5 ms·

FTA: Our localization approach combines open-source databases (OpenCellID [47], Mozilla Location Services [66], and CellMapper [12]) for PCI-to-coordinate mappi

FTA: Our localization approach combines open-source databases (OpenCellID [47], Mozilla Location Services [66], and CellMapper [12]) for PCI-to-coordinate mapping of cell towers with a trilateration technique based on relative signal strengths.

ssl-3 2y ago
Interesting. CellMapper, at least, is not even a little bit open source. It doesn't even have an API. This leads me to wonder what other details that FA provides which might have been fabricated from thin air.
- gbru-ty 2y ago
  If someone is focusing on extracting data for a small area, they can manually browse the CellMapper data. An API isn’t required for that—it’s a matter of accessing and analyzing what’s already available through the platform.
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    Does that make it "open source"?
    - emilamlom 2y ago
      Kinda, yeah. It's open source in the "intelligence" sense of the phrase because it's openly available information (like OSINT), but it's not freely usable.
gruez 2y ago
That doesn't really answer the question. Those services basically work the same way as Google's geolocation API, but they're somehow able to magically get better accuracy.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  Google's cellular geolocation implementation is probably unmaintained & all their focus is on WiFi+GPS+Fusion via SLAM.
- evoke4908 2y ago
  Your assertion seems to be that Google's location service must be the best, and there's no way a trivial method can outperform it. Have you considered that google might just perform poorly compared to other methods?