Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
Read the current newsletter! Weekly
Newsletter
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Pocket GPS World - SatNavs | GPS | Speed Cameras: Forums

Pocket GPS World :: View topic - Camera Submission Query
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in for private messagesLog in for private messages   Log inLog in 

Camera Submission Query
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Database
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14759
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MaFt wrote:

it was rejected by one of our verifiers as the description did not match the co-ordinates given.


This happens quite a lot. Here's a quote from my report on another mobile camera submission recently
Quote:
Reject. description is fairly accurate, except final speed limit change is to national limit (60). However, there is no way a camera van can operate at that location, as it's on a steep hill, left hand bend with a big bank, so the camera cannot see anything coming until it is maybe 20 yards away - at 40mph I doubt if it could focus in time. And if you wanted to speed there, you'd have to be both driving something quite hard up the hill AND an absolute idiot with no visibility up, round and over the blind hill. PLUS which, there was a proper sized white van parked there today "For Sale"!!
We really cannot get into second guessing for correct coordinates, if we did, the database would become very unreliable. We are trying to make it so that you can rely on it when we agree a location.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GPS_fan
Pocket GPS Moderator
Pocket GPS Moderator


Joined: Jan 04, 2007
Posts: 2789
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DennisN wrote:
there was a proper sized white van parked there today "For Sale"!![/b][/color]


What? You were trying to sell your van out verifying cameras? Cheek! Rolling Eyes

DennisN wrote:
We really cannot get into second guessing for correct coordinates, if we did, the database would become very unreliable. We are trying to make it so that you can rely on it when we agree a location.


Absolutely! The database has to be up to date AND accurate.

If you were going around second guessing locations, there'd soon be an outcry
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tomo1340
Regular Visitor


Joined: Jul 17, 2005
Posts: 209
Location: Bentham

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MaFt wrote:
tomo1340 wrote:
the notable exception is one mobile camera I submitted ages ago and (unless it is in the new issue) never appeared on the software, which did make me wonder if it was happening to other users. Actually I wasn't subscribed at the time,I wonder if that was the reason, but I did look on the map and submit it when I saw the camera as I wondered if it had been submitted already.


this one from 9th june 07?

"The camera when in use is located in the side garden of no 29 Aynam road in kendal. There is usually an unmarked police car near it and sometimes a marked car in a layby about 300 yards before it. The road is a one way street but the camera is always positioned on the left hand side."

it was rejected by one of our verifiers as the description did not match the co-ordinates given.

MaFt


The co ordinates were taken from my tomtom screen while stood right in front of the camera, I put the co ordinates into the map on the site and it came up EXACTLY where I was stood. So either the verifyer is wrong or my tomtom AND your map is wrong.
_________________
o2 XDA Stellar
TTN6
MOWE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Pocket GPS Moderator


Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DennisN wrote:
there was a proper sized white van parked there today "For Sale"!


Strangely enough, Dennis' white van seems to be parked outside No 29 Aynam road in Kendal too on the Google aerial photo. Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GPS_fan
Pocket GPS Moderator
Pocket GPS Moderator


Joined: Jan 04, 2007
Posts: 2789
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andy_P2002 wrote:
DennisN wrote:
there was a proper sized white van parked there today "For Sale"!


Strangely enough, Dennis' white van seems to be parked outside No 29 Aynam road in Kendal too on the Google aerial photo. Shocked


That white van seems to be several houses further along Aynam Road than the co-ordinates for number 29 show:

See Here.

The speed camera page also shows the co-ordinates for 29 Aynam Road as:

Latitude 54.322904, Longitude -2.742273

Do these match what was submitted for this camera?

Link edited for clarity - Oldboy
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14759
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those coordinates seem to be for a rather large tree and I'll have you know my van is parked ON THE FOOTPATH outside number 35. So don't blame me!

Autoroute shows No. 29 as about 50 yards up the road from the Google map.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JockTamsonsBairn
Lifetime Member


Joined: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 2777
Location: Bonnie Scotland (West Central)

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GPS_fan wrote:
Andy_P2002 wrote:
DennisN wrote:
there was a proper sized white van parked there today "For Sale"!


Strangely enough, Dennis' white van seems to be parked outside No 29 Aynam road in Kendal too on the Google aerial photo. Shocked


That white van seems to be several houses further along Aynam Road than the co-ordinates for number 29 show:

29 Aynam road

The speed camera page also shows the co-ordinates for 29 Aynam Road as:

Latitude 54.322904, Longitude -2.742273

Do these match what was submitted for this camera?
Looking back to the pMobile file from v5.064 (my copy is dated 18/06/2007) there was a pMobile in Kendal, but that was at Lat 54.32679, Long -2.74758 but that is quite a distance from the location given. Could that be the one? I'm sure MaFt will be able to check back and see if the submitter made any comments that would link it with Aynam Rd?
_________________
Jock

TomTom Go 940 LIVE (9.510, Europe v915.5074 on SD & 8.371, WCE v875.3613 on board)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tomo1340
Regular Visitor


Joined: Jul 17, 2005
Posts: 209
Location: Bentham

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GPS_fan wrote:
DennisN wrote:
Those coordinates seem to be for a rather large tree and I'll have you know my van is parked ON THE FOOTPATH outside number 35. So don't blame me!

Autoroute shows No. 29 as about 50 yards up the road from the Google map.


Blame the verifier, blame the team, blame everybody other than the person submitting questionnable information Rolling Eyes

People fail to appreciate that the verifiers are giving up their own time to travel, at their own expense, to a site and if the co-ordinates or other details don't appear then they'll be somewhat miffed.

If somebody then questions there decision, then they're likely to be even more miffed


Ok I went and looked again today. The co ordinates wre bang on but the address i gave was misleading as the grass garden area the camera sits in actually belongs to a church and the houses leading up to the church are alms houses. I got the address by tapping the road on my tomtom right next to the camera and as my mother lives a few doors from the location it seemed right, however I don't think no29 is the very last house before the church garden. I DO appreciate someone travelling to a site to verify it but I was not aware that this happened until very recently, and I would have been more than happy for a verifyer to contact me and I would have met him and showed him the exact location of the camera. What I don't understand is what is a verifyer looking for when he turns up at the co ordinates for a mobile camera. I thought my description was fairly bang on and the only thing that let it down was the house number which I got from my tomtom screen which led me to believe it was the side garden of number 29 not actually the church gardens, bearing in mind I have lived in Kendal for nearly all my life and I never knew that there actually was a chruch there.

Quote:
The camera when in use is located in the side garden of no 29 Aynam road in kendal. There is usually an unmarked police car near it and sometimes a marked car in a layby about 300 yards before it. The road is a one way street but the camera is always positioned on the left hand side.


Personally I think that is a good description, if a person was to pull up at the co ordinates then I am sure they would see the side garden where the guy would stand with his camera. I have to describe locations for my work, and work off other peoples descriptions without ever having a problem. I wonder if the verifyer was looking for a marked area on the ground that said 'police only' or something?

There is often a white van parked on the bend just after it and it is a pain in the backside as a lot of cars don't see it until the last second and end up just pulling into the other lane.
_________________
o2 XDA Stellar
TTN6
MOWE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14759
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tomo1340 wrote:

Quote:
The camera when in use is located in the side garden of no 29 Aynam road in kendal.
Personally I think that is a good description, if a person was to pull up at the co ordinates then I am sure they would see the side garden where the guy would stand with his camera. I have to describe locations for my work, and work off other peoples descriptions without ever having a problem. I wonder if the verifyer was looking for a marked area on the ground that said 'police only' or something?
How do you cope with the description "In the garden of No 29" if No 29 hasn't got a garden? Settle for No 29 or the nearest garden?
Now, you have forgotten that coordinates taken from your satnav are not always 100% accurate. Some people use POICapture to get coordinates for cameras, pressing the button whilst driving. Hence we get positions which will be some distance out (Andy can tell you how much each way, I'm too simple), therefore ALL coordinates are "suspect", that's why we check them! So a really good description, unequivocally "Outside number 29 Aynam Road" is a godsend to us when we look for something. There are no grey areas with that, - No. 29 won't move or be somewhere intangible. It's just perfect - even I could reliably knock on its door without missing. If there's a nice space there, I'll always tend to believe the submitter and if there isn't a space there, I'll say site doesn't match description and reject it. Sorry, but like I said earlier, we can't go round second guessing, I do hope you'll accept that.
As for meeting you - today I rang a couple of my colleague verifiers to see if they were anywhere near a computer to look something up for me, but they weren't (and they're the only two for whom I've got phone numbers) - I didn't have the most recent notes which were only issued last night and I'd not yet had time to convert them to my device's format. I was just yards from the camera in question at the time. I have no idea who submitted it (and you wouldn't want me driving round with your phone number on me - even if you'd given it in your submission), but I thought it was in a pretty stupid spot. But if it had been me at Aynam road at 1:35pm today and I'd phoned you, could you have been there in less than 5 minutes? I do my verifying whilst out at my whitevanman work. I don't often know where I'm going until I set off, so I don't know if I'm going to find any cameras to check until my TomTomGO shouts "Heads up Dennis, here's one to look at". So I can't consider asking anybody to meet me. Then what if I DID meet somebody, but formed the opinion the guy was mistaken? Do I tell him and have an argument? Or tell him thank you and leave him expecting his camera to be in the database next download?

PLEASE DON'T GET US WRONG. We have no interest in denying "your" camera, quite the opposite - if it's there, we want it desperately. But the day we start saying "Ah, the coordinates are wrong, put it at x,y which is at No 29" or "Ah, it can't be No29 because the side garden is at No 15" is when the database starts going to pot. I don't suppose you've seen some of the comments (in other threads) about the variety of locations we get. A very common one is inside a garden - somebody with the brand new copy of POICapture teaching himself how to use it and records a new mobile on his decking! And just look at the coordinates - how easy is it for anybody to type 2 instead of 3 or 1? Only today, another colleague posted a set of coordinates for us to look at something in Blackpool, except that by mistake, he gave us somewhere close to Buckingham Palace. It's so easy. Give us a break!
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14759
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BGF wrote:
Looking back to the pMobile file from v5.064 (my copy is dated 18/06/2007) there was a pMobile in Kendal, but that was at Lat 54.32679, Long -2.74758 but that is quite a distance from the location given. Could that be the one? I'm sure MaFt will be able to check back and see if the submitter made any comments that would link it with Aynam Rd?

How I wish I'd looked at this earlier. It was indeed the one. My excuse is that I'd looked at it before, but it was so far away from Aynam Road that it never crossed my mind it would be the one. My notes are dated 1st July (I was away on holiday last two weeks of June) and pMobile:35054 carried exactly the description quoted, including Aynam Road. Here's the complete entry
Quote:
35054,pMOBILE,30,,2007-06-09 22:36:54,"The camera when in use is located in the side garden of no 29 Aynam road in kendal. There is usually an unmarked police car near it and sometimes a marked car in a layby about 300 yards before it. The road is a one way street but the camera is always positioned on the left hand side.

The coordinates placed it at the junction of Lowther Streeet and the A6, so presumably that's where the Verifier went looking. Clearly, either tomo1340 or MaFt input the wrong coordinates - no blame, it happens - again demonstrates why we check.

Mystery solved?

Just in passing, this makes a mockery of the people who wanted the pMobiles so that they could be warned of possible camera sites (no reflection on you, tomo1340 - the pMobile discussion perhaps predates your involvement).
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tomo1340
Regular Visitor


Joined: Jul 17, 2005
Posts: 209
Location: Bentham

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The co ordinates were typed into the map on this site from my tomtom, and showed the location of where the camera was situated pretty bob on.

Yes I could have been ther in less than 5 minutes as my main place of work is about 5 mins walk away and my kids are generally about 4 doors from the site. I don't think I submitted the wrong co ordinates as you can see it on the map and the submission process requires you to use the map to obtain the co ordinates. It is a silly place for a camera, I agree, but many people regularly speed down there and there have been a number of accidents, some of which I have been lead to believe were fatal. I was talking about this today to some people from work, one guy reckons the police use the location to train new traffic officers on how to use the cameras and another guy says it's a quick revenue generator for them. The guy I spoke to was a police officer, not a safety partnership man which usually park in the marked layby's in and around Kendal and always leave at 5pm, as if people stop speeding at 5pm on the dot, whereas the Aynam road camera has only been seen by me and other people I know in the evenings. I don't know the legality of it as I thought you were meant to have some sort of warning and not conceal the camera, but this camera is always off the footpath and in the side garden of what I thought was No 29 but is actually a small in-built church at the end of a terrace of houses.

I don't know the debate on the Pmobile sites, as I only ever downloaded the database when it was free and once when we drove to disneyland paris which was a bargain at 2. Incidentally the only mobiles cameras we saw were the Pmobile ones on our journeys both ways. Unfortunately I don't have POI capture as I couldn't get it to work, and my mental note of the locations soon faded into the heavy fog of trying to find public loos for the kids in the middle of the night.

I wasn't trying to criticise verifyers for dismissing my submission, but it would have been nice to have some feedback so I could have realised I had got the address wrong by a couple of doors. The thing is the camera is so well hidden when it is in use that I would imagine many people don't even see it, it's the unmarked car that is on the bend that makes you slow down and try and change lanes to avoid it. I only noticed in the day I submitted it because I had walked down the end of Aynam road drop my son to my ex wife so she didn't have to drive round the one way system. I was stood talking to the copper as I added it to my tomtom and even told him that I was going to submit it to an online database to warn people of it's position which he thought was hilarious and a great idea.

I see all your points above about meeting up with submitters and agree with them, but for me if a submitter was prepared to meet up with a verifyer to point out the location then I can't see what he would have to gain by trying to submit a false camera location. The fact about Aynam road is if you were to pull over in it in peak time you would cause an obstruction, and as such I could question whether anybody actually did pull over and check, as the distance is really not that far away. Especially when you take into account that the person was probably using satnav to get there and I don't know about anyone else but I have had a few sat navs and none of them have put me outside the exact adress I have asked it.

Looking at the google map, it is quite a bit off. Putting in number 25 brings you to the location of the camera. No 25 here

If you look at the end of the terrace there is a side garden with a non descript church set back from it, you can't really tell from the pic but there is no obvious seperation from the end of the terrace such as a fence so it just looks like it is the side garden of the last house in the terrace, which we now know is NOT number 29 as I thought, but more likely 30.

But just to steer us back towards the topic, I wouldn't rule out buying the database again, even for 19 as I did happen to drive out of town on a road I hadn't been on in over a year and there were two new cameras there, unfortunately already marked otherwise I would have bagged a life membership, ironically one position is off more than the distance between 29 Aynam road and the Church garden I mention earlier, but the difference is its a GATSO so its pretty easy to verify. I was actually looking for a new house in an area I am unfamilliar with so if I do move there I reckon updating my subscription would be in order.[url][/url]
_________________
o2 XDA Stellar
TTN6
MOWE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
The Other Tired Old Man


Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10084
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tomo1340

Quote:
I did happen to drive out of town on a road I hadn't been on in over a year and there were two new cameras there, unfortunately already marked otherwise I would have bagged a life membership, ironically one position is off more than the distance between 29 Aynam road and the Church garden I mention earlier, but the difference is its a GATSO so its pretty easy to verify.


One of the things that gets you life membership is:

Quote:
The first person to accurately report a change to an existing fixed site i.e. change of type, correction of location, move etc.

Trevor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GPS_fan
Pocket GPS Moderator
Pocket GPS Moderator


Joined: Jan 04, 2007
Posts: 2789
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

M8TJT wrote:
One of the things that gets you life membership is:

Quote:
The first person to accurately report a change to an existing fixed site i.e. change of type, correction of location, move etc.

Trevor


Trevor, you're right here and I was going to point this out - but the one point that you missed is that an individual needs to be a subscribed member at the time of making the submission in order to qualify for free lifetime subscription:

Darren wrote:
As before, you must be a current subscriber to benefit from this offer.

_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14759
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tomo1340 wrote:
The co ordinates were typed into the map on this site from my tomtom, and showed the location of where the camera was situated pretty bob on.

(Pardon me, but I've edited your post to compress the url link so that we can see the page easier).

I didn't get through to you, did I?

Let me repeat,
Quote:
The coordinates placed it at the junction of Lowther Street and the A6, [that's nowhere near Aynam Road] so presumably that's where the Verifier went looking. Clearly, either tomo1340 or MaFt input the wrong coordinates - no blame, it happens - again demonstrates why we check.
There's no point in re-hashing it all, or in checking your method of use of the submission page, where you may have typed the coordinates, but then clicked "update" when your cursor was elsewhere.
And I repeat also
Quote:
PLEASE DON'T GET US WRONG. We have no interest in denying "your" camera, quite the opposite - if it's there, we want it desperately.

_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BMW330
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 389
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, what a flaming hot thread! Burn In Hell Everyone seems to have forgotten that we're working towards a common goal here...

Anyway, there are obviously a few lessons/questions to be drawn from this thread:

    -The co-ordinates of PoiCapture are obviously not fully trusted by verifiers, as many people use this tool while driving by. This explains why verifiers (ironically) appear to rely on a physical address/description too. Perhaps PoiCapture would benefit from a commenting ability so that verifiers can add useful info like "Standing next to the camera at the time" or "Driving at the time, location inaccurate"

    -Verification is still a black art, especially from an outsider's perspective. Perhaps someone needs to publish a bit more info about how verifiers go about their trade, and what information if provided, would help remove any ambiguity from this process?

    -What's the best way for a submitter to challenge a rejected submission without an argument ensuing?

    -Should verifiers have the ability to contact submitters for more information?

    -A picture is worth a thousand words - why not allow a photo of the camera to be uploaded?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website







Posted: Today    Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Database All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
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

Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group
phpBB port v2.1 based on Tom Nitzschner's phpbb2.0.6 upgraded to phpBB 2.0.4 standalone was developed and tested by:
ArtificialIntel, ChatServ, mikem,
sixonetonoffun and Paul Laudanski (aka Zhen-Xjell).

Version 2.1 by Nuke Cops 2003 http://www.nukecops.com

Make a Donation



CamerAlert Database

Click here for the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database

Download Speed Camera Database
18.103 (21 Oct 20)



WORLDWIDE SPEED CAMERA SPOTTERS WANTED!

Click here to submit camera positions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database


12mth Subscriber memberships awarded every week for verified new camera reports!

Submit Speed Camera Locations Now


CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







Terms & Privacy


GPS Shopping