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: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 384 Location: Bedford, England
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: Pending Cameras
Looking at the list of cameras now, there are a string of Pmobiles, which I understand are pending confirmation. Is it only the mobile cameras that have this "pending" designation? If so, are fixed camera locations confirmed before appearing, or do they go straight onto the database as soon as they are reported?
I would prefer to have new cameras on the database as soon as the first reports come in, even if they are marked as pending. I don't use mobile warnings in any case, since there are vast numbers of them, and yet on any day only a few may be in use. The rest are just a pain with false warning after false warning throughout the journey.
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:33 am Post subject:
Tom, there is a pending category for the mobile cameras, the fixed cameras are only included within the database once verified, to include to pending cameras would, without any form of doubt degrade the overall accuracy of the data.
As an example of the above I recently checked out some "new Additions" in the North West, out of 20 locations checked only three were actual new cameras. This was in a small area, if this were applied accross the country then the accuracy and usability of the database would suffer - Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15144 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: Re: Pending Cameras
TomDavison wrote:
Looking at the list of cameras now, there are a string of Pmobiles, which I understand are pending confirmation. Is it only the mobile cameras that have this "pending" designation? If so, are fixed camera locations confirmed before appearing, or do they go straight onto the database as soon as they are reported?
only the mobiles have a 'pending' file released. all other cameras are checked before inclusion in the downloads.
Quote:
I would prefer to have new cameras on the database as soon as the first reports come in, even if they are marked as pending.
trust me; you wouldn't. if you see some of the submissions we get even though you have to locate it on the google map there are still apparently lots of cameras in the sea or in fields... i'd hazard a guess at probably about 25% of all submissions are just silly / impossible! and that's not including the ones that are just badly placed - eg for a new gatso camera we may get 10 submissions along a half mile stretch of road but all for the same, single camera. would you rather have 10 warnings in half a mile for one camera or just one warning for where the camera actually is?!
Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 384 Location: Bedford, England
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:37 am Post subject:
I'm surprised that people who go to the extent of paying to join the forum as members are prepared to put in so many false reports of cameras. Out of interest, how is confirmation achieved?
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:25 am Post subject:
The website policy has been to only include cameras in the databse after they have been checked by an independent person other than the person reporting them.
Fixed cameras always get more than one report, simply because they stay in situ for ever or (with Temps) for a period of time. Mobile cameras are only in situ for a few hours at most, so it's quite possible only one person will send in a report before it moves to another site.
At one time, PGPSW decided that because the mobiles weren't getting multiple reports (if they get several hits in the same spot, that counts as checking and they get accepted), they'd have to put them into the database unchecked. Over time, the number of unchecked mobiles built up. At the end of 2006, PGPSW appointed a number of independent checkers to increase the checking capability. Then, with those verifiers in place, they decided to revert to their previous policy of only adding cameras to the database after proper checking. Consequently they removed all the unchecked ones last month. One member noticed and raised an enquiry about it. The resulting "discussion" was, to say the least "robust". At the end of it all, PGPSW agreed to publish the unchecked mobile camera reports, which is what the "pmobile" files are.
As far as I know, there has been no change in members' submissions - i.e. we still submit cameras, fixed or mobile, just as accurately or inaccurately as before. Fixed cameras can be checked far more easily, either by duplicate reports from members or by the verifier group. They will therefore get into the database quicker. From what they said, PGPSW usually have to assess a mobile site rather than actually see a camera van etc there. The pmobile files are all the unchecked ones - I don't need to have these if I doin't want all the false warnings. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 384 Location: Bedford, England
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:33 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
The pmobile files are all the unchecked ones - I don't need to have these if I doin't want all the false warnings.
I find that even the verified mobile ones are usually false alarms, imply because there are so many known mobile locations, and so few scamera vans. As an example, the Bedfordshire/Luton partnership website lists 66 mobile speed camera locations in the County, but on the organisational chart, there are only 4 mobile camera operators listed. So at any one time, even if all 4 are working, 62 of the 66 locations will be giving false alarms.
http://www.drivesafely.org/safety_cameras/camera_locations.htm http://www.drivesafely.org/the_partnership/organisation.htm
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject:
I'm amazed you missed all the battles over this, Tom!
As you rightly say, the admin on this site seem to have to wade through hundreds of innacurate submissions, which is why they insist on an independent report from another person before adding new positions.
However a vocal section of the users demanded the unsorted/unverified data for mobile sites so eventually they were given it. Personally, I will be ignoring the extra files.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject:
TomDavison wrote:
DennisN wrote:
The pmobile files are all the unchecked ones - I don't need to have these if I don't want all the false warnings.
I find that even the verified mobile ones are usually false alarms, simply because there are so many known mobile locations, and so few scamera vans.
Strangely enough, since PGPSW put up a request for us to notify all mobile van sightings so that they could make a mark alongside its entry in the database file, I've seen more vans (and reported them - I'll be reporting another in a minute) than I ever saw before!
The point made by the 16 members who wanted the unchecked sites was that they'd rather get false warnings - a possible mobile site was more valuable to them than waiting (a long time or never) for it to be verified.
The point made by others of us was that false warnings were akin to crying wolf.
Both sides of the pointers reached impasse and the thread was eventually locked after PGPSW agreed to issue the unchecked mobile sites. I suspect a lot of people are hoping your post will not reopen it.
Did I put the cases impartially? Did I get the spellings right? Isn't old age and experience a "good thing"? _________________ Dennis
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
