Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwitawayday | Hacker News Reader

Having recently visited the Yellowstone National Park, the situation you describe for the North Sea side of Germany applies but worse, the cell phone data connection being non-existent, and with the added issue that only one hotel offered wifi, and it was out of service for the entire duration of our visit.

View on HN

It's a national park - this is an intentional policy. There is some cell service, but the park specifically does not want cell towers everywhere.

> In 2009, Yellowstone completed a plan for wireless communications in the park. The plan dictates that cell phone and wifi will only be allowed for visitor safety and to enhance park operations. It restricts towers, antennas, and wireless services to a few limited locations in the park, in order to protect park resources and limit the impact on park visitors.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/park/cell-phone-wifi-yellows...

I think that's fairly common in a lot of the bigger and more remote national parks. Death Valley has decent cell reception at Furnace Creek (the main visitor center and lodging area) but AFAIK there's none in the rest of the 3,000 square miles.

Death Valley is also in a valley surrounded by tall mountains loaded with cell tower equipment so the signal propagates pretty easily because there are minimal line-of-sight obstructions.

I can't say I've ever noticed cell phone reception outside of the immediate Furnace Creek area but it's possible you can pick something up from whatever is up on the mountains in some locations.

Last time I was in Death Valley in December I could barely get any signal outside of Furnace Creek. Even in FC it was terrible. I had two cellphones on T-Mobile and AT&T for that matter.

I honestly would expect that at a national park.

To me that would be what a national park ... just is.

But this is the place where you might get lost and without cell service, you are really lost.

This is quite annoying in the US, that national parks or deserts have no cell service. The places that need it most (life and death situations) - this is basically a health service there.

In comparison to Europe the mobile density is quite sparse there.

I'm not sure if you are serious, but if you are can I suggest that you don't go into the park unless you know what you are doing?

There’s a reason it’s called wilderness. One should have basic orienteering skills if they venture away from the popular, touristy locations. If things really do go awry, bring (and use) an EPIRB.

I would never rely on a cellular phone for safety in the wilderness. Cellular service and geolocation was never be 100% reliable, and batteries die. A paper map, a compass, basic skills, and knowledge of one’s limits go a long way.

I'm not sure how big I am on even encouraging everyone who gets off the beaten track to carry an EPIRB. However, if I'm being honest, if I did any amount of solo backpacking--especially in less traveled areas--I'd probably consider it these days.

Indeed, though the problem is often people activating them for situations not truly life-threatening. In some cases, misuse has resulted in hefty fines. Most people don’t need them because most people don’t actually do “backcountry”, let alone solo it.

It should be understood that an EPIRB should only be used in the most dire of circumstances.

Cell Towers have no place in National Parks/Forests and other nature preserves. If you're in the middle of the ocean you're not going to have cell phone service either, and you should plan accordingly.

Do roads have place in national parks? If so then cell towers also.

I mean if I see asphalt then it is quite reasonable to expect also cell service.

I was i national parks in Europe and I always got cell service. I might be lucky (considering the article and posts about Germany) but in US I was in one park (actually two, but I don't remember situation with mobiles in one) and I did get cell service even before the gates.

I don't expect to have cell service if the park doesn't have roads, just hiking tracks.

Please. If your attitude is that if you get in some kind of trouble, you can just use your cell phone and have someone come get you, you should just stay out of wilderness areas.

You're endangering yourself which I wouldn't care that much about but you're also potentially endangering any search and rescue teams that have to come looking for you.

As for the lost scenario specifically. I don't know. Maybe carry a (paper) map and compass? In addition (not instead of) a GPS doesn't need cell reception to operate and works most places. (Some exceptions, like narrow canyons.)

If your friend falls down a gorge and is unresponsive it seems more than completely reasonable to phone for help.

There are many ways[1] to radio for help already. It's unreasonable and irresponsible to get into that situation with only a cell phone.

[1]: https://www.rei.com/c/emergency-electronics

I'm not sure what "that situation" is. inReach-type devices are probably prudent for certain activities in remote areas. Though if someone is unresponsive after falling in a gorge, I suspect S&R arriving many hours later--and many more hours getting to a hospital--isn't going to be of much help.

It's certainly not routine for individuals or even groups to carry such devices in wilderness areas even if cell phone reception is spotty. I can go 2 hours north of where I live and hike on steep trails where there's no guarantee of cell phone reception.

How ever did people get by for thousands of years before cell phones existed?

The didn't. If you fell down into a crevice, you died. You could apply the same spurious argument to anything - how did people ever get by for thousands of years before antibiotics/vaccines/electricity/water purification existed? They didn't, they lived their nasty, brutish and short lives, and died.

I could argue that cell phones (etc.) are technology that is basically: "Come rescue me." There are plenty of other technologies that we can use to help ourselves (maps, compasses, matches, and so forth). I'm at least somewhat uncomfortable with saying that calling for help is quite in the same category.

There's a simple way to avoid it, with or without cellphones: don't go to dangerous places without being prepared for it.

There are options these days like the inReach that I would recommend for hikers that will be out in the wilderness for an extended period of time and/or might be away from easy access to help. Of course standard protocol still applies like telling someone what path you will take, when they should expect you back etc. but I would feel much safer with an inReach with me just in case.

https://explore.garmin.com/en-US/inreach/

Part of me dislikes the availability of equipment that puts you in contact from pretty much anywhere--in part because it creates the expectation that you'll avail yourself of such equipment.

But, if I'm being sensible and I'm off by myself in a remote area, yeah, I'd probably take one.

ADDED: And, yes, it's nice to be able to call for help if you really need it. But way too many folks think they can just get in trouble because they're really not prepared, call 911, and everything will be great. A number of states actually collect costs from people if they were negligent these days.

Wait, how could you possibly get really lost in Yellowstone? If you are leaving your car and heading off into the back country then presumably you have the skills to do so. If you are staying on the normal roads then you will have no problem finding a ranger, a ranger station, an information booth, etc. I've probably been to Yellowstone 10 times and I can't fathom anyone getting really lost.

This expectation & comparison is part of why “Death Valley Germans” is such a meme.

For reference: http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hun...

It's quite the read.

It's also recommended reading if you go to the US West and your expectations are mostly informed by tooling around the countryside of Western Europe (or the eastern US for that matter).

Oh wow, just read the first bit, intriguing. Thanks for posting!

Other articles by Tom Mahood are a great read as well. Highly recommend subscribing to his blog. There is lots to learn from his piddling around the American Southwest.

Just the "subscribe to blog" brought a small smile to my face because such a thing still exists. Thanks.

Thanks for the link! Very interesting read!

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. I seriously doubt there is cell service in the interior of the Greenlandic ice cap. Does this mean the Kingdom of Denmark has shitty infrastructure?

The only reason you find mobile coverage sparse in the US is because the US has large, nearly unpopulated areas, whereas Europe doesn’t.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com