When, oh when, will Sprint update/improve their coverage maps?

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <[email protected]>, SprintPCS Tech
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Hmm, maybe I can pass something up for people to be able to get
> larger maps, possibly a downloadable JPG?

This is a bit of a pie-in-the-sky request, but I may as well say it:
how about a downloadable *GIF* image instead of a JPEG? JPEG images are
great for photographs (that would be the 'P' in 'JPEG'), but they are
lousy for computer-generated images with very limited color palettes --
for example, a coverage map. Using a GIF image will produce a smaller
file size (yes, really, because you can use 4 bits per pixel instead of
24 and take advantage of RLE), as well as a clearer, sharper image.

I don't want to ignite another round of the eternal GIF-vs-JPEG holy
wars, especially here in a completely inappropriate newsgroup. The
simple truth is that each format has its strengths and weaknesses, and
the coverage map is better suited to a GIF, at least if you can get the
original computer-generated map image and convert it directly.

--
www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California

---

› See More: When, oh when, will Sprint update/improve their coverage maps?

No war from me. I use Paint and change all mine to BMP. Less confusing
to any computer.

Linc Madison <[email protected]> wrote in article
<120920032137222444%[email protected]>:
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article <[email protected]>, SprintPCS Tech
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, maybe I can pass something up for people to be able to get
> > larger maps, possibly a downloadable JPG?
>
> This is a bit of a pie-in-the-sky request, but I may as well say it:
> how about a downloadable *GIF* image instead of a JPEG? JPEG images are
> great for photographs (that would be the 'P' in 'JPEG'), but they are
> lousy for computer-generated images with very limited color palettes --
> for example, a coverage map. Using a GIF image will produce a smaller
> file size (yes, really, because you can use 4 bits per pixel instead of
> 24 and take advantage of RLE), as well as a clearer, sharper image.
>
> I don't want to ignite another round of the eternal GIF-vs-JPEG holy
> wars, especially here in a completely inappropriate newsgroup. The
> simple truth is that each format has its strengths and weaknesses, and
> the coverage map is better suited to a GIF, at least if you can get the
> original computer-generated map image and convert it directly.
>
> --
> www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com
> Linc Madison * San Francisco, California

[posted via phonescoop.com]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

>
>
> [email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > -Update-
> >
> > The new coverage map brochures are finally out. I picked up the new
> > Southern California map at the Sprint store today and coverage is now
> > showing along the I-5 through Camp Pendleton. But the maps are still the
> > same old size and color which are hard to see.
> >
> > The web site still has not been updated with new maps yet.
> >
> > --
>
> Virgin Mobile (http://www.virginmobileusa.com/) maps seem to be a little
> larger, and they are run on Sprint PCS's network.
>
> Hmm, maybe I can pass something up for people to be able to get larger
> maps, possibly a downloadable JPG?


Justin - is it any more accurate for your area, or just a total copy?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote:

> Yeah if you know a way to to request better online maps please do it.
> Just look at T-Mobiles online maps and you can see the difference.
> Sprint's really suck.

Sprint wants them small and hard to use, to cover up there excessively
optimistic nature of coverage.

"P Reality" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > [email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> > > -Update-
> > >
> > > The new coverage map brochures are finally out. I picked up the new
> > > Southern California map at the Sprint store today and coverage is now
> > > showing along the I-5 through Camp Pendleton. But the maps are still
the
> > > same old size and color which are hard to see.
> > >
> > > The web site still has not been updated with new maps yet.
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > Virgin Mobile (http://www.virginmobileusa.com/) maps seem to be a little
> > larger, and they are run on Sprint PCS's network.
> >
> > Hmm, maybe I can pass something up for people to be able to get larger
> > maps, possibly a downloadable JPG?
>
>
> Justin - is it any more accurate for your area, or just a total copy?


Hell no, they still have the entire DFW area shaded, all the way up to
Oklahoma.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:39:04 -0000,
[email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote:

>I'm very disappointed in Sprint's online coverage maps as well as the
>maps on their brochures at the retail locations. The online National map
>is so small you can barely see it and the colors suck. The local maps
>such as the ones in California have not been updated since January (or
>possibly longer) even though they have expanded coverage in some key
>areas (which are still showing as roaming or future coverage). In
>additon some areas are still showing as additonal PCS service (meaning
>no Vision access) when in fact they have already been upgraded to
>Vision. In the old days they would updated their maps at least 4 times a
>year and the maps were much better, larger, and easier to see. They are
>doing themselves an injustice by not showing the new coverage. I know
>they can do much better than this.

Sprint sort of solved that a few months ago by offering the
Free & Clear America Plan which "absorbs" roaming and
roaming+LD. With that plan Sprint now could illustrate a
nearly solid color map from coast-to-coast for basic voice
coverage.

"Juan Pablo" <jpsmail2(DELETE THIS SECTION)@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:39:04 -0000,
> [email protected] (Larry Thomas) wrote:
>
> >I'm very disappointed in Sprint's online coverage maps as well as the
> >maps on their brochures at the retail locations. The online National map
> >is so small you can barely see it and the colors suck. The local maps
> >such as the ones in California have not been updated since January (or
> >possibly longer) even though they have expanded coverage in some key
> >areas (which are still showing as roaming or future coverage). In
> >additon some areas are still showing as additonal PCS service (meaning
> >no Vision access) when in fact they have already been upgraded to
> >Vision. In the old days they would updated their maps at least 4 times a
> >year and the maps were much better, larger, and easier to see. They are
> >doing themselves an injustice by not showing the new coverage. I know
> >they can do much better than this.
>
> Sprint sort of solved that a few months ago by offering the
> Free & Clear America Plan which "absorbs" roaming and
> roaming+LD. With that plan Sprint now could illustrate a
> nearly solid color map from coast-to-coast for basic voice
> coverage.


Just because a map is painted doesn't mean there is coverage.