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
