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
<colin_smale_at_xs4all_nl_id...@simplelogin.co> 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 <bkil.hu...@gmail.com> 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 <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> 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 <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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
