like you are sitting on the fence.
Sorry I never made myself clear.
1. I cannot see the point of having an unverified cameras database.
2. I don't care whether PGPSW offer it or not.
3. I have not said people should or should not have it.
4.
Quote:
Having said all that, I'd be happy if someone could convince me of the benefits to people, if the data is supplied, of downloading and using it. Maybe then I could come off the fence and argue for it.
If anyone can point to the place where I have contradicted myself, I will gladly make a public apology for the error of my ways. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject:
With one more pro contributor, there are now 17 people who want it.
DennisN wrote:
With the best will in the world, it doesn't make a huge difference though, does it? There were still less than a score of people who wanted pgpsw to change their policy.
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject:
If there had been less pointless and inane posts not to mention the chidish bickering perhaps more members would have felt able to contribute, whichever point of view they may support _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
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!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
, but leaving aside any potential administration problems, if this unverfied data is completely seperate from the main PGPSW world speed camera database I really can't see the problem in some members wanting access to potential mobile sites as soon as it is available.
I only counted 24
