Using PGPSW Cameras AND TT's HD side by side.......an idea?

Tomo

Guys and Gals.

I have been using PGPSW cams for a while now, and find that they are much much more accurate than TT's, especially where mobile locations are concerned.

But, TT with their HD service have a good idea. That been to update the mobile database on the fly, so if you pass and subsequently report a "live" mobile location it gets reported to all others with x40's.

So, I have all my alerts enabled for PGPSW's as normal but also have enabled TT's "mobile safety camera" file. All others for TT are disabled.

So, if people think that this is a good idea then surely its a way of us all keeping up to date with IN USE locations yet still been warned of other possible locations.

Steve

PaulB2005 · Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:05 pm Post subject:

How accurate is TTs HD Service Mobile Safety Camera thing? Does it work off one report or many? Can users be trusted to tell the difference between a Mobile Camera Van, a builders van and an ANPR van?

Just wondering what the odds are in increased "false alerts"? I know you get a lot of those with the PGPSW Mobile Database (well not "false alerts" but you know what i mean) but if you have higher expectartions with the TT HD Service being "Live" then what happens if it gives lots of "false alerts"?

Andy_P · Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject:

Nice idea in theory Tomo...
But TT have never released any details about how (or if...) this actually works.
How many people need to make a report of a "Live" mobile location?
How long does it take to process the report and send it out on the Live Service?

If it is as accurate as all the incorrect and "stuck" road closures we keep getting, I'm afraid I won't be bothering.

gluey · Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:55 am Post subject:

I don't have a x40 to try this but TT data is from Road Angel.

I would like someone with both an x40 and RA unit to run them side by side to confirm that they use the same data.

Pity TT would not do a deal and just use PGPS data and everyone woud be happy.
Kev

Andy_P · Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:02 am Post subject:

Tomo · Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:14 pm Post subject:

I know that if I save a location to TT HD services and then pass it later in the day then I get a TT specific alert for that location (as well as the PGPSW alert for a "possible" location). This then seems to get deleted after either several hours or at the end of that day.

The only way to see if you need more than one "spotter" is for 2 or more of us to try it out, maybe picking a virtually unused road and then the second (or subsequent) user to set a demo route past that point.

Regarding false alerts, there are locations within the PGPSW database that I consider as "false", namely locations where its impossible to actually locate a mobile or otherwise camera. As time progresses though, these seem to be weeded out.

And, I truly beleive that anyone who has the know how to actually report a location to TT HD services would also have the relevant knowledge to know the difference between a camera trap and a ANPR or TM camera.

Steve

MrT · Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:57 am Post subject:

When I use the TT report a camera function it messes up the POI icons for internal and add on POIs.
_________________
Drivelux

M8TJT · Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:34 am Post subject:

Just a few rhetorical questions. How long does a mobile cam normally stay at one location? How long does it take for someone to spot, and report a mobile cam? How long does it take TT to include this cam in their data? Has it been reported in the correct position? (Perhaps MaFt can give us an insight ingto how accurate positional info is [or isn't] from submitters.)?
In the overall picture of things, I would suspect that the proportion of TT users who have HD is fairly low, and of them, the number of people that spot and report cams accurately is even lower.

I think that I would rather know that there might be a cam at a location, rather than be warned about it either too late or after it had gone!!
HD? No thanks, I'll stick to ours. At least we know how it is compiled and verified.

PaulB2005 · Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:45 am Post subject:

Darren · Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject:

M8TJT · Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:29 pm Post subject:

Tomo · Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:12 am Post subject:

mikealder · Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:35 am Post subject:

Steve, I have tried to update the TT cameras from time to time but have found it impossible to enter anything other than a location - its a joke in terms of the information you can submit and the methods to correct a wrong submission via the Live devices are not worth bothering with.

I accept your point that the TT database for mobiles that are live and could/ should be shared between users as a very good idea, BUT unless the data contains speed related information (which it doesn't) it is of little use.

That said being a moderator you didn't want my comments on the subject to start with - What I will say on the subject of camera databases and warnings is that you are welcome to try the TT offering, then please post your findings on the forum - Mike

Tomo · Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:11 am Post subject:

I suppose all I am trying to do is get mine and other peoples monies worth from both the PGPSW database and TT Live services.

It is such a shame that TT closed down any external software been developed on the newer TT's cos I am sure there would be a solution to allow PGPSW users to update this database on the move.

And I do agree to an extent that TT's way of reporting camera's isnt ideal while moving, although I have done it successfully it wasnt the ideal thing to be doing while driving!

Been honest, having driven about 3000 miles in the last couple of weeks using PGPSW's database with ONLY TT's Mobile cameras (that give LIVE locations only) active, I have not had a single beep from the later even though I have passed 3 or 4 camera vans. So it would seem that not many, if any users are actually reporting them back to TT.

As I say, such a shame we cant update them to your database over the air, so although been a very good database, that would just make it astonishing.

Steve

Darren · Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:22 am Post subject:

Quite apart from the issue of its currency we have a very good reason for being embittered towards TomTom them in this area. Suffice to say not so many years ago TT had no database, and then a very short time later they had full UK coverage.

Now TT will tell you they employed a team of students to drive the length and breadth of the UK capturing cameras. Fair enough but do you really think it possible to do so in a matter of two weeks?

I apologise for the soapbox speech but it is very frustrating when there is little we can do about it. Discovering that they had employed Road Angel after all that had transpired was an even bigger kick in the teeth and so I'm sure you will understand why we have no desire to encourage anyone to use TT's speed camera service at any level and smile with glee when we see how troubled there speedcam service is!

Any hoo, Even were it possible to have LIVE Mobile camera locations, you need a massive amount of users all reporting to be assured that an active mobile camera is reported timely manner. This is a very long way off.

Much better to be forewarned of possible locations IMHO.
_________________
Darren Griffin

	PocketGPS
	Web