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] Tagging Digest, Vol 167, Issue 3 emergency vertical stairways.

[St Niklaas]

Hi Anne,

Have a look here,
Not a link but an adress 'Nieuwe Kade 41 Arnhem'
The shoreline is made out of corrigated metal sheets, with every now and then a 
stairway build in.

Greetz

___
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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 mai