| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tw99
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 28, 2006
Posts: 6
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:35 pm Post subject: Mobile sites on A339 missing ? |
 |
|
There are a couple of commonly used mobile sites on the A339 between Alton and Basingstoke that don't seem to be in the database I downloaded last week. I'm pretty sure they were in an earlier version.
Were these removed intentionally ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PaulB2005
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006
Posts: 9323
Location: Durham, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't checked the database but mobiles will be removed if they are not reported as Seen Again for 12 months.
Everytime you saw them did you report them as Seen Again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tw99
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 28, 2006
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't travel on that road too often, but I do know it's a MAJOR focus for enforcement in N Hampshire (popular biking road), and I have seen mobiles there previously. They've even built hard-standing for the vans.
I guess at some point someone will get caught & re-report the sites. I can't officially re-report them since there was no camera there when I went past... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are three time expired mobiles on this bit of road, two at Southrope (one with a hardstanding on the Western side of the road) and one a bit further south. Obviously not been reported as 'seen again'  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006
Posts: 9323
Location: Durham, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You don't need to be caught to report the camera as seen again just actually see it in use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: | | Obviously not been reported as 'seen again' |
The camera submission page explains the policy on purging mobile camera sites. In order to maintain credibility, we MUST keep the numbers down by purging old unused sites from the database. The present database (until MaFt issues the new one later tonight) contains 4216 active mobile sites and 1019 pending (unconfirmed) ones. If they were never purged, the numbers would only grow until the database was issuing warnings every few hundred yards! I think it's pretty fair to say a site is "old" and/or disused if nobody has reported seeing it in use for over 12 months (six months in the case of pending sites) - after all, how many members have we got? Surely somebody would see them if they were in use? And it's pretty fair to say that just because a site was active at some time in the past, it will always represent a threat - locations and roads change their features.
Edit Sorry, above should read "just because a site was active.... ... it will NOT always represent a threat.."
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!!
Last edited by DennisN on Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tw99
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 28, 2006
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe you could keep a database of the purged sites, so people could choose to use that to avoid the risk of getting caught by a "purged but still active" site, at the cost of a lot of false positives.
I was totally unaware of the purging process until today, so I'll make sure I report active sites I see in future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the chance of a DB of purged sites is worse than my chance of winning the lottery. You already get the pMobiles.
I do believe that all sites are held permanently, so an old one can be resurrected in no time flat. The purge policy and requests for reporting of "Seen Agains" is of quite long standing, so it's a shame you haven't noticed it - it is even mentioned in the new release notifications - here's the first paragraph of the latest one issued less than an hour ago, which is also the top paragraph on the database download page itself. We do rather ruefully sometimes wonder how else to publicise it?  | Quote: | Version 8.094 - 22 Sep 2010
This release sees 43 static and mobile speed cameras added/removed/modified across the various speed camera databases. Please keep submitting all sightings of mobile speed cameras so we can keep our database up to date with active sites. Apparently-inactive sites are regularly removed from the database (note that these do not get included in the total above). |
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006
Posts: 9323
Location: Durham, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also at the top of the submission page is
| Quote: | | Seen a Mobile? Report It! |
Click on it and it shows
| Quote: | Mobile Camera Sightings:
Mobile camera sites are regularly purged to ensure our database is THE most accurate.
To assist us please report ALL active mobile camera sites even if they are already known to us. Please only report them when you actually see a mobile unit present. Select 'Mobile Seen Again' as the Action and make sure you enter the Camera ID! You do not need to add any further information in the Comments field. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tw99 wrote: | | I guess at some point someone will get caught & re-report the sites. I can't officially re-report them since there was no camera there when I went past... |
I think the point that tw99 is making is that as it's a 'well known active site' that is not in our database, it won't be long before someone who uses our database will get 'caught' because the cam sites are not in it.. Now, I don't have a solution to this problem, and think that the system that we have got is possibly as good as a solution as any.
As we all know, it does depend on 'seen agains' and although I don't travel a lot, I have only ever seen abour three or four mobiles in action, one of which, not in our database, caught me 'straying over the limit'. and the nice policeman said that they were there 'regularly' but obviously, none of our members had seen him there before.
And my point is... I don't know |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tw99
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 28, 2006
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've only downloaded the database a few times since becoming a paid up member earlier this year, but I just hadn't registered any of that stuff...
I suppose when I come to this site it's typically been just to download the new DB, usually in a hurry, so I just focus on clicking on what I need to click on to get it & ignore the small print.
Anyway, I know now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: | | I think the point that tw99 is making is that as it's a 'well known active site' that is not in our database, it won't be long before someone who uses our database will get 'caught' because the cam sites are not in it. |
Whereas the point made by all the blurb about purging is that it won't be long before a "well known active site" will be reported "Seen Again" by someone who uses our database, long before it can be purged. 
And the second point is that it can't be "a well known active site" if none of our members know about it (i.e. don't report it). 
That's why we try to make it so obvious that members should report as Seen Again. We have to hope that some other members will read this post and get the same enlightenment as tw99. Just as we hope that tw99 will realise that the database is updated every week, so downloading a few times is not taking full advantage of it.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DennisN wrote: | | Whereas the point made by all the blurb about purging is that it won't be long before a "well known active site" will be reported "Seen Again" by someone who uses our database, long before it can be purged. . |
But how many other registered members do this? {The bold is mine}:- | tw99 wrote: | | I suppose when I come to this site it's typically been just to download the new DB, usually in a hurry, so I just focus on clicking on what I need to click on to get it & ignore the small print. |
| DennisN wrote: | | And the second point is that it can't be "a well known active site" if none of our members know about it (i.e. don't report it). |
But this depends on one of our members driving by just as they are using it then reporting it. | DennisN wrote: | | That's why we try to make it so obvious that members should report as Seen Again. |
But see the tw99 quote above, and those who just download with no thought to making the database more accurate or find it too daunting to do. I know it seems unlikely that it could be made much easier, but if you havn't done it before, it's still a little bit confusing I have just tried to correct a Navtequ map error, and given up as I couldn't understand their procedure/didn't want to register  Don't even know whether you have to register, if so, why?
I wonder if MaFt can give us an idea of how many active reporters that we have.
And as I said in my post above 'And my point is... I don't know ' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14892
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, I surrender. In future any changes should not be announced or publicised except in very small print and in some hidden away corner of the forum where nobody need bother reading it.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| 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
