Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 2:23 PM Timothy Noname  wrote:

> I thinks it's definitely valuable to map areas where there is no coverage
> at all as it's a safety issue
>
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023, 21:30 Brian M. Sperlongano, 
> wrote:
>
>> This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry.
>>
>
The data changes often, and can't be reliably mapped without tools and a
huge crowdsourced effort, updated
constantly.
And even if you did it, it could not be depended on, or
conclusively validated.


OSM is the wrong place. The right place might be:

   - https://www.cellmapper.net/
   - https://www.opensignal.com/
   - https://opencellid.org/
   -
   
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.zamojski.soft.towercollector=en_US=US
   - https://location.services.mozilla.com/

With the caveat that actual coverage depends on weather, luck, and how many
tin foil hat pigeons from the https://birdsarentreal.com/ folks have
surreptitiously staged in the area.

If you want to map something related to poor cell phone coverage,
map the few remaining existing fixed pay phones
.
That in theory might be useful to someone.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Marc_marc]

Le 10.08.23 à 14:22, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit :


On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:28 AM Marc_marc > wrote:


with this argument, you'd have to remove all the shop= office=*
craft=*,


Nonsense.  Everyone knows what a craft=brewery is.  
It's not volatile at  all.


my argument is that shop office craft change more often than areas 
without gsm reception, cfr the example above: the location has gsm 
non-reception characteristics "for life", while the occupant has already 
changed 2x.


perhaps in your country the shops are immutable, here that's not the 
case, and in my eyes that's one of the most volatile pieces of data in 
osm, I check them every year and every year there are changes to be 
made... the areas without reception that I know of have been like that 
for over a decade, there would have been nothing to change in the last 
15 years.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:28 AM Marc_marc  wrote:

> with this argument, you'd have to remove all the shop= office=* craft=*,
>

Nonsense.  Everyone knows what a craft=brewery is.  It's not volatile at
all.  They either make beer or they don't.  Cell reception is ephemeral.


> let's also remove maxspeed


It's literally posted on a sign.


> Meanwhile, Overture will be welcoming data with open arms,
>

Oh no!  Other users of OSM data!  (that's sarcasm, for anyone not a native
speaker of English).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Marc_marc]

Le 07.08.23 à 21:44, Mark Wagner a écrit :
The problem with this proposal is that coverage information 
is really only interesting on the fringes


set let's map on the fringes :)

you could say the same thing about surface=asphalt...
adding this to a motorway in some countries
is not very interesting, it provides information
on the fringes :) outside the main road network.

PS: the dentist's surgery I mentioned in my previous email
is located in a capital city, and the multi-purpose room I'm talking 
about is within sight of a 4G antenna if you leave the building

so it's not the 100 km2 white zone that everyone knows about.
it's spots... and not everyone knew that, at least not me :)

it's also fairly stable information : the dentist's surgery
has been like this for at least 15 years,
the multi-purpose room is probably as old as I am, while the
club's name has already been changed (perhaps club=* should
be deleted, too volatile, and everyone knows it - is that the logic?)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Marc_marc]

Le 10.08.23 à 10:03, Frederik Ramm a écrit :

volatility.


with this argument, you'd have to remove all the shop= office=* craft=*, 
it's much more volatile than the concrete wall surrounding the music 
room I mentioned in the previous email.

let's also remove maxspeed, more volatil than concrete wall

The goal would be better served by a (non-OSM) service that 
automatically collects data from apps that people have installed on 
their phone and that sends measurements to a server while they are 
moving around.


and then ? How do you see the possibility of, for example,
Qwant map informing you that the POI selected is not covered by the GSM 
network while the POI on the floor above is covered?

is it mandatory to add ele to opencellid.org and osm to be able to link
to correct poi to the correct data ? are we also going to delete 
internet_access=* and replace it with openinternetaccess.org ?


Meanwhile, Overture will be welcoming data with open arms,
and we'll be wondering why openstreetmap has become nothing more
than a one-line technical detail in news about geomatics.

I think we're really better off accepting a =no =limited =yes key
for those who see a use for stable situations (obviously it's not
a question of mapping a temporary fact).

Regards,
Marc



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Yves via Tagging]

Exactly, one have to keep in mind you are lucky if stuff get updated in OSM 
more frequently than once every  a few years.
Yves 

Le 8 août 2023 19:11:25 GMT+02:00, Florian Lohoff  a écrit :
>On Sun, Aug 06, 2023 at 07:18:29PM +, NickKatchur via Tagging wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone
>> service at nodes and areas,
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception.
>
>I would consider this data much to volatile to make sense in OSM.
>Cellphone Networks are constantly changing, frequencies, modulation,
>coverage, sector antennas are replaced constantly. So GSM may fade out,
>LTE comes in. Different frequency, different coverage.
>
>Flo
>-- 
>Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08.08.23 14:43, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
The fundamental thing that you're trying to 
map here simply doesn't belong in OSM, the proposal will not pass, and I 
would advise you to stop wasting your time and everyone else's on it.


Agree. Also, what flohoff said about volatility.

The goal would be better served by a (non-OSM) service that 
automatically collects data from apps that people have installed on 
their phone and that sends measurements to a server while they are 
moving around.


I don't see this in OSM.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 06, 2023 at 07:18:29PM +, NickKatchur via Tagging wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone
> service at nodes and areas,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception.

I would consider this data much to volatile to make sense in OSM.
Cellphone Networks are constantly changing, frequencies, modulation,
coverage, sector antennas are replaced constantly. So GSM may fade out,
LTE comes in. Different frequency, different coverage.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

No, this does not fix it.  The fundamental thing that you're trying to map
here simply doesn't belong in OSM, the proposal will not pass, and I would
advise you to stop wasting your time and everyone else's on it.

OpenStreetMap is a database of verifiable facts, not scientific
measurements, and that's an important distinction.

So while we might map the elevation of a mountain, the height of a
building, or the width of a road, those are values that are fixed and
perfectly verifiable by subsequent mappers.

Mapping cell phone service is subject to the whims of the individual
mapper's equipment, the environment, and a whole host of other factors
discussed in this thread.

We also don't map rasterized area measurements, things like elevation or
bathymetric contours, or mean surface temperature or cloud cover. The
database and its data model simply isn't set up for wide-area measurement
data; there are other data sets that do these things.

If tagging were established for such a thing as cell reception, we might
imagine that the next thing that happens is someone releases a smartphone
app that automatically uploads nodes with cell reception data into OSM, and
very quickly the map would become uneditable due to a proliferation of
computer-generated nodes.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:17 PM NickKatchur via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> OP here. While there has been an overwhelming amount of feedback (or
> criticism) for the proposal. I'd like to discuss thoughts and changes to
> the proposal based on this discussion and that on the community forum (
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-cell-phone-reception/102131
> ).
>
> There seems to be a separation between those who largely disagree with any
> mapping of such features within the OSM community and those that find value
> and the possibility of inclusion. The following key highlights of the
> revised proposal hopes to find a middle ground in the realm of realistic to
> map while also providing user benefit.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Marc_marc]

Le 08.08.23 à 02:13, NickKatchur via Tagging a écrit :
# The reduction of additional tagging models to only strength with 
excellent/good/low/issues/none options.


imho it's already include in =no =limited =yes




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Warin]

On 8/8/23 04:32, Marc_marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 06.08.23 à 21:18, NickKatchur via Tagging a écrit :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception 


I'm a bit amused, or rather disappointed, to read comments like
"it's complicated to estimate the number of reception bars because
it depends on the phone". Were these kinds of comments made after 
reading the proposal or simply in reaction to the headline?

the proposal isn't about encoding the number of reception bars.

I don't see what problem there would be in me entering that my 
dentist's surgery has no GSM reception, nothing ever, I don't see what 
lack

of objectivity there would be in encoding this in osm.

I don't see what problem there would be in saying that another POI has 
major reception problems but that it still works, it doesn't matter if 
you have 2 bars and I have 3, it doesn't change the fact that it's

much less than the average you'd expect in this kind of place.
and so the =no and =limited values seem to me to be much more 
objective than some route classifications





Not all phones are created equal.

An Australian cell service provider rates some phones as better for 
country and regional area reception. If you have one of these you are 
more likely to rate a connection 'good' instead of 'limited' and 
'limited' instead of 'no'.


https://www.telstra.com.au/mobile-phones/blue-tick


Of course my phone is 'blue ticked'.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Warin]

On 7/8/23 07:20, Timothy Noname wrote:
I thinks it's definitely valuable to map areas where there is no 
coverage at all as it's a safety issue




For safety sake it is best to assume there will be no cell phone 
coverage. The battery could go flat, the phone could be lost, drowned or 
damaged. If you need a way of making an emergency signal then EPIRB/PRB 
is the way to go.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[NickKatchur via Tagging]

OP here. While there has been an overwhelming amount of feedback (or criticism) 
for the proposal. I'd like to discuss thoughts and changes to the proposal 
based on this discussion and that on the community forum 
(https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-cell-phone-reception/102131).

There seems to be a separation between those who largely disagree with any 
mapping of such features within the OSM community and those that find value and 
the possibility of inclusion. The following key highlights of the revised 
proposal hopes to find a middle ground in the realm of realistic to map while 
also providing user benefit.

- The initial limitation of tag usage within the following recreational POIs 
only: tourism=campsite, highway=trailhead, information=visitor_centre, and 
tourism=camp_pitch.
- The reduction of tag values to only yes, limited, and no.
- The reduction of additional tagging models to only strength with 
excellent/good/low/issues/none options.
- The indication that verification should be done outdoors

I believe this should address some concerns and anxiety members had about the 
ability to properly maintain the tags into the future as well as the 
verifiability of such tags.

--- Original Message ---
On Monday, August 7th, 2023 at 7:06 PM, Colin Smale - colin.smale(a)xs4all.nl 
 wrote:

> This email failed anti-phishing checks when it was received by SimpleLogin, 
> be careful with its content. More info on [anti-phishing 
> measure](https://simplelogin.io/docs/getting-started/anti-phishing/)
>
> Also true but no need for the "quotes". Mountain rescue teams don't just need 
> to call 112/999. And although you can often make an emergency call without a 
> SIM (I believe this does not actually work in the UK) nobody can call you 
> unless you are registered and authorised on a network.
>
> On 7 August 2023 20:24:30 BST, bkil  wrote:
>
>> Just a note about your "fact": your phone can roam to any available
>>
>> network when you are dialing the emergency number. You can even dial
>>
>> it without a SIM inserted in most countries. Hence why it displays the
>>
>> text "emergency calls only" in such cases. Circuits towards the
>>
>> emergency number are also much higher prioritized, so when the line
>>
>> seems busy otherwise or produces unusable quality and drop-outs,
>>
>> emergency calls will still be more usable (with sufficient coverage of
>>
>> course).
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 9:03 PM Colin Smale  wrote:
>>
>>> Two users on the same network standing next to each other can get different 
>>> results. They may be connected to different base stations. CDMA is a whole 
>>> other can of worms.
>>>
>>> There are so many variables, it's impossible to give detailed data for 
>>> "cell phone reception at location X". But the original intention of the 
>>> proposal was limited to campsites and a couple of other specific categories 
>>> of place, which are often out in the sticks with no coverage. and I can see 
>>> why it might be useful to have some kind of indication whether you can 
>>> expect any kind of usable coverage at these locations. This would need to 
>>> be specific about network, service provider (MVNO) and frequency band at 
>>> least to be useful.
>>>
>>> Some networks allow voice-over-wifi. This might be a useful thing to record 
>>> - if the location operator provides wifi, you may be able to use "WiFi 
>>> Calling" even if the cellular coverage is dodgy.
>>>
>>> Interesting fact: Mountain rescue organisations often use SIMs from a 
>>> different country, which are free to roam onto any network with a tiny bit 
>>> of signal. If you are in your home state you will probably be locked to a 
>>> specific network.
>>>
>>> On 07/08/2023 01:55 BST Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll  wrote:
>>>
>>> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to 
>>> mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map 
>>> generally useful geographically verifiable things.
>>>
>>> I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site 
>>> (e.g. campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try 
>>> to make a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, 
>>> it is only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, 
>>> there could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map 
>>> roads, and they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, 
>>> landslides, construction, etc.  In some way, this is getting back to our 
>>> roots, actually getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on 
>>> satellite/aerial imagery.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Tagging 

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Colin Smale]

Also true but no need for the "quotes". Mountain rescue teams don't just need 
to call 112/999. And although you can often make an emergency call without a 
SIM (I believe this does not actually work in the UK) nobody can call you 
unless you are registered and authorised on a network.


On 7 August 2023 20:24:30 BST, bkil  wrote:
>Just a note about your "fact": your phone can roam to any available
>network when you are dialing the emergency number. You can even dial
>it without a SIM inserted in most countries. Hence why it displays the
>text "emergency calls only" in such cases. Circuits towards the
>emergency number are also much higher prioritized, so when the line
>seems busy otherwise or produces unusable quality and drop-outs,
>emergency calls will still be more usable (with sufficient coverage of
>course).
>
>On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 9:03 PM Colin Smale  wrote:
>>
>> Two users on the same network standing next to each other can get different 
>> results. They may be connected to different base stations. CDMA is a whole 
>> other can of worms.
>>
>> There are so many variables, it's impossible to give detailed data for "cell 
>> phone reception at location X". But the original intention of the proposal 
>> was limited to campsites and a couple of other specific categories of place, 
>> which are often out in the sticks with no coverage. and I can see why it 
>> might be useful to have some kind of indication whether you can expect any 
>> kind of usable coverage at these locations. This would need to be specific 
>> about network, service provider (MVNO) and frequency band at least to be 
>> useful.
>>
>> Some networks allow voice-over-wifi. This might be a useful thing to record 
>> - if the location operator provides wifi, you may be able to use "WiFi 
>> Calling" even if the cellular coverage is dodgy.
>>
>> Interesting fact: Mountain rescue organisations often use SIMs from a 
>> different country, which are free to roam onto any network with a tiny bit 
>> of signal. If you are in your home state you will probably be locked to a 
>> specific network.
>>
>> On 07/08/2023 01:55 BST Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to 
>> mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map 
>> generally useful geographically verifiable things.
>>
>> I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site (e.g. 
>> campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try to 
>> make a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, it 
>> is only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, 
>> there could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map 
>> roads, and they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, 
>> landslides, construction, etc.  In some way, this is getting back to our 
>> roots, actually getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on 
>> satellite/aerial imagery.
>>
>> Mike
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 8/6/23 14:18, NickKatchur via Tagging wrote:

Hello,


I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone 
service at nodes and areas, 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception 
.


This is going to vary widely by service provider and weather conditions, 
among many other things. The given state of cell phone service at any 
one location is way too ephemeral to be a good candidate for 
OpenStreetMap tagging, as towers can be out of service for a number of 
reasons.


--
Shawn K. Quinn 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 20:32:12 +0200
Marc_marc  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Le 06.08.23 à 21:18, NickKatchur via Tagging a écrit :
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception   
> 
> I'm a bit amused, or rather disappointed, to read comments like
> "it's complicated to estimate the number of reception bars because
> it depends on the phone". Were these kinds of comments made after 
> reading the proposal or simply in reaction to the headline?
> the proposal isn't about encoding the number of reception bars.
> 
> I don't see what problem there would be in me entering that my
> dentist's surgery has no GSM reception, nothing ever, I don't see
> what lack of objectivity there would be in encoding this in osm.
> 
> I don't see what problem there would be in saying that another POI
> has major reception problems but that it still works, it doesn't
> matter if you have 2 bars and I have 3, it doesn't change the fact
> that it's much less than the average you'd expect in this kind of
> place. and so the =no and =limited values seem to me to be much more
> objective than some route classifications

The problem with this proposal is that coverage information is really
only interesting on the fringes -- putting "cell_reception=yes" on
Heathrow Airport or "cell_reception=no" on a wilderness campground in
the middle of the Idaho Rockies doesn't really tell people something
they don't already know.

And it's the fringes that are the hardest to accurately survey.  For
example, Mammoth Campground in Yellowstone National Park is rated at
"major issues" on Recreation.gov, but I suspect this is an average of
some people getting sites with a line of sight to the cell tower
(rating: excellent) and most people getting sites in the shadow of a
ridge (rating: no service).

-- 
Mark


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[bkil]

Just a note about your "fact": your phone can roam to any available
network when you are dialing the emergency number. You can even dial
it without a SIM inserted in most countries. Hence why it displays the
text "emergency calls only" in such cases. Circuits towards the
emergency number are also much higher prioritized, so when the line
seems busy otherwise or produces unusable quality and drop-outs,
emergency calls will still be more usable (with sufficient coverage of
course).

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 9:03 PM Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> Two users on the same network standing next to each other can get different 
> results. They may be connected to different base stations. CDMA is a whole 
> other can of worms.
>
> There are so many variables, it's impossible to give detailed data for "cell 
> phone reception at location X". But the original intention of the proposal 
> was limited to campsites and a couple of other specific categories of place, 
> which are often out in the sticks with no coverage. and I can see why it 
> might be useful to have some kind of indication whether you can expect any 
> kind of usable coverage at these locations. This would need to be specific 
> about network, service provider (MVNO) and frequency band at least to be 
> useful.
>
> Some networks allow voice-over-wifi. This might be a useful thing to record - 
> if the location operator provides wifi, you may be able to use "WiFi Calling" 
> even if the cellular coverage is dodgy.
>
> Interesting fact: Mountain rescue organisations often use SIMs from a 
> different country, which are free to roam onto any network with a tiny bit of 
> signal. If you are in your home state you will probably be locked to a 
> specific network.
>
> On 07/08/2023 01:55 BST Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll  wrote:
>
>
>
> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to 
> mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map generally 
> useful geographically verifiable things.
>
> I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site (e.g. 
> campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try to make 
> a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, it is 
> only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, there 
> could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map roads, and 
> they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, landslides, 
> construction, etc.  In some way, this is getting back to our roots, actually 
> getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on satellite/aerial 
> imagery.
>
> Mike
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Colin Smale]

Two users on the same network standing next to each other can get different 
results. They may be connected to different base stations. CDMA is a whole 
other can of worms.
 
There are so many variables, it's impossible to give detailed data for "cell 
phone reception at location X". But the original intention of the proposal was 
limited to campsites and a couple of other specific categories of place, which 
are often out in the sticks with no coverage. and I can see why it might be 
useful to have some kind of indication whether you can expect any kind of 
usable coverage at these locations. This would need to be specific about 
network, service provider (MVNO) and frequency band at least to be useful.
 
Some networks allow voice-over-wifi. This might be a useful thing to record - 
if the location operator provides wifi, you may be able to use "WiFi Calling" 
even if the cellular coverage is dodgy.
 
Interesting fact: Mountain rescue organisations often use SIMs from a different 
country, which are free to roam onto any network with a tiny bit of signal. If 
you are in your home state you will probably be locked to a specific network.

> On 07/08/2023 01:55 BST Mike Thompson  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
> 
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll  mailto:m...@evancarroll.com> wrote:
> 
> >  
> >  
> > While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to 
> > mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map 
> > generally useful geographically verifiable things.
> > 
> I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site (e.g. 
> campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try to make 
> a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, it is 
> only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, there 
> could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map roads, and 
> they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, landslides, 
> construction, etc.  In some way, this is getting back to our roots, actually 
> getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on satellite/aerial 
> imagery.
>  
> Mike
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Marc_marc]

Hello,

Le 06.08.23 à 21:18, NickKatchur via Tagging a écrit :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception 


I'm a bit amused, or rather disappointed, to read comments like
"it's complicated to estimate the number of reception bars because
it depends on the phone". Were these kinds of comments made after 
reading the proposal or simply in reaction to the headline?

the proposal isn't about encoding the number of reception bars.

I don't see what problem there would be in me entering that my dentist's 
surgery has no GSM reception, nothing ever, I don't see what lack

of objectivity there would be in encoding this in osm.

I don't see what problem there would be in saying that another POI has 
major reception problems but that it still works, it doesn't matter if 
you have 2 bars and I have 3, it doesn't change the fact that it's

much less than the average you'd expect in this kind of place.
and so the =no and =limited values seem to me to be much more objective 
than some route classifications


Regards,
Marc



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Greg Troxel]

Also, from a practical point of view, data points about cell service are
not going to have any relationship to other items in the osm database.
And, they are likely going to be semi-automatically collected, and
people probably want contour lines that are generated from points, not
the points.  There will be conflicting data, and need some averaging.
The OSM data model of a single value at a location just doesn't fit how
one would deal with this data.

Once there is a database with upload and extraction for this data -- and
it seems like there is -- it does almost no good to to anyone to merge
it into OSM, and certainly not enough good to overcome the trouble it
causes.

I note that OSM does not have elevation contour lines.   I am not
advocating adding them, but that information is far easier to deal with,
more clearly defined/measurable, and more useful to many, than cell
service data.

Thus, I see ading cell service information to OSM as basically out of
the question.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

I completely second comments about how variable mobile coverage is and will
be actually hard to map on OSM.
It's up to operators and regulatory authorities to make hypothesizes to
publish maps which will depict only one precise situation.
Such maps will only be simulations with many parameters.

The proposal doesn't deal with terminal environment to define the coverage
by the way.
It is actually crucial to know if you're outside, inside next to a window
or in your basement.

Le lun. 7 août 2023 à 13:50, Timothy Noname  a écrit :

> Incidentally, There are tags in OSM for measuring traffic on roads.
>

We could also had defined tags for air temperature that wouldn't make an
easier mapping in OSM.
There is a difference between knowing the semantics and being able to
collect and ensure of consistency of the information.
Road traffic is part of that problem.

Best regards

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Timothy Noname]

I think locals will know when a village has no mobile phone coverage at all
and I think it's suitable to be mapped as long as it's made sufficiently
clear that it's not the sort of thing you map whilst just passing through.

Incidentally, There are tags in OSM for measuring traffic on roads.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023, 09:12 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Aug 7, 2023, 02:58 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll  wrote:
>
>
>
> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to
> mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map
> generally useful geographically verifiable things.
>
> I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site
> (e.g. campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try
> to make a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes,
> it is only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes,
> there could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map
> roads, and they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding,
> landslides, construction, etc.  In some way, this is getting back to our
> roots, actually getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on
> satellite/aerial imagery.
>
> Mapping congestion of roads is also out of scope for OSM.
>
> And cell phone reception varies wildly based on weather, time of year,
> operational
> internals of operator, load on operator...
>
> What seems potentially mappable is a place where people go (in area of
> poor or missing
> coverage) to use phones as connection is better or existing at all there.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 7, 2023, 02:58 by miketh...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll <> m...@evancarroll.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to 
>> mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map 
>> generally useful geographically verifiable things.
>>
> I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site (e.g. 
> campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try to make 
> a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, it is 
> only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, there 
> could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map roads, and 
> they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, landslides, 
> construction, etc.  In some way, this is getting back to our roots, actually 
> getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on satellite/aerial 
> imagery.
>
Mapping congestion of roads is also out of scope for OSM.

And cell phone reception varies wildly based on weather, time of year, 
operational
internals of operator, load on operator...

What seems potentially mappable is a place where people go (in area of poor or 
missing
coverage) to use phones as connection is better or existing at all there.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Phake Nick]

There's already services offered by companies like Opensignal to do this
automatically through apps. And they record actual signal strength data
that one cannot access by simply pulling their phones out.
Also, signal strength as a value that vary continuously over space is like
elevation or climate data, there are no good way to record them inside OSM
over an area.

在 2023年8月7日週一 08:58，Mike Thompson  寫道：

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't
>> to mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map
>> generally useful geographically verifiable things.
>>
> I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site
> (e.g. campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try
> to make a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes,
> it is only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes,
> there could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map
> roads, and they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding,
> landslides, construction, etc.  In some way, this is getting back to our
> roots, actually getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on
> satellite/aerial imagery.
>
> Mike
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Tod Fitch]

The reception you get depends on your phone: Android and iPhone use different 
algorithms to determine bars from signal strength. Phones vary on which bands 
they support, antennas, RF processing, etc., depending on manufacturer and age. 
So cell phones are not very good for detecting how good a signal is in the 
general case.

There are test devices specifically designed for determining mobile signal 
strength, direction of strongest signal, etc. for each possible band. People 
installing cellphone booster systems use these and while not super expensive 
they are not something I would expect a OSM mapper to buy.

> On Sunday, Aug 06, 2023 at 5:59 PM, Mike Thompson  (mailto:miketh...@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll  (mailto:m...@evancarroll.com)> wrote:
> >
> >
> > While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to 
> > mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map 
> > generally useful geographically verifiable things.
> I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site (e.g. 
> campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try to make 
> a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, it is 
> only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, there 
> could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map roads, and 
> they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, landslides, 
> construction, etc. In some way, this is getting back to our roots, actually 
> getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on satellite/aerial 
> imagery.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll  wrote:

>
>
> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to
> mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map
> generally useful geographically verifiable things.
>
I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site
(e.g. campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try
to make a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes,
it is only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes,
there could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map
roads, and they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding,
landslides, construction, etc.  In some way, this is getting back to our
roots, actually getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on
satellite/aerial imagery.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Evan Carroll]

On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 4:22 PM Timothy Noname  wrote:

> I thinks it's definitely valuable to map areas where there is no coverage
> at all as it's a safety issue
>

While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to
mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map
generally useful geographically verifiable things.

--
Evan Carroll - m...@evancarroll.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Just commented on the Forum, but I'll repeat it here.

There are too many things to take into account that may affect your
coverage - different networks, different phones on the same network, how
crowded any spot is at the time = how much demand, whether there may be a
good spot up that hill etc

Sorry, no, not an OSM thing as just too many unknown (& unknowable)
variables.
Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 06:40, NickKatchur via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Care to give any reasoning?
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Sunday, August 6th, 2023 at 4:24 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano -
> zelonewolf(a)gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry.
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023, 3:21 PM NickKatchur via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone
>> service at nodes and areas,
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception.
>>
>> There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known.
>> Please add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the
>> community forum page
>> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131
>> .
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[stevea]

On Aug 6, 2023, at 1:35 PM, NickKatchur via Tagging  
wrote:
> Care to give any reasoning?

The carriers (at least in North America; Verizon, AT, T-Mobile...) already 
publish these data.  They are blocky, shitty, maybe slightly hazy or helpful,  
but OSM doesn't chase what "they" say (already).  Look elsewhere (not OSM) for 
these.  Whether a campground has WiFi?  Yeah, boolean yes or no "at the 
campground" works for me (and I think we've been doing it like that for a 
decade or more?)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Timothy Noname]

I thinks it's definitely valuable to map areas where there is no coverage
at all as it's a safety issue

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023, 21:30 Brian M. Sperlongano, 
wrote:

> This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry.
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023, 3:21 PM NickKatchur via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone
>> service at nodes and areas,
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception.
>>
>> There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known.
>> Please add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the
>> community forum page
>> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131
>> .
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[NickKatchur via Tagging]

Care to give any reasoning?

--- Original Message ---
On Sunday, August 6th, 2023 at 4:24 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano - 
zelonewolf(a)gmail.com  wrote:

> This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry.
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023, 3:21 PM NickKatchur via Tagging 
>  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone 
>> service at nodes and areas, 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception.
>>
>> There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known. Please 
>> add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the community 
>> forum page 
>> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry.

On Sun, Aug 6, 2023, 3:21 PM NickKatchur via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone
> service at nodes and areas,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception.
>
> There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known.
> Please add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the
> community forum page
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131
> .
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

[NickKatchur via Tagging]

Hello,

I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone service 
at nodes and areas, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception.

There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known. Please add 
any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the community forum page 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging