| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Border_Collie
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 2543
Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Lost_Property, many thanks for the clarification, damn the written word for it's ambiguousness ? |
  
_________________
Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15142
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
with regards to the talivan quote of: "Now look at this van in Fareham, Hampshire and compare the differences. For a start its parked on double yellows which is an offence in itself."
a police vehicle can park wherever it wants so long as it is required for the course of duty. therefore if their duty is to catch speeding motorists then they can park on double yellows.
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hijacker
Regular Visitor
Joined: Dec 20, 2003
Posts: 188
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it possible for somebody from PGPSW to confirm if unverified mobile sites are going to be made available as a seperate file to download ??
I made a submission to your mobile database at the weekend following Plod busting me the previous day and I would like others to benefit from my "unfortunate" experience ASAP. An unverified mobile file would suit these circumstances perfecty.
_________________
TT GO 1005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
InDeNiaL
Lifetime Member
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Suffolk, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hijacker wrote: | | An unverified mobile file would suit these circumstances perfecty. |
I agree completely, I'd rather have false alerts before its too late.
Ive just added two mobile sites on Wawne Road in Hull, so lets see how long they take to be "verified". If you do want verification, go to the site and see the "Police Vehicle Only" sign, like on all mobile sites in the Humberside region  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Have you actually seen a speed camera set up there then, InDeNiaL?
There are loads of "Police Vehicle Only" signs round my way that have never been used for cameras.
Guidelines from the submission page:
| Quote: | Do not submit locations of camera warning signs, just the locations of cameras themselves.
{snip}
Please only submit them (mobile sites) when you actually see a mobile unit present .... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| InDeNiaL wrote: | | Ive just added two mobile sites on Wawne Road in Hull |
Good for you. I haven't done a delivery to Hull for ages, but I shall be glad to reap the benefit of your submissions when I do.
Whilst you're about it, could you do something to add Headings to all the Hull cameras which don't have them and speeds to the ones which need them? It would be much of an improvement to know which way they are looking and what speed they're looking for.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alan_dr
Lifetime Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006
Posts: 316
Location: Portsmouth, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can we get back on topic and have a reply as to whether we can have the unverified file as so many people have been asking for please?
_________________
Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No more on topic than the discussion of "real" or "presumed" sites, but hey.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trevor.dowle
Lifetime Member
Joined: 16/06/2003 05:22:14
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alan_dr wrote: | | Can we get back on topic and have a reply as to whether we can have the unverified file as so many people have been asking for please? |
Does anybody think like me, that we should have had this discussion before, rather than after, the arbibrary decision to suspend unverified mobile cameras was taken?
It's rather like the decision taken after the 2005 meeting to charge for the database, after consulting no-one but the fortunate few that were able to attend, and then quoting the 'overwhelming' view.
_________________
Regards
Trev Dowle
TomTom 730 T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trevor.dowle wrote: | | It's rather like the decision taken after the 2005 meeting to charge for the database, after consulting no-one but the fortunate few that were able to attend, and then quoting the 'overwhelming' view. |
Do you mean that decision wasn't abitrary? I thought "They" decided at a meeting of "Them" to start charging for membership of "Their" website. Do you mean that anybody who wanted to could have attended?
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mad_Dog
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Aug 19, 2006
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Y'all
Newbie on this site. I have followed this debate with interest and my personal view is I wanted mobile camera warnings more than fixed camera precisely because they move around.
When I'm going into unfamiliar areas I want to know where a mobile site may be I don't want it "verified" by me or anybody else by getting a ticket.
It seems to me it should be put to the vote and then at least we'll see what the majority feels about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
classy56
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 08, 2006
Posts: 441
Location: Dorset
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trevor.dowle wrote: | | alan_dr wrote: | | Can we get back on topic and have a reply as to whether we can have the unverified file as so many people have been asking for please? |
Does anybody think like me, that we should have had this discussion before, rather than after, the arbibrary decision to suspend unverified mobile cameras was taken?
It's rather like the decision taken after the 2005 meeting to charge for the database, after consulting no-one but the fortunate few that were able to attend, and then quoting the 'overwhelming' view. |
I for one don't think like you, I think the site owners can make any decision they feel fit to make, why should they consult us? If we paid for the camera database then you might have a point but only "might"
If on the other hand EVERYBODY paid for the hosting fees, the bandwidth and site maintenance etc then once again you might also have a point.
As far as I am aware there are several thousand people who have used this site and been helped big time and not paid a penny towards it, and that is fine thats what the site is for.
But I do believe this decision was not made for any financial reasons, I am just pointing out the fact that people are complaining about something they have no right to complain about, of course that is in my opinion, but I defend your right to have your opinion as long as I can have mine.
And from my point of view as a "newbie" it appears that this discussion is getting way out of hand and people are taking advantage to have a gripe (not directed at the op of this post)
If people are THAT concerned and worried about mobile cameras then make sure you are driving legally and within the limit at all times....problem solved.
_________________
Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
To old to die young. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again I'll say, it was only a recent decision to dump a load of un-verified mobile sites into the database. They are only going back to what it should always have been IMHO.
What next? Do you want a file with every single submission for every single camera in it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sema_4
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Jun 06, 2006
Posts: 40
Location: Madrid, Spain
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| classy56 wrote: | | If people are THAT concerned and worried about mobile cameras then make sure you are driving legally and within the limit at all times....problem solved. |
Isn't it possible that if people did that then there would be no need for speed cameras on our roads and no need for this database?
I can't think of a single reason why anyone would sign up to this web site, or pay money to download a database 'warning where the cameras were' if they never went over the speed limit... I know what my reasons were for signing up here.
Isn't it a fact that every member here is prone to drifting over the limit now and then in order to keep up with the flow of traffic and not become a rolling road block, and thats why the need the database to warn them of possible camera locations before they get there ?
No ?? Silly me, I thought thats what this database was for... :shrug:
Interestingly, if I count the number of different names in both threads discussing this topic, there appears to be more different names asking for this 'unverified' section to be added, and only the same few people saying they don't want it... not that that means anything I suppose...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May your encounters with mobile cameras always be on the other side of the road, facing the wrong way to catch you... or you may just wish the ones calling for this had got their way.... |
|
| 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: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| classy56 wrote: | | why should they consult us? |
Uh, because we are the customers?
As I have said before, they are indeed free to run their business as they see fit. However, part of their business is running an open discussion forum so their decisions will be discussed in the forum.
| classy56 wrote: | | If we paid for the camera database then you might have a point but only "might" |
Huh? I paid the subscription and contributed to the database, that makes me a customer. And the customer is always right. (Sometimes rude, arrogant, misinformed or completely out of his pram on a rant, but always right.) 
_________________
Gone fishing! |
|
| 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
