In this conversation, is only the LoRa device the “node”? In my use-case, it’s fairly likely that mesh users will have internet access via phone more often than LoRa nodes would have wifi access to internet.
Got buy-in from at least 7 more local users last night. None have a geeky bone in their body, and love the idea. Due to their normal movement patterns, they’ll spend a considerable time:
- In LoRa range, communicating locally (100% in)
- Outside LoRa range, and in 4G range, and wanting to connect to others in the mesh inside LoRa range. (50% in)
- Outside LoRa range, and in 4G range, and wanting to connect to others in the mesh outside LoRa range. (100% out). In this instance, not requiring them to always have the LoRa device, and still being able to access the mesh (routed over internet), would be a better user experience.
Covering only Scenario #1 would be a big help, but if all 3 were covered, I would expect better adoption. It’s a hassle to guess who’s in the LoRa mesh and switch apps accordingly. This is a point of friction we (several have InReach devices) experience now because the app (and/or phone number) changes depending on our knowledge of the others’ location.
Speaking of nodes, has anyone pinged the N-O-D-E channel guy? Lots of interest in LoRa mesh comms over there a while back, and a few devs offering to contribute, but I don’t think they got anywhere:
