Talk:Coverage map

Caveats

I have reverted recent edits by JustinSmith for the following reasons:

1) "line of sight" - this is not required for reception in the primary service area unless the broadcast is at a very high frequency, i.e. microwaves. LF and MF signals diffract over almost all obstacles and over the horizon, HF signals bounce off the troposphere and VHF and even UHF signals will diffract over hills.

2) "theoretical" - this implies that such maps are untested and unmeasured, whereas maps are frequently constructed using real world in-the-field measurements

3) The rest of the paragraph about pockets of poor reception is a repeat of lower down

Chillysnow (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What can I say ? Experience has taught me to be extremely wary of coverage maps. I`d almost say they`re not worth the paper they`re printed on, if that`s still an appropriate phrase these days.

I would recommend you take a few minutes to try the "worked example" (in red) on the link below.

Coverage Maps, (worked example)

If that doesn`t convince you then nothing will !

I would also recommend reading this article on Signal Strength.

I think I`m right, but at the end of the day I`m just trying to give everyone the benefit of my knowledge. I shan`t bother reverting the edit, because at the end of the day it all gets a bit petty, and I`m not that bothered !

JustinSmith (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)