| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15145
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kremmen wrote: | A bit cumbersome but I have an option to remove 'duplicate' cameras. I did it to remove the ones on motorways where they are on the same gantries but opposite carriageways:
Unfortunately the HTML checker won't let me post the code  |
but how can it differentiate between a single camera that is 'duplicated' and a site where there are actually 2 cameras either side?
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14893
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with MaFt's comment, same gantry but opposite carriageways is NOT duplication. Also what about sites like this?
_________________
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: Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not having either a TT or a Garmin, I can't understand the problem that Kremmen has with the 'dummy' duplicate cameras. Do they give a double alert or what? Surely if they are both in more or less the same place, this won't cause a problem?
Why does Kremmen find it an advantage to remove one of the 'duplicates'? Presumably removing one of the real cams as per the aforementioned two real cam examples, would also cause him no problem with his device not alerting.
In Dennis' linked example of two cams and one of them were removed, surely a non directional device would warn of the one remaining in the database regardless of his direction of travel, and a directional device (i.e. iGO) would warn in either direction so long as the one cam left at the location is logged as reversible.
Obviously in Dennis' examples of where there ARE two cams or the Gantry, there must be two cams shown, othewise we would get complaints about real cams not being in the database. We seem to have enough problems with known dummys not being in the database let alone real cams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
willmow
Regular Visitor
![]()
Joined: Mar 14, 2010
Posts: 167
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One of the confusions is that some reversible cameras are marked as such in the interactive map, yet others in a similar situation are marked as two separate cameras (I'd upload two photos but I don't know how! - can someone elucidate...?). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldboy
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Dec 08, 2004
Posts: 10642
Location: Suffolk, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Have a look at This Guide.
Written better than I could do. 
_________________
Richard
TT 910 V7.903: Europe Map v1045
TT Via 135 App 12.075: Europe Map v1120 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
willmow
Regular Visitor
![]()
Joined: Mar 14, 2010
Posts: 167
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kremmen
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Posts: 7047
Location: Reading
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MaFt wrote: | | Kremmen wrote: | A bit cumbersome but I have an option to remove 'duplicate' cameras. I did it to remove the ones on motorways where they are on the same gantries but opposite carriageways:
Unfortunately the HTML checker won't let me post the code |
but how can it differentiate between a single camera that is 'duplicated' and a site where there are actually 2 cameras either side?
MaFt |
All I'm doing is assuming that any 2 cameras that are within 0.001 of a mile of each other are duplicates.
By this method I'm eliminating the scenario posted here plus the motorway cameras on the same gantry.
I can supply a complete list of all the cameras I'm omitting via this method if it will help.
_________________
Satnav:
Garmin 2599 LMT-D (Indoor test rig)
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3
Car Average MPG :
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But why are you doing this? What problems does it eliminate? What problems do motorway gantry cams pose?
I am only asking as I don't understand what the problem is.
Luckily, whatever the problem is, it does not affect me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| willmow wrote: | | One of the confusions is that some reversible cameras are marked as such in the interactive map, yet others in a similar situation are marked as two separate cameras |
It was only after it was found out that reversible cams gave the problem on dual carriageways that the idea of putting in the duplicate came about. The one that does not have the duplicate may have been put in the database before this time, or the need for a duplicate could just have been overlooked.
Camera numbers might be a helpful.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: | | Not having either a TT or a Garmin, I can't understand the problem that Kremmen has with the 'dummy' duplicate cameras. Do they give a double alert or what? |
Yes they do...
On my TomToms, they try to be helpful by not playing two alert warnings on top of each other, so they play one after the other.
That means I get an alert as I approach the camera as normal, but then, just as I go past it, I'll get another one for the second entry.
I can easily live with it, but it would be nice if it didn't happen.
--------------------------------
| willmow wrote: |
One of the confusions is that some reversible cameras are marked as such in the interactive map, yet others in a similar situation are marked as two separate cameras. |
That will be down to simple human error. Under current rules, I think those two examples should both be shown with TWO icons, one on each carriageway. MaFt?
---------------------------
| Kremmen wrote: |
All I'm doing is assuming that any 2 cameras that are within 0.001 of a mile of each other are duplicates.
By this method I'm eliminating the scenario posted here plus the motorway cameras on the same gantry. |
BAD Assumption!!!
1. There are loads of examples where two real cameras are within a few feet of each other - Do you really want to lose warnings for those?
2. GATSO:414 on the A416 in N.London is one example where the location of a single camera on a slip road covers both the slip road and the main carriageway .
But if you only mark the actual location of the camera, you do NOT get a warning for it if you are driving north on the main road. So we put an additional icon (GATSO:65105) in that position. Do you want to lose that warning too?
3. I still can't understand why you would ever want to delete the entries for real, individual cameras covering the two sides of a motorway where those cameras happen to be on the same gantry.
Any systems which CAN do directional warnings would need both entries,
.....Most that can't would still work best with them showing,
.....and without them hundreds of people would start re-reporting the "missing" cameras.
Seems a bad idea all round to me!
_________________
"Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for that explanation Andy. I wonder which device Kremmen has? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14893
Location: Keynsham
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Previous posts indicate Garmin.
_________________
Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15145
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's Garmin. He wrote some software similar to Ash10's and CBROM's that customises the database warnings for use with POI Loader. The 'remove duplicates' is an option in that for users to decide whether they want to or not.
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kremmen
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Posts: 7047
Location: Reading
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: | But why are you doing this? What problems does it eliminate? What problems do motorway gantry cams pose?
I am only asking as I don't understand what the problem is.
Luckily, whatever the problem is, it does not affect me |
I travel the M25 western section daily and originally I was finding that for some reason my Garmin 2200 was producing 4 consecutive warnings for each variable speed camera when they were adjacent. The way the Garmin seems to work is that they 'stack up' the warnings so I was getting 4 back-to-back warnings taking up probably 20 - 30 seconds.
I made 2 changes to my CSV to GPX converter:
1) Change the variable limit within the GPX from zero to 70.
2) Remove these very close cameras.
I now only get a single approach warning, in each direction, for these adjacent cameras.
_________________
Satnav:
Garmin 2599 LMT-D (Indoor test rig)
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3
Car Average MPG :
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kremmen wrote: | | I was getting 4 back-to-back warnings taking up probably 20 - 30 seconds. |
Ah, now I realy understand the problem. That would seriously P me off as well, and I would probably do the same as you.
| Kremmen wrote: | | 1) Change the variable limit within the GPX from zero to 70. |
I suppose, if left at zero MPH, these would give you a double warning regardless of speed. And after all, there are some large speed limit signs reminding you of the reuced speed limit just before the cam 
| Andy_P wrote: | 2. GATSO:414 on the A416 in N.London is one example where the location of a single camera on a slip road covers both the slip road and the main carriageway .
But if you only mark the actual location of the camera, you do NOT get a warning for it if you are driving north on the main road. So we put an additional icon (GATSO:65105) in that position. Do you want to lose that warning too? |
Is this how some TTs work? My guess, based on what Kremmen has said, is that they would give double alert on his Garmin regardless of being on the main or slip road?
If this and my previous assumptions, based on Kremmen's description of the problem are correct, I'm surprised that more Garmin users have not complained about this 'feature' of our DB on Garmins. |
|
| 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
