Talk:Lidar traffic enforcement

Untitled
What is a "vertically oriented registration plate"? Most registration plates I've seen are horizontal. 2601:8:1D00:7:4DD8:F5F3:E301:7260 (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This page clearly has been copied wholesale from elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.94.16.45 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article needs to be erased and rewritten. It's been either stolen from somewhere or written by a primary source. Free Bullets (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by a member of law enforcement, or by an equipment manufacturer who deals in LiDAR gear... 68.144.222.45 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for rewrite and added refimprove tag. Concerning the latter, I'm confused by the existing tags being marked for a section, so I left the tag saying the section lacks sources as it is. Although it seems unlikely, there is some possibility that it was meant for the intro... --Arny (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

By the poor grammar and writing style the article may have been written by a police officer. I've already made a lot of improvements to it! By the contents, it may have been written by someone trying to prove that it is easy to misuse a Lidar unit in order to produce erroneous readings, possibly to then use this reasoning to contest an existing citation. DaemonischEngel (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If non-standard units are used, they should be at least translated to SI units. I don't know off the head what a "mile" (anything between 1500 and 11000 m?) or a "foot" (anything between 25 and 34 cm?) would be. (Anonymous, 2014-10-15) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.199.135 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten
I have rewritten the article. It is now about one fifth of its peak size. I have only used information that was in the original article, but eliminated repetition and redundancies but kept all the original information and straightened out the garbled language. It is a worthwhile article but needs a lot more work particularly with citations. Foucault (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I should mention that I know nothing about LiDAR or the physical processes on which it is based, I have just accepted the information in the original article and reorganised it into what appears to me to be a logical flow. Foucault (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the original article has made a worthwhile contribution. It originally was a kind of mind dump that seems to me to contain genuine nuggets among all the garbage. Rewriting the article would have been more difficult without the mind dump. Foucault (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The article provides an interesting example of how Wikipedia is intended to work. We should not be too hard on contributors doing a mind dump as long as there are plenty of others who can edit and censor. Foucault (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Being new to Wikipedia I am not sure on the policy regarding measurement units. The US uses the imperial system but the US scientific community uses metric (or SI or some derivation). I would like to remove all the imperial references as they introduce unnecessary clutter. Being new I was reluctant to change the title, but doing so does not appear to have deleterious consequences. I would also like to remove all references to 'gun' and replace them with 'device'. Foucault (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed three tags from the top. Multiple issues - I think I have rewritten so that the article deals with a single issue. Too technical - I know nothing about LiDAR but have rewritten the article. Needs rewrite - I think I have rewritten the article in an acceptable style.

I have left the how-to tag, but I think it could be removed, I have left the factual accuracy tag, I know nothing about LiDAR so I need to do some more work to establish accuracy. I have left the citations tag as the article definitely needs more citations, this is closely allied with the factual accuracy.

Foucault (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I should also mention the article needs links to explain things such as nanosecond, wavelength etc

Foucault (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)