Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[j0hn]

No idea how Apple works this out.

With Google/Android if I connect my Android phone to an ISP router, with default SSID, and enable all the relevant location permissions, Google will pin that SSID you that location.

If I stood in the street some time later with a different phone, with GPS/3G/4G location off, and only WiFi location on, it directs straight to my house.

I've noticed this over the years and changing SSID used to lose the ability to get location from WiFi only.

However now I have so many unique ISP SSID's around me, any device be it Apple or Android, is pretty accurate at working out the location using WiFi only when in my house.

I used to use an SSID of BASE.
WiFi location wasn't as accurate with that.
I imagine that's a common SSID.

You could try changing SSID to something unique if it isn't already, if you want it to be more accurate.

[johnson]

Can they not use MAC addresses? I know wireless broadcast packets contain them and they should be more unique than SSIDs.

[johnson]

Well I’m still not sure how it works but I went outside with my WiFi only Ipad, with my local WiFi disabled,  and could not get a location. It seems it needs to be online, or if my router is contributing to location ( I’m talking maps etc here not find my phone). I guess it’s some strange combination of location sources. I don’t think there is an answer unless someone with geolocation knowledge can shed a light.

By local wifi disabled you mean the ipad had no internet access? How would it perform the look up using the in range SSID/APs then? Its not like it stores a local database of all the wifi networks in the country to allow geolocation with no internet access.

[sevenlayermuddle]

Can they not use MAC addresses? I know wireless broadcast packets contain them and they should be more unique than SSIDs.

My understanding is that they do indeed use MAC addresses rather than SSID.   Otherwise, by accident or mischief, I think location errors would be so common as to render it all useless.

The SSID may still be examined in addition to MAC, eg I think Google and Microsoft look at the SSID in addition to MAC for certain patterns, such as ‘_nomap’ and ‘_optout’ that indicate an unwillingness to participate in the databases, but I did not think that SSID was used as any actual location identifier.

[g3uiss]

By local wifi disabled you mean the ipad had no internet access? How would it perform the look up using the in range SSID/APs then? Its not like it stores a local database of all the wifi networks in the country to allow geolocation with no internet access.

Sorry it was just part of trying to isolate the issue. Obvious when you mentioned it

[Moderator edited to separate the questions and the answer.]

[d2d4j]

Hi g3uiss

Sorry it’s a silly thought but if I understand correctly, you have multi wan.

Could it be that the location request is going out on 1 wan but using wan 2 for answer. Thinking load balancer here or lack of load balancer, where requests can use either wan, thereby splitting the requests

I suppose a quick test would be to unplug 1 wan of failover is turned on

It’s just a thought

Many thanks

John

[g3uiss]

Hi g3uiss

Sorry it’s a silly thought but if I understand correctly, you have multi wan.

Yes exactly I do, and I’m going to try that and will report. Strange it changed suddenly, although I have forced the WiFi on to each wan, with no change, but will eliminate the possibility

Could it be that the location request is going out on 1 wan but using wan 2 for answer. Thinking load balancer here or lack of load balancer, where requests can use either wan, thereby splitting the requests

I suppose a quick test would be to unplug 1 wan of failover is turned on

It’s just a thought

Many thanks

John

[Moderator edited to separate the answer from the quoted block.]

[sevenlayermuddle]

I am coming around to the idea that WiFi location would, sensibly, require signals from several APs, not just one.

Reason being firstly, if somebody moves house, when they fire up the router at new address, anybody using it might get the old location.   That’s not only broken, it  might also raise privacy concerns, as it may allow new neigbours to find the incomer’s previous address, without their knowledge.

There would also be a dillema, where exactly two WiFi signals are detected, but owing to circumstances such as above, are listed on databases as being hundreds of miles apart.   Which one do you believe?    I would suspect that in those circumstances,  “location not known” would probably have to be reported.

It would therefor make sense to me if the rules required that at least two signals, that are already known on the existing databases to be close to one another, must be visible.   Just guessing, as I have failed to find any documented evidence as to how it really works.

[g3uiss]

7LM I’m of the same view,  although no Tecnical nowledge to support it. Anyway if I need it to capture a location I just need to walk to front door.

I think your reasoning is spot on, for the reasons you quote.

Thanks Tony