| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15136
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Andy_P2002 wrote: |
MaFt made passing reference to a team of Moderators/Verifiers.... Someone then said they found the concept "amazing", basically saying nothing had changed. Well, I'll leave it up to MaFt to make any "official" announcement. |
Fair enough, i shall give the people more info about the verifiers.
at present we have a team of 27 verifiers who get sent regular updates of all the pending submissions for cameras around the uk. they drive round seeing if cameras really are there (or in the case of a mobile site whether the area looks feasible) - this all goes into confirming the activation of cameras in the database.
if another set number of submissions with similar information/location are sent in before the verifiers have got there then that is classed as being verified too.
anything else you'd like to know?
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15136
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 a wrote: | Must say I am miffed that the mobile camera that I reported (and caught a van ahead of me) has been removed.
|
which one are you referring to?
25631 51.62594 -2.13172 Mobile30
25637 51.62521 -2.12989 Mobile30
26013 51.91464 -2.20909 Mobile50
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lola
Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Dennis - I agree totally. If more people took the time to report cameras and in turn to help others then we wouldn't be in this situation. I reported one mobile to Mods this week that has been listed with incorrect speed for actual road (cam 40, road 60) and doesn't actually exist (we work 100 yards from the site) so I understand the Mods wanting to verify sites. However a site which I reported and was on the database has been removed because it hasn't been verified. Can't win really.
@ Andy_P - agree - the PGPS databse was and probably still is better - tried the TT data today and notice misktakes in their database havent been corrected in 6 months. Just a bit narked this AM when the cam I reported has been removed. I stand corrected.
I believe the Mods are only implementing the rules that already existed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lola
Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@MaFt
the first and second is the same camera and is the one I reported.
the third is in the North Sea (If i pasted the co-ords into Autoroute correctly).
Cheers
Bad day this AM keep up good work! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikealder
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 14, 2005
Posts: 19638
Location: Blackpool , Lancs
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| a wrote: | | the third is in the North Sea (If i pasted the co-ords into Autoroute correctly)......Bad day this AM keep up good work! |
The third one is Mobile 26013@50 located on the A38, I have highlighted this example as it goes someway to explain the problems when people quote locations, and differences between the various systems. Hence the need for verification of locations, a camera at sea is an easy mistake to make, but a similar mistake could easily move the location of a camera miles away from its true location - Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .... on the A38 at the wonderfully named "Notron Juxta Kempsey" :P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swing
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Nov 04, 2003
Posts: 2225
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lost_Property wrote: | | Oh I see, PGPSW remove cameras so people can report them as new cameras, the first one gets free life membership. Yeah right, an ideal way of generating more revenue. |
I'm not sure how this increases revenue, and even more importantly I don't believe PGPSW give out liftetime subscriptions for mobile cameras. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lola
Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
looks like the bad AM continues to PM then - pasted correctly it is Norton (Glos) and yes the Gasto 50 has been removed a while ago.
Better go for a lie down  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alan_dr
Lifetime Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006
Posts: 316
Location: Portsmouth, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MaFt
Can you please say whether or not we can have the unverified ones in a separate list? Sounds as though it will solve the problem in a simple way to suit all.
_________________
Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colinm345
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 10, 2007
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren wrote: | | colinm345 wrote: | I find this quite worrying as it is a toss up whether to subscribe to this database or the gar min one,as I have just had a Nuvi 300 I was going with this one but now I am a little unsure as it looks like empty boxes are being deleted but what happens if they go live again  |
The decision of course assumes that Garmin's database is better! There is no perfect system for collating and verifying this type of database but we work very hard to make ours as good as it can be. Garmin buy in their data and my experience of their provider is that whilst the data is good it is far from complete.
If a camera location goes 'live' again then we will receive a report and it will be added. |
No not at all I tend to favour this one to be honest I just want to clarify a few things but as people have already said Id rather have false alerts as well as the real ones  to keep me on my toes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swing
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Nov 04, 2003
Posts: 2225
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
However, removing the M42 empty boxes is in line with the M25 speed cameras - although nearly every gantry with a speed limit on it has white lines painted on the road, and many are capable of being fitted with speed cameras (*), the PGPSW database only contains the locations of where the speed cameras are actually located.
(*) Despite the fact some have a bridge next to them preventing the gantry from ever being used, as it would simply take a picture of the bridge, not the speeding car! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| a wrote: | @MaFt
the first and second is the same camera and is the one I reported.
the third is in the North Sea (If i pasted the co-ords into Autoroute correctly).
Cheers
Bad day this AM keep up good work! |
Mikealder has already pointed out the problem with two reports for one camera.
Now for ringing alarm bells - that number of yours did for me.
Let me hold my hand up to involvement with Mobile 26013 at Norton. I submitted the removal of a Gatso from that point, saying it wasn't there and the road markings were very worn out. I then received a message from somebody at pgpsw asking if it was possible a mobile could have taken its place (which they'd had submitted) and on my next trip that way I agreed a mobile would fit in.
Looking at the locations for 25631 and 25637, I also remember thinking those were in a pretty poor spot - narrow bending road, so if they're gone I couldn't disagree with it - How did you choose the coordinates? Next time I'm up that way I'll have another look, but I'd have sworn there was no roadside space for even one mobile van between Pump Lane and well along the road towards Tetbury, let alone two - the problems of two first-time reports being put into the Database unchecked! If the pgpsw checker went past Pump lane then turned up to Long Newnton, he/she would not see anything. I remember the day and the cameras well, because having done my delivery to Chipping Campden, I chose to come home the "scenic" route which took me through a very decent ford on a day of downpours and floods throughout the land! The site of those "two" cameras was partly blocked by a landrover and trailer full of dogs and folk with flags (I coudn't pass it, too narrow) I think going trailing. Oh and by the way, these two have not been removed by pgpsw by this update - I've checked back with my old downloads and they only seemed to last until early December - they've been gone more than a month.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trevor.dowle
Lifetime Member
Joined: 16/06/2003 05:22:14
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren wrote: |
| Quote: | | If there are only 50 added thisd month and 1000 deleted, I think I will take a chance and not update this month. |
That's rather contradictory, you would rather have false alerts yet are also willing to take a risk by not updating this month! It only takes one camera after all! |
Simple arithmetic Darren. Add 50 and remove 1000; what are the best odds?
_________________
Regards
Trev Dowle
TomTom 730 T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trevor.dowle wrote: | | Simple arithmetic Darren. Add 50 and remove 1000; what are the best odds? |
As those 50 are confirmed I'd rather have them, and if you save last month's mobile file you can have the 1000 unconfirmed too if you really wish!
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lola
Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Dennis
Going SE from Tetbury you enter the village of Long Newnton, There was a cop car with a copper out the car with a camera on a tripod facing back over the brow of the hill toward Tetbury. He stopped the transit and direct him to the end of the village where there was a small entrance on the left (under trees) with a couple of cop cars and a few folk being booked. All very orderly.
Whilst I was lucky it wasn't me - I looked up the position and submitted the details to PGPS as I wouldn't want to be the guy in the transit who's job will depend on his licence. Hopefully by submitting the mobile (tripod) it has helped other folks avoid the tyrrany of modern police work. |
|
| 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
