[EricH]

Originally Posted by christheman200

However, if implemented it should be consistent from event to event, in other words fool proof.

I think something got lost in translation.

For one thing, "fool proof" doesn't exist. There's "fool resistant", but nothing is EVER fool proof. Anybody who thinks something is fool proof severely underestimates the ingenuity of the common fool (and the uncommon fool on top of that).

And for another, "fool proof" means that it's hard to mess up. Consistent from event to event means that it's the same in multiple places (within a certain degree of tolerance). Now, something that's consistent is likely to be MORE difficult to mess up the setup on, but they aren't the same thing. Example: If you want to be consistent, you use the same type of connector on all your wiring. If you want to be foolproof, you make sure that any given connector side can only go into it's matching one, and not into any others!


I think that for the initial rounds of testing (AKA, offseason events), variation--intentional variation--is good. This is called "exploring the alternatives". For example, will any old video work? That's one possible way to cut the costs down. Or camera variety A vs. camera variety B. Various locations can be checked (food for thought, if you've got a driver-cam, you probably can't tell if you actually got a Crossing on it unless it's a pole-mounted one).

After those initial rounds, everybody compares notes (publishes) and then the "standardization" work can begin. Run a couple rounds of checks on what's been shown to work decently, compare notes, repeat until you have a process.