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!
Therefore I can't see how I could have typed them in wrong but it could have happened as I am not infallable. The co ordinates I put in originally were in the region of N54.32342 W2.74241 if some one wants to see how that comes up for them.
They show up exactly at No. 30 Aynam Road, on the Garmin software on the PC.
Just been down Aynam road and low and behold a cumbria safety camera partnership found working after dark at a completely diferent location. I think they have been reading this thread. Trouble is it is pointless me submitting it as I am not a member and even if it is verified I won't get the benefit. _________________ o2 XDA Stellar
TTN6
MOWE
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject:
tomo1340 wrote:
Just been down Aynam road and low and behold a cumbria safety camera partnership found working after dark at a completely diferent location. I think they have been reading this thread. Trouble is it is pointless me submitting it as I am not a member and even if it is verified I won't get the benefit.
Then join and report it! Yes you'll have to lay out £19 but you stand to save a lot more! _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject:
tomo1340 wrote:
Trouble is it is pointless me submitting it as I am not a member and even if it is verified I won't get the benefit.
And therein lies my big grumble - you're only interested in reporting if it will get you a free lifetime membership. By contrast, there are loads and loads of members who have paid and will continue to pay AND will continue to submit reports - NOT in order to gain a free membership, but in order to enhance the database. There are (rather fewer) free lifetime members who have continued to report and who will continue to report for the same reason.
If that ethic is not for you, we can survive quite well without you...
Finally, assuming you haven't yet re-submitted "your" camera, you've no doubt missed the opportunity of a free membership, because some brighter member has decided to do so based on the descriptions and coordinates so strongly placed in this thread - nobody knows whether an original submitter has actually personally seen a camera, so all the new person has to do is put in some reasonably credible comment with the submission!! _________________ Dennis
Trouble is it is pointless me submitting it as I am not a member and even if it is verified I won't get the benefit.
And therein lies my big grumble - you're only interested in reporting if it will get you a free lifetime membership. By contrast, there are loads and loads of members who have paid and will continue to pay AND will continue to submit reports - NOT in order to gain a free membership, but in order to enhance the database. There are (rather fewer) free lifetime members who have continued to report and who will continue to report for the same reason.
If that ethic is not for you, we can survive quite well without you...
Finally, assuming you haven't yet re-submitted "your" camera, you've no doubt missed the opportunity of a free membership, because some brighter member has decided to do so based on the descriptions and coordinates so strongly placed in this thread - nobody knows whether an original submitter has actually personally seen a camera, so all the new person has to do is put in some reasonably credible comment with the submission!!
I am sure being a moderator you can check that when I originally submitted my report I was not a member, or ask someone like Darren to, also I didn't know that reporting mobile cameras got a free membership until I posted in this thread which kind of shows that it isn't my intention. Thanks for reading my posts. Which if you had done you would realise that obtaining a free membership is not for me, if I wanted to gain a free membership I could re submit the badly placed cameras on the A65. Please, read my posts before spouting about my ethics, you know nothing of my ethics or anything about me other than a comment I made that I was unsure if a camera submission I made had in June was in the newer database as it wasn't in the database I bought in July. Not once have I tried to obtain a free membership.
Shall I now tell you my big grumble? The moderators on this site seem to be on some power trip, initially Darren who later (rightly) pointed out that he came across badly to me because he was extremely interested in protecting PGPSW date. Something I applaud I might add. I only posted in the other thread initially to put forward my experience of how the changing to annual payment would affect me, but of course you wouldn't know that because you just seem to skim over my posts and find points to argue with to try and force your opinion on me which to be quite honest irritates me greatly, I have never said that people should not pay the £19 and download the database I just said I can't see the benefit for me. Is that OK or should I alter my views to suit you? I just don't drive enough out of my daily routine area, and to be honest I only really have tomtom on for an ETA, I notmally have the sound turned right down on it anyway. Sure the device was great when we went to Paris and I paid my £2 and got the download, it served it's purpose, I must have downloaded probably no more than a handful of times in 2 years. I am sure as you say Dennis that you can survive quite well without me, and probably all the people like me who contribute to discussion on a (GOD FORBID) discussion forum, whereas I can survive quite well without you and your attempted sardonius replies.
I await your out of context quote to get a pop in at me, or maybe I need to insert an 'emoticon' to intimate my tongue being firmly placed in my cheek like it was in the post you quoted.
Edited to include this post from the other thread.
Darren wrote:
tomo1340 wrote:
Also I also thought you only got full membership if you spotted a new fixed camera. I have seen this camera at least twice a month since first reporting it, far more than I have seen any other mobile camera in my area. infact near me there used to be mobile cameras that were replaced with fixed cameras so now the database warns you about 4 cameras in the space of about 50 metres. Obviously its not your fault. it is just the way it is.
We expanded the lifetime subscription criteria back in July to include mobiles (pending verification) and amendments to existing cameras such as speed and or type corrections. This has greatly increased the opportunity to qualify.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject:
tomo1340 wrote:
I just said I can't see the benefit for me.
I apologise unreservedly. My interpretation of "benefit" was "free membership" and I now believe it meant "won't get it on my satnav because I won't be able to download a more up to date database".
The subject of camera verifications and award of free membership continues to be a high activity debate, with two sides, "Them - complainants" and "Us - verifiers, moderators and Team". Being part of "Us" (and purely honorary voluntarily in my own time), I sometimes get uptight.
I don't understand "sardonius", but if you meant sardonic or sarcastic, I attempted neither of those, simply being bitchy to somebody I wrongly thought to be a free-loader and whinger. You're not and I'm sorry. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject:
At the risk of getting a slap - if a verifier goes to Kendal this weekend, will he or she find a suitable mobile site at "coordinates Lat 54.32679, Long -2.74758, which would seem (Google Earth etc) to be slap in the middle of the yellow cross hatching at the cross roads of Strickland Gate, Highgate, Allhallows Lane and Lowther Street"
Anybody thinks I'm a numpty, feel free to delete this! _________________ Dennis
At the risk of getting a slap - if a verifier goes to Kendal this weekend, will he or she find a suitable mobile site at "coordinates Lat 54.32679, Long -2.74758, which would seem (Google Earth etc) to be slap in the middle of the yellow cross hatching at the cross roads of Strickland Gate, Highgate, Allhallows Lane and Lowther Street"
Anybody thinks I'm a numpty, feel free to delete this!
Hopefully it will be the co ordinates I mentioned above not the ones that somehow have been dished out that you quote? _________________ o2 XDA Stellar
TTN6
MOWE
Joined: Jul 07, 2006 Posts: 1649 Location: Newcastle, England, UK
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject:
Ok, so from what i have read in this "debate", i can correctly make the following assumptions:
- A mobile camera site with the correct co-ordinates was submitted with inaccurate comments, and was subsequently declined.
- A verifier checked out the site AND comments and found NO correlation between the two and issued a decline based on that fact.
Surely this has been blown out of proportion for one "potential" mobile site? Maybe im wrong but should there not be some sort of process whereby the submitter recieves an email or pm (if they use the members forums) when a site they have submitted has been verified. This would allow a dialogue to take place and also the submitter would know why a site of theirs was declined.
Also, regarding this particular pmobile site, why has the pMobile site been put back into the already acknowledged incorrect location?
From the thread posted by DennisN
Quote:
there is no apparently suitable mobile site at coordinates Lat 54.32679, Long -2.74758, which would seem (Google Earth etc) to be slap in the middle of the yellow cross hatching at the cross roads of Strickland Gate, Highgate, Allhallows Lane and Lowther Street.
So why has it been added back now as a pMobile? Surely we arr going round in circles?
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject:
Falkirk81
Not wishing to add to the confusion but I thought the same.
But where did the location 54.32679, Long -2.74758 come from in the first place. I can find no ref to it other than in DennisN's post?
I thought that the 'debate' that tomo_1340 and others were having was about a slightly ambiguous/incorrect description of the location 54.32342 -2.74241 on Ayams Road (Southbound), (nowhere near the crosshatch junction) as to whether the cam was outside 29/30/churchyard or other various locations.
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject:
I thought the original coordinates were wrong. As far as I read it, the coordinates mentioned by Dennis came from the verifiers list and he explained why that submission had been declined.
So, the correct coordinates with an appropriate comment AND link to this thread have been submitted for re-verifying.
...of course, I may be wrong - but I was trying to keep out of it rather than adding fuel to the fire. _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Joined: Jul 07, 2006 Posts: 1649 Location: Newcastle, England, UK
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject:
GPS_fan wrote:
I thought the original coordinates were wrong. As far as I read it, the coordinates mentioned by Dennis came from the verifiers list and he explained why that submission had been declined.
So, the correct coordinates with an appropriate comment AND link to this thread have been submitted for re-verifying.
...of course, I may be wrong - but I was trying to keep out of it rather than adding fuel to the fire.
The camera location in question has been added back to the location where DennisN said a camera location couldn`t exist, on the junction of 4 roads. Thats what im getting at, the pMobile site isnt where the submitter has said it was seen! _________________ Tomtom GO 1005 LIVE
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject:
Falkirk_81 wrote:
pMobile site isnt where the submitter has said it was seen
That's what I thought
MaFt
I think most of us seem to be, apart from Tomo who seems to know what he means and where the cam is, but has not subsequently given us (this thread) a correction to both Lat/long and revised site description to take away any ambiguity of where he means the camera in question is located. Perhaps that would take us all back to point zero, and we can close this thread on a caring, sharing, all in it for the same reason type aura around us. And at the risk of being seriously flamed, so that anyone else reading it does not assume that a cam submission and subsequent enquiry as to life membership status does not automatically lead to the slanging match that has been present in this thread.
Trev
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
so all the new person has to do is put in some reasonably credible comment with the submission!!
