Welcome wizard claims GPS is less accurate than wifi based location

[Ondrej Kubik]

First boot welcome wizard in location sections claims GPS is less accurate than network based location service from HERE.
While this can be theoretically true in some insane corner case, in normal life GPS is far more accurate.

To help form correct text here are main differences.

GPS - more accurate, but slow to acquire fix, does not work indoors, drains battery more, no need for internet connection, does not send any data out.

Network based location - almost instant to get coarse location, works indoors, accuracy depends on network coverage in the area, more power efficient, requires internet connection. To get location data about visible GSM network and wifi networks needs to be send to 3rd party server.

tested on krillin vivid-proposed r107

[Pat McGowan (pat-mcgowan)]

When the Here service is enabled we also use GPS so the users choice is not Here or GPS. The message should be somehow that using Here gives a better experience.

But agreed that "Use GPS Only" should drop the "(less accurate)"

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

the wizard is not in ubuntu-system-settings anymore

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

I don't understand this bug report, because currently the first-run setup does not mention GPS at all. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPbNbdhoGS4#t=4m>

Even if it did mention GPS, though, it is obviously true that GPS alone is less accurate than GPS + Wi-Fi + cell tower data. This report is written as if the HERE location service does not use GPS as one of its data sources, but if that was the case, it wouldn't work in places without cell coverage.

[Pat McGowan (pat-mcgowan)]

This is what is in the current wizard in vivid

I do not think it is correct that GPS alone is ever less accurate than the when the agps is provided, the difference is the time it takes to get a first position when wifi and cell info is utilized.

[Ondrej Kubik (ondrak)]

GPS is most accurate positioning system we have on the phone. However it comes with price, here are some of the bad features of GPS: drains battery, does not work indoors, takes long to get initial location when used first time (or long after last use)

Therefore number of supporting used to leverage those "bad" features of GPS, however those other technologies come at the price.
Namely network based location (wifi, GSM cells) is faster and less power hungry than GPS, but it has lot worse accuracy.

HERE location service uses network based location in order to show user coarse location quickly, while GPS is working on the background to acquire precise location. This can be observer in here maps when actual circle representing accuracy shrinks in the moment GPS location is acquired.
In short we get between 1m to 15m for GPS location, based on number of visible satellites.
but 25m to 30km! accuracy for network based location. 30km is extreme with no visible wifi and only one visible GSM cell tower. Still valid example.

[Michael Terry (mterry)]

Maybe simply replacing "(less accurate)" with "(slower)" would still convey that we don't recommend that option while being more correct about why we don't.

[Ondrej Kubik (ondrak)]

Latest wizard went even more bizarre.
Now there is third option "not at all"
Which I think is even broken English, considering the question for those
options.
This should be properly redesigned.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Michael Terry <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Maybe simply replacing "(less accurate)" with "(slower)" would still
> convey that we don't recommend that option while being more correct
> about why we don't.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1421623
>
> Title:
> Welcome wizard claims GPS is less accurate than wifi based location
>
> Status in the base for Ubuntu mobile products:
> New
> Status in Ubuntu UX bugs:
> Triaged
> Status in ubuntu-system-settings package in Ubuntu:
> Invalid
> Status in unity8 package in Ubuntu:
> New
>
> Bug description:
> First boot welcome wizard in location sections claims GPS is less
> accurate than network based location service from HERE.
> While this can be theoretically true in some insane corner case, in
> normal life GPS is far more accurate.
>
> To help form correct text here are main differences.
>
> GPS - more accurate, but slow to acquire fix, does not work indoors,
> drains battery more, no need for internet connection, does not send
> any data out.
>
> Network based location - almost instant to get coarse location, works
> indoors, accuracy depends on network coverage in the area, more power
> efficient, requires internet connection. To get location data about
> visible GSM network and wifi networks needs to be send to 3rd party
> server.
>
> tested on krillin vivid-proposed r107
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-devices-system-image/+bug/1421623/+subscriptions
>

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

(Pat, thanks for the screenshot of the first-run setup.)

The "Location" screen in the first-run setup presents exactly the same choice, in the same amount of screen space, as the "Location" screen in System Settings. <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Location> On Windows and Mac, it is standard for wizards/assistants to start a screen with a question, e.g. "How would you like the phone to detect your location?", where a non-wizard/assistant UI for the same thing would use an imperative label, e.g. "Let the phone detect your location:". We might choose to follow that pattern for our first-run setup. If we did, the first piece of text would be different from System Settings. But with that possible exception, I think the controls+text in the two screens should be identical. In other words, it would not make sense for this bug report to be resolved one way for System Settings and another way for Unity 8.

(Currently the setup and System Settings screen use an identical intro label, but different controls -- radio list vs. checkboxes -- and slightly different text. None of this seems to be intentional; it's merely an architectural flaw, in that there are two implementations of the UI, which have inevitably drifted apart.
<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~unity-team/unity8/trunk/view/head:/qml/Wizard/Pages/50-location.qml#L58>
<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~system-settings-touch/ubuntu-system-settings/trunk/view/head:/plugins/security-privacy/Location.qml#L93>)

With that said, I don't see any reason to doubt what I said before, that "GPS alone is less accurate than GPS + Wi-Fi + cell tower data". Yes, Ondrej, GPS would be more accurate than *just* Wi-Fi + cell tower data -- but just Wi-Fi + cell tower data is not one of the options! If you think it should be, then report that separately.

To put it another way, time can be divided into two periods: before the phone gets its first GPS fix, and after. Before, GPS-only is infinitely less accurate, because it has no idea where you are at all. Afterwards, the two methods are mostly identical, except in places like basements or Tube stations, where GPS-only is still less accurate.

Given the limited screen space, I still think it's reasonable to have summarized "infinitely less accurate some of the time, and occasionally less accurate the rest of the time" as "(less accurate)".

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

It might be that some of the confusion here is caused by bug 1462664, where the GPS sometimes stops working when wi-fi is turned on. The net result of that would be that GPS + Wi-Fi + cell tower data effectively became just Wi-Fi + cell tower data, and therefore was less accurate. But that's just a bug.

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

I reported bug 1467790 on the inconsistency between the first-run setup and System Settings.

[Albert Astals Cid (aacid)]

unity8 waiting for design -> Incomplete

[Ondrej Kubik (ondrak)]

So is this it? Are we sticking to the version that Wifi based location is more accurate than GPS.
I strongly disagree to mark this as invalid.

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

Ondrej, if you're going to strongly disagree, please at least explain why. Mislabelling it as "Wifi based location" gives the impression that you still think it is not supposed to use GPS. Why do you think that?

[Rex Tsai (chihchun)]

+1 on Ondrej's comment.

The wizard UI imply that GPS is less accurate, which is simply misleading if the user has no knowledge on GPS fix. Even the user know about GPS fix, there is no other UI indicate the phone has locked the GPS.

To make sure setting more friendly, my suggestion is
O High accuracy (Using GPS, anonymized Wi-Fi and cellular network info)
O Power saving (Using anonymized Wi-Fi and cellular network info)
O Device only (Using only GPS, without sharing network info for privacy)
O Disable Location Service

Does it make sense to user, and explain a bit more why a user need to make a choice ?

[Ondrej Kubik (ondrak)]

I disagree with statement that "GPS (less accurate)"
this is simply not true.
It gives impression that GPS is less accurate, and when selecting second
option (with wifi) user will get better accuracy. But this is not true.
From all location providers available, GPS is most accurate one,
unfortunately also most power hungry and slowest to gain lock. This is
reason we use all other providers to get faster, though less accurate,
coarse location using combination os visible wifi access point and cellular
cells.
And this is essentially what that that second option should tell user, and
remove less accurate info from first option.

Using corner cases like "in the building wifi is more accurate then GPS,
because GPS cannot get lock at all" does not stand. That's like saying GPRS
is faster than 3G or LTE, because that is true in the areas without LTE or
3G signal where GPRS still functions. Anything is always grater than 0. Yet
you don't say GPRS is faster than 3G, or do you?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rex Tsai <email address hidden> wrote:

> +1 on Ondrej's comment.
>
> The wizard UI imply that GPS is less accurate, which is simply
> misleading if the user has no knowledge on GPS fix. Even the user know
> about GPS fix, there is no other UI indicate the phone has locked the
> GPS.
>
> To make sure setting more friendly, my suggestion is
> O High accuracy (Using GPS, anonymized Wi-Fi and cellular network info)
> O Power saving (Using anonymized Wi-Fi and cellular network info)
> O Device only (Using only GPS, without sharing network info for privacy)
> O Disable Location Service
>
> Does it make sense to user, and explain a bit more why a user need to
> make a choice ?
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1421623
>
> Title:
> Welcome wizard claims GPS is less accurate than wifi based location
>
> Status in Canonical System Image:
> New
> Status in Ubuntu UX:
> Invalid
> Status in ubuntu-system-settings package in Ubuntu:
> Invalid
> Status in unity8 package in Ubuntu:
> Incomplete
>
> Bug description:
> First boot welcome wizard in location sections claims GPS is less
> accurate than network based location service from HERE.
> While this can be theoretically true in some insane corner case, in
> normal life GPS is far more accurate.
>
> To help form correct text here are main differences.
>
> GPS - more accurate, but slow to acquire fix, does not work indoors,
> drains battery more, no need for internet connection, does not send
> any data out.
>
> Network based location - almost instant to get coarse location, works
> indoors, accuracy depends on network coverage in the area, more power
> efficient, requires internet connection. To get location data about
> visible GSM network and wifi networks needs to be send to 3rd party
> server.
>
> tested on krillin vivid-proposed r107
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-devices-system-image/+bug/1421623/+subscriptions
>

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

"From all location providers available, GPS is most accurate one, unfortunately also most power hungry and slowest to gain lock. This is reason we use all other providers to get faster, though less accurate, coarse location using combination os visible wifi access point and cellular cells."

As I have said three times now, just Wi-Fi + cellular network info is not one of the options. It is in Android, and both Rex and I have mentioned here the possibility of adding it to Ubuntu -- but right now, it is not one of the options. If it was, you would be correct: you could save power by not using GPS. But the choice is between GPS only, or GPS + Wi-Fi + cellular network info. Since both of them use GPS, neither of them save power by not using GPS. And after seven months, you have still not given a single example of any moment where GPS only could possibly be more accurate than GPS + Wi-Fi + cellular network info, while I've given multiple examples where the opposite is true.

Your GPRS analogy fails for the same reason: "GPRS only" is not one of the available options, just like "Wi-Fi and cellular networks only" is not one of the available options.

The reason we provide multiple options, as explained in the UI, is nothing to do with power use. It is simply that the HERE option requires you to accept HERE's terms and conditions, while the GPS-only option does not. If we didn't care about providing location detection for people who don't want to accept the terms and conditions, we could just use HERE as the only option, make location detection an on/off toggle (like in iOS), and not need any further settings.

[Ondrej Kubik (ondrak)]

Option for only wifi + cellular is not really needed for user to chose from.
It is still used by the device, when application does not require precise
location, in order to preserve battery, but this is not to be controlled by
user. In my option no need to have any option like this here.

Still your statement is wrong, you are not referring to accuracy in your
examples but to actual availability, yes when you cannot get GPS lock, then
your wifi will get "better" location, in comparison to no location at all.
Yes wifi is more "accurate" while GPS is acquiring lock. But this is not
accuracy, but speed. It is like saying motorbike is faster than car,
because it can accelerate faster from still, even though car can actually
develop greater top speed.

But do you have case, where GPS is accessible and your option GPS+wifi is
more accurate in comparison? to back up "less accurate" statement?

So adjusting my example with data connections to your logic:
- 4G only (slower)
- 2G/3G/4G

This is obviously wrong, yet by your logic, it is correct. Combined
4G/3G/2G will never be faster than option 4G only, yet there will be cases
without 4G coverage when it will be "faster" compare to no 4G signal. By
your logic 4G is then slower.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas <email address hidden>
wrote:

> "From all location providers available, GPS is most accurate one,
> unfortunately also most power hungry and slowest to gain lock. This is
> reason we use all other providers to get faster, though less accurate,
> coarse location using combination os visible wifi access point and
> cellular cells."
>
> As I have said three times now, just Wi-Fi + cellular network info is
> not one of the options. It is in Android, and both Rex and I have
> mentioned here the possibility of adding it to Ubuntu -- but right now,
> it is not one of the options. If it was, you would be correct: you could
> save power by not using GPS. But the choice is between GPS only, or GPS
> + Wi-Fi + cellular network info. Since both of them use GPS, neither of
> them save power by not using GPS. And after seven months, you have still
> not given a single example of any moment where GPS only could possibly
> be more accurate than GPS + Wi-Fi + cellular network info, while I've
> given multiple examples where the opposite is true.
>
> Your GPRS analogy fails for the same reason: "GPRS only" is not one of
> the available options, just like "Wi-Fi and cellular networks only" is
> not one of the available options.
>
> The reason we provide multiple options, as explained in the UI, is
> nothing to do with power use. It is simply that the HERE option requires
> you to accept HERE's terms and conditions, while the GPS-only option
> does not. If we didn't care about providing location detection for
> people who don't want to accept the terms and conditions, we could just
> use HERE as the only option, make location detection an on/off toggle
> (like in iOS), and not need any further settings.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1421623
>
> Title:
> Welcome wizard claims GPS is less accurate than...

[Rex Tsai (chihchun)]

I believe "only wifi + cellular" is needed for user. Since that many apps are not designed for "preserve battery" but for best performance, which these apps will try to access to most accurate location information anytime, which consumed battery from gps sensors.

That option is needed to allow a user put the phone into power-saving mode.

[Ondrej Kubik (ondrak)]

Not sure if that is best way to tackle this problem.
Using inspiration from another OS, I think best strategy is to use
indicator which makes distinction between different modes location service
is running in.
like this user can easily see when phone actually uses accurate location,
and then check which app is guilty.
From my experience on iOS using network based location on all the time,
does not impact on battery that much.
Forbidding GPS all together to all apps would be quite drastic measure, and
a bit cumbersome to use.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Rex Tsai <email address hidden> wrote:

> I believe "only wifi + cellular" is needed for user. Since that many
> apps are not designed for "preserve battery" but for best performance,
> which these apps will try to access to most accurate location
> information anytime, which consumed battery from gps sensors.
>
> That option is needed to allow a user put the phone into power-saving
> mode.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1421623
>
> Title:
> Welcome wizard claims GPS is less accurate than wifi based location
>
> Status in Canonical System Image:
> New
> Status in Ubuntu UX:
> Invalid
> Status in ubuntu-system-settings package in Ubuntu:
> Invalid
> Status in unity8 package in Ubuntu:
> Incomplete
>
> Bug description:
> First boot welcome wizard in location sections claims GPS is less
> accurate than network based location service from HERE.
> While this can be theoretically true in some insane corner case, in
> normal life GPS is far more accurate.
>
> To help form correct text here are main differences.
>
> GPS - more accurate, but slow to acquire fix, does not work indoors,
> drains battery more, no need for internet connection, does not send
> any data out.
>
> Network based location - almost instant to get coarse location, works
> indoors, accuracy depends on network coverage in the area, more power
> efficient, requires internet connection. To get location data about
> visible GSM network and wifi networks needs to be send to 3rd party
> server.
>
> tested on krillin vivid-proposed r107
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-devices-system-image/+bug/1421623/+subscriptions
>

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

If you think we should have "only wi-fi + cellular" as an option, please report it as a separate bug with use cases. It doesn't affect the resolution of this bug report, and I mentioned it here only because Ondrej repeatedly gave the impression of being confused about what the current options do.

> - 4G only (slower)
> - 2G/3G/4G
>
> This is obviously wrong, yet by your logic, it is correct.

The reason it's obviously wrong isn't that the logic is wrong, it's that the use case isn't realistic. Location use is often long, continuous (e.g. when driving, running, or cycling), and resilient to offline periods; a data transfer hardly ever is.

The one case where I can imagine that analogy working is if there was a BitTorrent client, where you could "start" a download while offline, it paused whenever you went offline, and it started/resumed whenever you were online. In that case, yes, downloading over 4G only *would* usually be slower overall than 2G/3G/4G -- because 2G/3G/4G would be transferring as fast as 4G-only whenever 4G was available, *plus* it would be transferring more of the time. But hardly any apps ever use data like that, and I know of no Ubuntu Touch apps that do. In contrast, most apps that use your location are still useful when you don't have a GPS fix yet, will recalibrate automatically once you do, and don't mind if you lose the fix occasionally. And in those periods when you don't have a fix, GPS only is necessarily less accurate than GPS + cell + wi-fi.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for unity8 (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]