On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 20:32:12 +0200 Marc_marc <marc_m...@mailo.com> 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
