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
