1. Our Team Background
We are a local wireless network engineering contractor team based in Russia, with years of hands-on experience in large-scale WiFi coverage and wireless transmission projects. Our work covers public parks, hotels, commercial plazas, office buildings, schools, resorts, transport hubs, government sites, and outdoor recreational areas. Over the years, we have handled many projects where the environment was far more complex than a standard indoor deployment, especially in open-air scenarios where long-distance coverage, weather resistance, cable routing, and seasonal user surges all had to be considered together.
In practical project delivery, we do not judge devices only by specifications on paper. We pay more attention to whether a product can remain stable after continuous operation, whether it is convenient for field installation and later maintenance, and whether it can still maintain acceptable user experience under real interference, humidity, low temperature, and peak-hour concurrency.
Our team has accumulated solid field experience with COMFAST devices in multiple outdoor and semi-outdoor projects. In past deployments, we used COMFAST equipment in lakeside walkways, community squares, scenic entrances, hotel courtyards, dock waiting areas, and open recreational spaces. What impressed us most is that, when device selection is matched correctly to the site structure, COMFAST products can provide a practical balance among coverage efficiency, transmission stability, and overall project cost. For engineering contractors like us, this balance is critical, because the real challenge of a project is not buying expensive equipment, but building a network that the client can keep using reliably year after year.
This project in a large public park in Kazan, Russia, is a typical example. It was not simply about “installing APs in an open space,” but about solving a series of real engineering problems: scattered visitor areas, tree shading, long walking paths, seasonal weather impact, power access limitations, surveillance linkage, and the need for unified management. That is exactly where the value of professional wireless engineering becomes visible.
2. Project Overview
Project Name: Volga Green Central Park Outdoor WiFi Renovation Project
Project Location: Kazan, Russia
Project Type: Large outdoor public park WiFi coverage and wireless transmission project
Project Objective:
To build a stable, manageable, and scalable outdoor wireless network for a large urban park, covering the main pedestrian avenues, central square, children’s activity area, lakeside leisure zone, outdoor café belt, fitness trail, ticket/service entrances, and several surveillance-linked zones.
The park management hoped to upgrade the original network from a fragmented, unstable, and maintenance-heavy system into a modern wireless infrastructure that could support:
- Public WiFi access for visitors
- Mobile payment and service terminal connectivity
- Park office and patrol communication
- Smart surveillance data backhaul in selected areas
- Daily management and event-day temporary traffic peaks
- Stable operation in changing Russian outdoor weather conditions
3. Project Background and Customer Pain Points
Before we took over the project, the park already had some old wireless devices installed in a scattered manner. However, after several years of patchwork expansion, the network had become increasingly difficult to use and maintain.
After initial communication with the client and our on-site survey, we summarized the major pain points as follows:
3.1. Coverage existed in name, but actual user experience was fragmented
Some plazas and entrances had signal, but the walking routes between them often had weak signal or constant disconnections. Visitors could connect near one AP and lose access after walking just dozens of meters.
3.2. High-density areas slowed down badly during weekends and events
The central square, family activity zone, and lakeside leisure area experienced obvious congestion during evenings, holidays, and city events. Users reported that even after connecting successfully, webpages loaded slowly and QR-code based services often timed out.
3.3. Old equipment placement was not based on real park structure
Several original APs were mounted too low, blocked by trees, lamp poles, decorative structures, and even seasonal foliage. In a large park, line-of-sight and effective radiation angle matter much more than simple installation count.
3.4. Long-distance sections lacked a clean data transmission design
Some remote areas had no reliable cable route back to the control room, while temporary extension cables previously used by the maintenance team created instability and future safety concerns.
3.5. Network and surveillance expansion were disconnected
The park management also wanted some outdoor cameras and smart terminals to operate in the same environment. But the previous network had no clear transmission hierarchy, so service data and surveillance transmission were mixed without proper structure.
3.6. Maintenance was inefficient and fault locating was slow
When a visitor complained about “no WiFi,” the park’s technical staff often could not determine whether the problem came from the AP, the upstream switch, power, cable damage, weather-related connector oxidation, or excessive user load.
3.7. Outdoor climate resilience was not fully considered
In Russia, outdoor projects cannot be evaluated only under mild conditions. Low temperatures, rain, snow, moisture, and seasonal freeze-thaw cycles all affect connectors, housings, cable joints, and equipment stability.
4. Customer Requirements
After several rounds of meetings, the client gave us clear requirements:
- Stable outdoor WiFi coverage for all major public-use areas
- Better user experience in high-traffic zones
- Centralized and simplified network structure
- Reliable long-distance wireless transmission in remote sections
- Compatibility with future surveillance and smart park expansion
- Easy maintenance for park IT staff after project delivery
- Reasonable total project cost without sacrificing engineering reliability
5. Site Survey and Engineering Investigation
As experienced contractors, we never start with “device quantity first.” We begin with the real site.
Our engineering team spent time on:
- Walking the full park paths during both normal hours and busy hours
- Checking existing utility poles, lamp posts, service kiosks, and equipment rooms
- Measuring approximate distance between core areas and remote nodes
- Evaluating tree canopy influence and seasonal obstruction risks
- Confirming power availability at each possible mounting point
- Reviewing current surveillance expansion needs with the client
- Testing interference from nearby public installations and private hotspots
Key findings from the survey
（1） Trees were the biggest hidden factor
In a large park, AP coverage on paper often looks ideal, but dense tree canopies absorb and disturb signal propagation, especially when leaves are thick in warmer months. Several paths that seemed visually open were actually poor for stable side coverage.
（2） The central plaza needed not only coverage, but capacity
This area was not the hardest to cover physically. The real problem was concurrency. Families, event participants, food stall operators, and park staff all gathered here.
（3）The lakeside belt required directional planning
Because the space stretched linearly, random AP placement would lead to overlapping interference and blind spots. It needed segmented coverage rather than dense stacking.
（4）Some remote points were ideal for wireless bridge backhaul
Running new underground cable to several distant park points would sharply increase cost and construction time. For these locations, 5.8G wireless bridge backhaul was more practical.
（5）Low mounting was causing self-inflicted blockage
Some older devices were fixed to decorative columns at only 2.5–3 meters height, which allowed visitors, trees, and structures to become physical obstacles. Outdoor park deployments require more careful elevation strategy.
6. Final Equipment List
For this project, we selected the following COMFAST devices:
7. Why We Chose These Models
7.1. CF-WA937 for core public zones with higher user density
We used the CF-WA937 mainly in the following areas:
- Central event square
- Main entrance plaza
- Outdoor café and leisure cluster
- Children’s activity zone
- High-traffic lakeside rest area
These areas demanded not only broad coverage but also better concurrency handling. Since this is a WiFi 6 dual-band outdoor AP, it was more suitable for the park’s busiest zones where many users would gather at the same time.
Why it fit these zones
- Higher wireless performance for crowded areas
- Better support for modern user devices
- Dual-band flexibility for load balancing
- Outdoor-oriented deployment for open-air public spaces
- Better long-term value in key zones where complaints are most likely to occur
7.2. CF-EW82 for standard pathway and auxiliary coverage
We used CF-EW82 in:
- Pedestrian corridors
- Garden pathways
- Secondary leisure sections
- Perimeter access paths
- Fitness trail support coverage
These areas needed stable signal continuity, but user concurrency was lower than in the central plaza. The CF-EW82 provided a very practical balance between coverage cost and performance.
Why it fit these zones
- Suitable for standard outdoor access coverage
- Efficient for medium-density areas
- Easier to deploy at multiple pathway nodes
- Helps reduce overspending on non-core traffic sections
7.3. CF-E319A V2 for long-distance backhaul and surveillance linkage
We deployed CF-E319A V2 in remote points where laying new cable would be difficult or expensive.
Main uses
- Linking remote service kiosk areas back to aggregation nodes
- Providing transmission path for surveillance-related network extension
- Bridging isolated edge sections toward the main network
Why it fit the project
- 5.8G wireless bridge deployment is highly practical in large outdoor spaces
- Faster deployment than trenching cable
- More economical in long-distance park scenarios
- Useful where the client wants surveillance and WiFi coexistence
7.4. CF-AC100 as the central gateway
The CF-AC100 was deployed in the main control room as the unified network gateway, handling overall network access and central forwarding.
Why it was necessary
- Full gigabit capability matched the park’s upgraded architecture
- Simplified the core routing and management structure
- Provided a clearer network center for future expansion
7.5. CF-SG181P as local PoE access switch
Each field cabinet or pole-group node used CF-SG181P for PoE power and uplink switching.
Why it fit the project
- Simplified outdoor node deployment
- Reduced extra power adapter complexity
- Easier maintenance and cable organization
- Suitable for AP and edge device access in park sections
8. Network Topology Design
Before showing the topology, it is important to explain the logic behind it.
This park project could not use a flat network structure. A flat layout would make troubleshooting harder, increase collision between service areas, and complicate future expansion. So we designed the project with a core–aggregation–access logic:
- Core layer: control room with gateway
- Aggregation/access layer: distributed PoE nodes in park zones
- Wireless access layer: APs for visitors and staff
- Wireless transmission layer: 5.8G bridges for remote sections and surveillance linkage
This structure gave the client four major benefits:
- Easier fault isolation
- Better expansion flexibility
- Cleaner separation of remote backhaul and access coverage
- Lower maintenance pressure in later operation
9. Project Topology Diagram
10. Area-by-Area Deployment Details
10.1. Main Entrance and Ticket Service Zone
This area was important because it created the first impression for visitors. It also supported:
- Mobile payment
- E-ticket verification
- Staff handheld terminals
- Visitor WiFi onboarding
We used a combination of CF-WA937 and CF-EW82 here. The entrance had both concentrated queues and moving pedestrian flow. One AP alone would not provide ideal experience. The stronger model handled the denser public gathering point, while the standard AP extended signal to the adjacent corridor.
Engineering consideration
We mounted devices high enough to avoid vehicle blockage, decorative archway obstruction, and human crowd shielding.
10.2. Central Activity Plaza
This was the busiest zone in the park, especially during evenings, family events, and holiday performances.
We selected CF-WA937 as the primary AP model here because this zone required better capacity, not just signal presence. We also carefully staggered AP installation positions rather than clustering them too tightly.
Problem encountered
Initially, the client wanted all APs mounted around the square center. We rejected that design because it would create excessive overlap, unstable roaming experience, and inefficient load distribution.
Final approach
We distributed AP mounting around the activity perimeter, letting coverage meet inward from controlled angles. This created more stable user association and reduced unnecessary interference.
10.3. Lakeside Leisure Belt
The lakeside area had benches, photo points, a coffee kiosk, and a long walkway. The challenge here was linear coverage over a relatively elongated area.
We used a mix of CF-WA937 at the high-traffic leisure node and CF-EW82 along the extended walkway sections.
Engineering consideration
We avoided simply mounting APs at equal visual intervals. Instead, we positioned devices according to:
- actual resting nodes,
- line-of-sight continuity,
- tree density,
- and expected user dwell time.
That made the network more practical and cost-efficient.
10.4. Children’s Play Area
This was a zone with high short-duration concentration. Parents often stayed in one place using phones, while children moved around the play structures.
We used CF-WA937 here because users tended to stay connected for longer periods and demand stable browsing, messaging, video viewing, and digital payment access at nearby service points.
Problem encountered
Play structures and decorative canopies reflected and blocked signal in certain directions.
We solved this by selecting mounting points on surrounding utility poles rather than placing equipment directly above the activity structures.
10.5. Walking Paths and Fitness Trail
These sections needed continuity rather than high density. Visitors wanted smooth connectivity while walking, jogging, or resting briefly.
We used CF-EW82 as the main AP model in these standard-coverage areas.
Design principle
In long pathway scenarios, over-dense deployment is often a mistake. Too many APs do not necessarily improve roaming; they often increase interference and association instability. We maintained sensible interval planning and focused on path continuity.
10.6. Remote Service Kiosk and Surveillance-Linked Zone
This section was one of the most difficult parts of the project. It was relatively far from the main aggregation point, and underground cable extension would require more civil work than the client wanted to accept.
So we deployed CF-E319A V2 wireless bridges to build a 5.8G transmission path.
Why this mattered
This solved two problems at once:
- remote network extension,
- and surveillance-related backhaul demand.
It allowed the client to extend management capability without reopening large areas of landscape pavement.
11. Problems Encountered During Construction
A good project is valuable only if it includes the problems actually encountered. This park deployment was no exception.
11.1. Existing pole resources were uneven
Some lamp posts were suitable for installation, but others had poor angle, limited power access, or too much nearby foliage.
Our response
We reclassified all poles by:
- structural stability,
- mounting height,
- line-of-sight value,
- maintenance accessibility,
- and power availability.
Only after that did we finalize the AP map.
11.2. Trees changed the effective RF behavior
During survey, several areas looked open from ground level, but actual signal propagation would be partially blocked by heavy branches and summer foliage.
Our response
We increased mounting height in selected sections and avoided relying on cross-tree penetration for key path coverage.
11.3. Previous cabling contained hidden quality issues
Some old outdoor cable runs had joint oxidation and poor weatherproofing, which had likely caused intermittent issues before our involvement.
Our response
We did not preserve questionable cable segments merely to save short-term cost. In outdoor projects, unstable old cable often becomes the source of repeated after-sales calls.
11.4. The client initially underestimated user concurrency
At first, the park management described the requirement as “basic public WiFi.” But once we reviewed event-day usage, QR payment, staff devices, and family visitor load, it was obvious that several areas needed higher-performance APs.
Our response
We redefined the site by usage class, not by area size alone. That is why the CF-WA937 was concentrated in key nodes.
11.5. Remote transmission needed both reliability and maintainability
A bridge link is not only about achieving connection once. It must remain stable through weather change and be easy to inspect.
Our response
We reserved clean mounting directions, confirmed alignment carefully, and kept the transmission structure simple enough for later maintenance staff to understand.
12. Construction and Optimization Results
After installation, alignment, AP adjustment, cable organization, and final optimization, the overall network performance improved significantly.
Achieved outcomes
- Main public areas reached stable outdoor WiFi coverage
- Entrance and plaza user experience improved markedly
- Pathway disconnection issues were greatly reduced
- Remote point connectivity became structured and maintainable
- Surveillance-linked transmission had a cleaner topology basis
- Centralized management through the core gateway simplified operation
More importantly, the network became predictable. In engineering, predictability is often more valuable than peak test speed. A network that behaves consistently during daily operation is what clients truly need.
13. Project Acceptance Details
We do not consider a project complete just because devices power on. Formal acceptance must verify user experience, transmission stability, and maintainability.
Our acceptance process for this park included:
13.1. Coverage verification
We walked the main routes and checked:
- signal continuity,
- roaming stability,
- dead-zone occurrence,
- and handoff behavior between key zones.
13.2. High-traffic area testing
We simulated concentrated access in the central square and children’s area to verify:
- access stability,
- page loading,
- QR service availability,
- and general browsing experience.
13.3. Remote link stability test
We tested the wireless bridge section repeatedly to confirm the remote node remained connected and that transmission quality was suitable for planned service use.
13.4. PoE and switch access verification
Each CF-SG181P node was checked for:
- port status,
- AP power stability,
- uplink correctness,
- and labeling clarity for maintenance.
13.5. Core management verification
The CF-AC100 gateway was checked to ensure that the park’s technical team could clearly understand the central network structure after handover.
13.6. Outdoor installation inspection
We inspected:
- waterproof treatment,
- connector protection,
- bracket firmness,
- cable routing neatness,
- and accessibility for future maintenance.
14. Positive Feedback After Project Delivery
After the project was put into service, the client and park users gave encouraging feedback.
Feedback from park management
The management team said the most obvious change was that the network had become “usable in reality, not only visible on a device list.” Previously, they often received vague complaints such as “WiFi is there but doesn’t work well.” After the upgrade, such complaints dropped significantly, especially in the entrance and plaza areas.
They also appreciated that the new structure was much easier to understand. Instead of a messy patchwork of old devices, the park now had a clearer network hierarchy, which reduced stress for their maintenance staff.
Feedback from service staff
Ticket staff and kiosk operators reported that mobile operations became more stable. Payment terminals and service devices no longer dropped as often during busy periods.
Feedback from visitors
Visitors gave positive feedback mainly in three areas:
- easier connection in the entrance and activity zones,
- more stable access while resting near the lakeside,
- and less frequent disconnection when moving through the park.
Some regular visitors specifically mentioned that the network “felt much smoother than before,” especially during evenings and weekends.
15. Project Summary and Engineering Advice
This large outdoor park WiFi project in Kazan once again proved a practical truth:
Outdoor WiFi coverage is never just about placing APs in open space.
It is about understanding user movement, density distribution, vegetation obstruction, equipment height, weather conditions, power access, transmission distance, maintenance logic, and future expansion needs.
In this project, we adopted:
- CF-WA937 for high-traffic core public areas
- CF-EW82 for standard outdoor route and auxiliary coverage
- CF-E319A V2 for remote 5.8G wireless transmission and surveillance-linked networking
- CF-AC100 as the unified gigabit core gateway
- CF-SG181P as the distributed PoE switching node
The final result was not merely wider signal coverage. What we delivered was a park wireless system that became:
- more complete in coverage,
- more stable in access,
- clearer in structure,
- easier to maintain,
- and more practical for long-term operation.
For fellow engineering contractors, my advice is this:
A large park project should never be designed only by map size or AP quantity.
You must classify zones by real user behavior, not by visual area.
You must respect trees, weather, and line-of-sight as real engineering variables.
You must think about maintenance before installation, not after complaints begin.
And you must separate “coverage exists” from “network is truly usable.”
