Sprint online coverage tool RF signal strength updated

[Rickie546]

As of the update 3/1/2013 the signal strength for most areas seems to have been re ran and updated. seems to be a little more on the low end overall.

[WiWavelength]

Rickie, please elaborate. What are you talking about?

 

AJ

[digiblur]

Think he is talking about the Sprint maps. I noticed a few changes in my area. More are realistic now showing the roaming areas in the city.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

[MacinJosh]

Wow, it's now accurate for where I am in Visalia. It shows 'Fair' signal now. Before it used to show 'Good', but it isn't that way. I wonder if they are using new calculations to account for new interferences.

[digiblur]

Did some more looking around... Baton Rouge.

 

Have to give them kudos for these type maps. You can truly see your real coverage anywhere here. I was in an area last night right next to the interstate in the city limits roaming like a big dog. Sure enough the map reflects it perfectly. I see they also fixed the coverage map at my house.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

[lynyrd65]

Its odd for me. One particular area where I know there is a sprint site shows fair signal all around it and some areas show roaming where I have a strong signal.

[Moropo]

Well I have looked at areas that I have knowledge of Sprint's signal and I have found it is a lot more accurate now. In my house i have a pretty good signal but just a couple blocks over the signal sucks. This is now correctly depicted in the map where the area around my house has dark green but a couple blocks down it has the faint light green. Before it used to say that this area had good signal, which is definitely not the case! So even though it makes them (Sprint) look a little worse, I welcome and applaud the fact they are displaying the reality and not inflating their coverage strength.

 

Also, it looks weird, you have all this surrounding area of dark green and then there's like a circle of light green (fair signal) and then at the center there's this roaming spot. Looks like they need to add a tower to that area. Moreover, this area is full of the $1-2 million dollar mansions in Pinecrest so my guess is those people are NIMBYs and do not welcome a tower.

[SpenceSouth]

In some areas it looks more accurate. I can still find at least one area that shows best coverage when there isn't any though. Overall, it looks like an improvement on Sprint's part.

 

Certainly applaud the attempt for a more detailed coverage map.

[JeffDTD]

Wondering if there is a specific cause or logic to the more accurate coverage reporting. Cant help but think it has everything to do with sprint finally having money and needing to justify endeavors.

[digiblur]

Wondering if there is a specific cause or logic to the more accurate coverage reporting. Cant help but think it has everything to do with sprint finally having money and needing to justify endeavors.

 

Al Gore wants his 640x480 resolution styling back though.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

[JeffDTD]

Al Gore wants his 640x480 resolution styling back though.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

Wasn't it you who created a tool to view in a better res?

[bill875]

I knew the I-40 corridor between Statesville, NC and Hickory had some seriously bad spots and now the maps prove it. This really isn't acceptable on an Interstate traveled so heavily by commercial and commuter traffic. I hope JeffDTD has the right idea. This really proves the deficiencies in Sprint's existing network. With the terrain around here, I don't think 800SMR will fill in the native coverage gaps as much as I was hoping.

[Rickie546]

Rickie, please elaborate. What are you talking about?

 

AJ

 

Sorry went off to church and lunch and left phone at home..they all saying what I saw

[larryt510]

RF signal strength tool? You mean the Sprint maps at?: http://coverage.sprint.com/IMPACT.jsp

 

If so I don't see any changes at all to them.

[Bob Newhart]

They removed tons of coverage in my area too.

 

They need to use another colour besides green for the roaming coverage, when all 4 shades of green aren't visible at the same time, its hard to figure which is which.

[fcp_dp]

I checked out the map as well. Looks accurate for many places I frequent, however, there are several locations that show roaming only coverage while I know for a fact that there is good signal there. And you are right, the greens are too similar.

[Moropo]

If you view the map zoomed out you cannot distinguish the colors and pretty much everywhere seems dark green. However once you zoom in to a street level the color differences are very noticeable.

 

I been checking it quite a lot comparing it to all the places I regularly visit and going off my memory of where I have a good sprint signal and where I don't, and the new map turns out to be incredibly accurate! And by accurate I mean that right now it depicts the areas with weak signal as such, whereas before pretty much everything had good signal (according to them, which we can agree was not the case at all)

[Moropo]

 

Thats what I was talking about earlier. Incredible that there would be such a weak signal throughout this area AND with a roaming spot in the center!

 

What is Sprint's position on this pockets of basically no signal? What metrics do they use to determine which of this signal black holes deserves to obtain a nearby new tower?

 

Anyone familiar with the Pinecrest area in Miami can recognize this is a VERY residential area, not some rural area where some roaming spots are expected.

[digiblur]

 

Thats what I was talking about earlier. Incredible that there would be such a weak signal throughout this area AND with a roaming spot in the center!

 

What is Sprint's position on this pockets of basically no signal? What metrics do they use to determine which of this signal black holes deserves to obtain a nearby new tower?

 

Anyone familiar with the Pinecrest area in Miami can recognize this is a VERY residential area, not some rural area where some roaming spots are expected.

 

See that all the time.. Put in 70809 and zoom in to the different color layer and scroll around town.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

[koiulpoi]

Wasn't it you who created a tool to view in a better res?

Oh yes, I remember seeing something like this. Would be interested in finding it again.

 

What I would love would be for Sprint to update their coverage maps to use something like the Google Maps API, or something similar. The tiny window that you can't zoom out without losing all your fidelity just isn't acceptable.

[digiblur]

I tried changing the resolution in the address of the graphic again and it seems the "fixed" that hole.

[JeffDTD]

I feel like we are beating a dead horse here, but there are areas at least in MS where the sprint coverage maps and repeated experiences do not match. On the MS Gulf Coast, you can drive on interstate 10 from one end of the state to the other and only roam maybe 5 minutes of the time... same for highway 90... but the maps would tell you to expect to roam a majority of the time. Ive actually successfully held a call from gulfport to pascagoula without a drop. I appreciate the accuracy of the maps, but that area has always confused me

[koiulpoi]

I tried changing the resolution in the address of the graphic again and it seems the "fixed" that hole.

Looks like the size can be changed to a maximum of 800x600, maximum scale of 6.0 in order to still see the difference between "best", "good", and "fair". Above 6.0 it only shows roaming or not.

 

Here's the illustrious city of Lowell, Michigan.

http://coverage.spri...FFTFFFFFFFTTFFF

 

Tried to embed it as an image, but got the message "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community." That's new.

[digiblur]

Looks like the size can be changed to a maximum of 800x600, maximum scale of 6.0 in order to still see the difference between "best", "good", and "fair". Above 6.0 it only shows roaming or not.

 

Here's the illustrious city of Lowell, Michigan.

http://coverage.spri...FFTFFFFFFFTTFFF

 

Tried to embed it as an image, but got the message "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community." That's new.

 

I prefer it with the grey for the roaming.

 

http://coverage.sprint.com/action/WebImageStream2?covType=sprint&serviceType=voice&mapcenterx=-91.13914489746094&mapcentery=30.40298080444336&geocenterx=-91.0516&geocentery=30.5422&endlinex=&endliney=&scale=5.9&width=800&height=600&showPinpoint=T&signalStrength=T&antiAlias=T&layers=TFFTFTTTTTTFFTFFFFFFFTTFFFF

[WiWavelength]

Tried to embed it as an image, but got the message "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community." That's new.

 

I have had it happen many times. If the URL does not end in a standard image extension, then IP.Board will not embed it. So, I usually just grab the image to local disk, then upload to a free image host.

 

AJ