Talk:Proposed features/WiFi Zone/Hotspot

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Have you considered the warchalking icons? --Preceding unsigned comment by Rw approximately at 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A circle wont mean much to people unfamiliar with war***** :) Would the addition of some curved "waves" make it more obvious? -- Johndrinkwater 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Have you considered the warchalking icons?" -- I think it is a good idea. The icons already exist and the wikipedia page states that the images are ineligible for copyright, with other words it can't be copyrighted so the images are free to use without us needing permission from anywhere. Maybe just not use the "W" for WEP. WEP is outdated. Maybe just use something like "P"(protected) for WEP, WPA and WPA2 + future protection technologies. logictheo 15:59, 23 September 2011 (BST)
The issue is that we need a legal team(costs unnecessary money) to make research which will take unnecessary time, and there is no guarantee that we will be allowed to use the "Wifi" symbol or will need to pay unnecessary money to make use of it. The idea is to get something that works and get the idea out. We can start with a simple drawing. logictheo 15:43, 23 September 2011 (BST)

How to model wifi

This proposal is to show wifi hotspots as an amenity. It occurs to me that they are often (almost always) associated with another amenity or building - often a pub or coffee shop. Should it be modelled as an attribute of that amenity? wifi=free, perhaps?

If it is related to another amenity, should it show who can use the hotspot? Values like wifi=free, wifi=paid, or wifi=customers may make sense in this context.

Could it be easily rendered in this case? - Notmyopinion 12:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with this point. A wifi is rarely an amenity of its own. It is usually offered as part of an existing business, such as a restaurant, hotel, campground, etc. - maxolasersquad 20 Jun 2012

Should we show this at all?

I don't agree to add this kind of information mainly for two reasons :

  • it is very volatile and risks being constantly out of date
  • it is out of scope for openstreetmap. You'll get a much better result with a seperate database for hotspots that contains lat/lon coordinates and specific information for hotspots.--Bartv 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If volatility is to be a measure of features, then I would question having pubs: we have lost at least three in recent months and one open. Bus stops: they seem to come and go like clockwork, we even have one where the local authority invested thousands in siting shelters and rasing the kerb to the right height to ease access only for the bus company to cease using it a month later. Bus routes are no better, they seem to change with each update of the timetable. Post offices: closing down and moving from shop to shop in local towns, and the same can be said for petrol stations, restaurants and cash machines. Even roads can be problematic, as yet not one map that I have used on the internet including, The AA, Google, Multimap etc have a correct mapping of the roads around Baldock due to the opening of our bypass over a year ago (OSM data is correct but it has not filtered down all the zoom levels of the slippy map). I would also question whether hotspot databases do give you a better result, two of the pubs which have closed had hotspots and are still listed as such on numerous databases including ones belonging to to the hotspot providers themselves - It will be interesting to see how long it takes for them to be delisted. One of strengths (and weaknesses) of OSM is that it is maintained by people on the ground and so can be kept up to date almost to the hour -- Batchoy 22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see also my mail on the subject to at [1]. I've rounded out my arguments a bit more there. I actually agree that having post offices, pubs, cash machines, petrol stations, etc in the openstreetmap database is not a good idea either. And you can't seriously defend that hotspot information is somewhat less volatile than road works (even if they do happen frequently)
The strength of openstreetmap (that everyone can contribute) can easily be recreated in a hypothetical openyellowpages project. Even better : while there is a significant learning curve before an interested party can participate in openstreetmap (needs to have a gps, needs to install software, needs to know how it works) contributing to openyellowpages could be as simple as filling out a form on a webpage. That's why I think having this information outside openstreetmap will actually help it more.--Bartv 07:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Batchoy. I think that the presence of amenities like petrol stations, pubs, coffeeshops (and bus routes, post offices, pillar boxes and phone boxes) is a useful addition to the project - and to the maps. The sort of things that users may well find very useful.
Perhaps to take advantage of people with local knowledge, there could be a more simple way to allow visiting users to edit existing amenities (change name of restaurant, change cuisine, add/remove wifi, etc) - or even to allow them to add new ones. It could be separate and distinct from the road/map editing interface, but access the same underlying database. A bit off topic on this page, I know! Must think about how that could be coded...
I suppose as per Bartv, it could be in a separate database - but I think it might work well if we can use the same community and infrastructure. The idea of a web interface is sound though.
- Notmyopinion 12:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Should only be in a separate database if none keeps it up to date. If we keep it up to date, and it is useful (to us) then we should keep it. This may help mappers to add useful info to openstreetmap. It can help tourists who visit the country, may want to map or add this or that. If they don't have easy access to where to go to add to openstreetmap(yes an Internet Connection is needed) then we lose data. logictheo 16:08, 23 September 2011 (BST)


If this should ever be added, than the ESSID (ID name of the network) should be saved with the node. Also, only public nodes should be put up, for instance restaurants that offer WiFi to its customers, city or citadel council supported hotspots, or other that are meant for public usage. Some hotels offer WiFi for hotel guests that pay extra, some sell prepaid cards for WiFi, similar to prepaid phone cards, and some offer completely open zones. The ESSID of the zones are important as they offer the correct identification of the hotspot. Private WiFi zones are not to be put in as they are not a public service. --Skippern 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course we should not add private wifi zones. How will that help people or our community to map while on the road? Map only public hotspots, and mark hotspots which are intended only for their customers. This includes Starbucks and Hotels which want their customers to have access to the internet. I didn't know that hotels have hotspots(aka 'Access Points' 'AP') that are available to all people who get in range, and not solely for their customers. logictheo 16:30, 23 September 2011 (BST)

Import of FON hotspots

I am against the import of FON hotspots. FON is a nice idea, but in fact most of the private FON hotspots are offline all day. I have deleted all FON hotspots in my city, and I oppose all further import activities. If you want that, go to the FON homepage and install the browser plugin that shows OSM maps instead of google maps that was invented by the geocachers. --Lulu-Ann 13:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know your situation but if people add stuff they don't keep up to date it may have to be deleted. This is a general thing. I would hope this page would focus on free access, access points or wifi hotspots or we create a proposal only for "free access, access points or wifi hotspots". Maybe "WiFi Zone/Free Access Hotspot" instead of simply "WiFi Zone/Hotspot" maybe. logictheo 16:46, 23 September 2011 (BST)