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
