In scenic area WiFi projects, the real challenge is never simply how many access points are installed, but whether the network can remain stable, usable, and easy to maintain under complex outdoor conditions, changing visitor traffic, and strict landscape requirements.
As a wireless engineering team with extensive experience in outdoor WiFi coverage and transmission projects, we have long understood that scenic environments are fundamentally different from ordinary commercial or campus deployments. Lakeside humidity, dense trees, open pathways, shifting crowds, hidden cabling constraints, and high expectations for visual harmony all make scenic area networking a highly specialized engineering task.
The Hangzhou West Lake project is a typical example of this kind of work. On the surface, it is an outdoor WiFi coverage project. In practice, however, it is a comprehensive system design challenge involving signal planning, roaming optimization, wireless backhaul, power distribution, installation concealment, and long-term operation management.
In this project, our team approached the site from the perspective of a local Hangzhou wireless contractor, combining real scenic-area construction experience with the practical deployment advantages of COMFAST equipment. Rather than pursuing superficial full-bar coverage, we focused on what truly matters in a high-traffic cultural landscape: stable access, smooth roaming, controlled construction impact, and sustainable maintenance after delivery.
1. Team Introduction: Long-Term Expertise in Scenic Areas and Complex Outdoor Wireless Coverage
Our team has long been engaged in wireless network engineering projects across East China, and we are especially experienced in outdoor WiFi coverage and wireless transmission projects for scenic areas, parks, plazas, commercial pedestrian streets, docks, and open public spaces. Unlike ordinary low-voltage installation teams, we do not simply “mount APs and call it a day.” What we care more about includes:
- Signal attenuation patterns in open scenic-area environments
- The impact of ancient trees, lake surfaces, walking trails, rockeries, corridors, and bridges on wireless transmission
- Capacity planning during holiday peaks with high-density visitor access
- Outdoor device waterproofing, lightning protection, power supply, and maintenance convenience
- Whether the scenic area’s operations team can manage the network stably and cost-effectively over the long term
Over the years, we have used COMFAST equipment in many hotels, commercial districts, campuses, industrial parks, and scenic-area projects. The reason we continue to choose COMFAST is not simply because we are “familiar with the brand,” but because in a large number of real projects, several of its advantages have proven particularly suitable for engineering implementation:
- A clear product lineup that makes layered deployment by scenario easier
- Flexible combinations of outdoor APs and PoE switches, ideal for scenic areas with dispersed deployment points
- A complete ecosystem of bridges, gateways, switches, and APs for unified project delivery
- Excellent cost-performance for scenic projects that need both budget control and stability
- High deployment and configuration efficiency, helping our team complete projects quickly within limited construction windows in tourist areas
This Hangzhou West Lake project is a very typical outdoor wireless coverage project characterized by strict aesthetic requirements, heavy tourist flow, numerous environmental constraints, and a strong demand for reliable network performance.
2. Project Name
“Xizi Cloud Corridor” Outdoor WiFi Optimization Coverage Project for Hangzhou West Lake Scenic Area
This was the internal project codename we assigned. We named it “Xizi Cloud Corridor” because the coverage area in this project focused on the open lakeside walking routes, waterfront nodes, visitor gathering zones, and scenic stop points along West Lake. The overall design philosophy was not to stack APs everywhere, but to build an invisible wireless corridor across the scenic area.
3. Project Background: Why West Lake Requires a Dedicated Outdoor WiFi Solution
Hangzhou West Lake is a typical large-scale open scenic environment. The lake surface, causeways, bridges, gardens, tree arrays, pavilions, trails, and surrounding visitor service points are intertwined. The space is open, but not regular. West Lake’s cultural landscape also includes large numbers of pavilions, towers, gardens, ornamental trees, causeways, and islands, while mountains rise on three sides. This terrain and vegetation directly affect outdoor wireless signal propagation and blockage. (whc.unesco.org)
In addition, West Lake has long been a highly popular tourist destination. During holidays, its open public space often experiences very high-density visitor traffic. Public reports show that West Lake Scenic Area has received millions of visitors in a single National Day holiday week; as early as 2016, the scenic area had already deployed the free “i-xihu” WiFi service, with over 400 hotspots covering major attractions, parks, and roads. (en.wikipedia.org)
For that very reason, when the client approached us this time, the requirement was not to build a network entirely from scratch, but to solve a more typical problem:
Wireless service already existed in the scenic area, but the user experience was unstable, key areas performed poorly during peak periods, and the operations team was finding it increasingly difficult to manage.
4. Basic Project Information
Project Location: Open lakeside areas of West Lake Scenic Area, Hangzhou
Project Type: Outdoor WiFi coverage optimization and wireless transmission supporting construction for a scenic area
Implementation Role: General contractor and local wireless network engineering team in Hangzhou
Project Goals:
- Improve visitor access experience in key walking paths and viewing spots
- Solve uneven legacy hotspot coverage, disconnections, and poor roaming performance
- Support livestreaming, short-video uploads, guide QR code access, online payment, and mobile operations
- Establish a standardized network structure that the scenic area’s maintenance staff can manage over the long term
COMFAST devices used in this project:
- CF-WA973: Outdoor AP, 3600M, WiFi 7, dual-band
- CF-EW87: Outdoor AP, 3600M, WiFi 7, dual-band
- CF-E115A: 5.8G wireless bridge for surveillance/WiFi transmission
- CF-AC200: Full-gigabit core gateway
- CF-SG1241P: 24-port gigabit PoE switch
5. The Initial Pain Points and Requirements Raised by the Client
The client was a scenic area operations and management unit. In our first discussions, the issues they raised were very clear, and they were exactly the most challenging types commonly found in scenic-area wireless projects.
5.1. The issue was not the lack of hotspots, but that “having signal did not mean the network was usable”
In some areas, phones could detect WiFi, but webpages would not load, authentication was slow, and video uploads stalled—especially when visitor density was high.
5.2. Frequent disconnections while visitors were moving
As visitors moved from one viewing point to another along the scenic paths, devices often stayed attached to weak APs or failed to switch in time, causing interruptions in guide systems, mini-programs, and livestreams.
5.3. Trees, the lake surface, and landscape obstacles caused extremely uneven coverage
Along West Lake, willows, dense greenery, scenic corridors, classical-style structures, waterfront platforms, and similar elements create a wireless environment that looks “open” but is actually highly complex. West Lake’s causeways and lakeside paths are already lined with trees and landscape facilities, and these directly affect both deployment density and antenna orientation.
5.4. Construction restrictions in the scenic area were very strict
We could not freely install poles, we could not damage the landscape, devices could not be overly visible, and construction had to avoid peak visitor periods.
5.5. Pulling fiber to some points was difficult
Not every location along the open lakeside area allowed easy excavation or new cable routing, so the solution had to incorporate wireless backhaul.
5.6. The maintenance team was not composed of professional network engineers
The client hoped that after delivery, scenic area staff could handle basic troubleshooting through simple training, instead of having to call the construction team back for every issue.
6. What We Found After Site Survey
Many projects fail not because the devices are poor, but because the early-stage site survey was not thorough enough. Our team conducted several rounds of surveys at West Lake, including:
- Daytime surveys during visitor peak periods
- Evening surveys during lakeside traffic surges
- Post-rain environment inspections
- Roaming tests in the legacy hotspot coverage areas
- Real-terminal testing for video upload, QR authentication, and short-video livestreaming
In the end, we summarized the following key issues.
6.1. Legacy deployment points were chosen “by location,” not “by traffic behavior”
Some earlier hotspot installation points prioritized ease of power access and mounting convenience rather than hotspots of visitor concentration, frequent QR code usage areas, or livestream/photo stop zones.
6.2. On the same walking route, the first half could be too strong while the second half was a blank zone
Some APs were configured too aggressively in pursuit of large-area coverage, resulting in excessively strong signals nearby but unstable coverage farther away; devices at the cell edge then delayed switching, leading to poor roaming experience.
6.3. The lakeside environment had both “reflection” and “obstruction” problems
The lake surface created signal reflections, while tree arrays and landscape structures created irregular blockage. Many non-professional teams only know that “signals travel far in open areas,” but overlook terminal holding height, device angle, human body blocking, and capacity degradation during dense usage periods.
6.4. High-concurrency zones and transit zones could not use the same deployment logic
Viewing platforms, kiosks, visitor gathering points, and popular photo spots are classic high-concurrency zones; long walkways and causeway sections are better suited to continuous overlapping coverage. These two types of areas must be designed differently.
6.5. Some front-end points lacked stable wired backhaul conditions
If we forced fiber everywhere, construction costs would rise, approvals would become more complex, and the impact on the landscape would increase. Therefore, wireless bridges had to be introduced for coverage extension.
7. Our Overall Design Approach
The project ultimately adopted a layered design based on wired core infrastructure, supplemented by wireless backhaul in selected areas, with reinforced coverage at key viewing nodes and continuous coverage along main walking routes.
The design principles were as follows:
7.1. We did not pursue “one AP covering a very long distance,” but rather “stable connectivity all along the visitor path”
The most important factor in a scenic-area project is not achieving extremely high speed at one single point, but ensuring that visitors can smoothly access WiFi throughout their journey—whether they are scanning codes, taking photos, posting on social media, viewing guides, or livestreaming.
7.2. Popular stopping points and transit corridors were designed separately
- Popular stopping points: capacity and stability were the priorities
- Transit corridors: continuous coverage and roaming experience were the priorities
7.3. Wired first, wireless补盲 second
Wherever wired deployment was feasible, we used wired links; where excavation, road crossing, or routing through landscape belts was not practical, we used CF-E115A for 5.8G directional wireless transmission.
7.4. Hidden installation and landscape coordination were equally important
We prioritized:
- Mounting on classical-style lighting poles
- Hidden installation near service kiosks
- Low-visibility installation angles outside tree arrays
- Reuse of existing surveillance poles in the scenic area
7.5. The target was maintenance-friendly delivery
Each area was separately numbered and marked, with individual power source records and port documentation, making future maintenance easier.
8. Equipment Selection and Functional Roles
This is the part that many case studies tend to gloss over, but in a real project, the reasoning behind every device selection must be explained clearly.
8.1. CF-WA973: The main outdoor coverage AP for the scenic area
Deployment locations:
- Popular viewing nodes
- Visitor concentration zones along the lake
- Main path intersections
- Temporary event peak-traffic areas
Reasons for selection:
- WiFi 7 dual-band performance better suited to high-density visitor scenarios
- Outdoor-rated device suitable for long-term deployment in open scenic environments
- Capable of handling both main coverage and high-concurrency access tasks
- Better suited to mixed business such as short-video uploads, livestreaming, guide mini-programs, and payment access
Our practical understanding in this project:
CF-WA973 was not just a “signal coverage device,” but the main access-bearing device in key zones. Wherever visitors stayed longer, where concurrent users were numerous, and where business types were mixed, this model was prioritized.
8.2. CF-EW87: The outdoor AP used for continuous coverage and gap-filling
Deployment locations:
- Lakeside walking paths
- Causeway corners
- Outer edges of tree arrays
- Visitor transit corridors
- Secondary nodes
Reasons for selection:
- Also a WiFi 7 dual-band outdoor AP
- Well suited for continuous gap-filling and strip-like coverage
- Forms a layered deployment architecture together with the primary APs, instead of using the same layout logic at every point
- Easier to optimize cell boundaries and fill coverage gaps during engineering implementation
How we used it in this project:
CF-EW87 played more of a “mesh weaving” role, ensuring that visitors always felt that the network was there as they moved, rather than only experiencing strong WiFi when standing directly beneath a hotspot.
8.3. CF-E115A: Solving backhaul in areas where wired deployment was difficult
Deployment locations:
- Small viewing platforms
- Lakeside-side points where excavation was difficult
- Installation sites requiring transmission across roads or green belts
- Shared surveillance/WiFi poles
Reasons for selection:
- 5.8G wireless transmission is suitable for short- to medium-distance directional backhaul
- Reduces excavation and buried conduit work in scenic areas
- Particularly suitable for combined planning with surveillance poles and auxiliary scenic infrastructure
- Helps projects get approved and implemented more easily when scenic area restrictions are strict
Our experience in this project:
In a scenic area like West Lake, not every location is suitable for new fiber routing. Using CF-E115A for partial bridge backhaul is often more efficient than forcing civil work, and it is also easier to get through landscape management requirements.
8.4. CF-AC200: The unified egress and policy control core of the network
Functions:
- Unified egress management for all scenic sub-zones
- Address assignment, authentication integration, and Internet access policy control
- Logical isolation between visitor networks and management networks
- Unified bandwidth control and abnormal connection governance
Why a core gateway was essential:
The biggest risk in scenic-area projects is ending up with many front-end devices but no unified management.
Without a central core, later-stage authentication, bandwidth control, blacklist handling, and fault location all become difficult. In this project, CF-AC200 played the role of transforming scattered hotspots into a manageable system.
8.5. CF-SG1241P: The front-end aggregation and PoE power-supply switch
Functions:
- Centralized PoE power supply for outdoor APs
- Front-end access aggregation
- Simplified on-site power supply structure
- Improved later maintenance efficiency
Why it was so important in a scenic-area project:
In scenic areas, AP deployment points are dispersed. If every point draws power independently, the system becomes complicated and risky.
By using centralized PoE power supply, the number of fault points can be significantly reduced, and power-off troubleshooting and port-level maintenance become much easier.
9. Project Network Topology Diagram
Below is the implementation topology diagram for this project. This structure follows the typical logic of scenic-area projects: centralized core management in the equipment room + zoned PoE switching + front-end AP coverage + wireless bridge backhaul for selected remote points.
10. Detailed Networking Design by Area
To make this case study closer to a real project rather than simply a list of devices, the following section explains the actual implementation logic by area.
Zone A: Popular lakeside viewing platform area
Characteristics:
- Visitors stay for a long time
- High frequency of photography, livestreaming, and video posting
- Heavy concurrency pressure during peak crowd periods
Deployment method:
- Main APs used: CF-WA973
- Installed at elevated positions on landscape poles or hidden support structures
- Coverage directed toward the actual visitor activity area rather than blindly toward the lake surface
- Overlap zones controlled to avoid mutual interference between multiple high-power APs
Engineering insight:
In lakeside projects, if APs are aimed broadly over the lake, it may look like coverage extends far, but much of that signal is wasted in ineffective areas. In practice, we brought the coverage focus back to the actual visitor activity zone.
Zone B: Continuous movement areas along lakeside walkways
Characteristics:
- Visitors remain in motion
- Medium access duration, but very high requirements for continuity during switching
- Frequent disconnections are unacceptable
Deployment method:
- Mainly based on CF-EW87
- Continuous strip-like coverage along the path
- No attempt to make one single AP cover an excessively large range
- Moderate overlap between adjacent coverage zones to support terminal roaming
Engineering insight:
Many teams treat outdoor APs as “broadcast horns,” trying to make one point cover as far as possible. Scenic walkways are exactly the kind of environment where this approach fails, because terminals at the edge of coverage easily end up with “signal present, but poor user experience.”
Zone C: Kiosks, service points, and high-frequency QR code areas
Characteristics:
- Frequent payments, scans, consultations, and guide access
- Connection density rises sharply during sudden queue formation
- Although the business is not extremely bandwidth-heavy, it demands very high stability
Deployment method:
- Use CF-WA973 or enhanced nearby coverage deployment
- Use CF-EW87 to strengthen weak edge areas nearby
- Logically isolate scenic area business terminals from the visitor public network
- Separate payment traffic from public visitor Internet access through policy control
Engineering insight:
The network near service points cannot be evaluated only by visitor Internet use; the stability of staff business terminals must also be considered. A truly mature engineering solution always separates the “visitor network” from the “business network” logically.
Zone D: Remote nodes where civil cabling was not practical
Characteristics:
- Strict landscape approval requirements
- High excavation difficulty
- But coverage still had to be extended
Deployment method:
- Use CF-E115A for 5.8G wireless bridge backhaul
- One side connected near a wired aggregation area
- The other side connected to the remote AP point
- Bridge installation carefully aligned for line-of-sight and tree canopy avoidance
Engineering insight:
Wireless bridges are not just devices to “throw up and hope for the best.” In scenic areas, seasonal tree growth, rainy or foggy conditions, and installation height changes can all affect link stability. In a tree-dense scenic environment like West Lake, we always account for extra signal attenuation during the lush foliage season.
11. Difficulties Encountered During Construction and How We Solved Them
This section best demonstrates whether a team has really done this kind of work before.
Difficulty 1: Extremely high scenic landscape requirements meant equipment could not affect visual appearance
Problem:
West Lake Scenic Area is not an ordinary park. Equipment that is too visible can damage the visual harmony of the landscape.
Solution:
- Prioritized reuse of existing landscape poles, surveillance poles, and kiosk-edge structures
- Installation angles chosen to keep devices out of the main visitor line of sight
- Cabling routed in waterproof corrugated conduit coordinated with surrounding structural colors
- Labels and numbering placed on maintenance-facing sides rather than in visitor-visible areas
Difficulty 2: Ancient trees and willow trees affected signals far more than expected
West Lake’s shoreline has typical causeway tree arrays and ornamental vegetation, making trees themselves a key variable in the project. (en.wikipedia.org)
Problem:
- Dense summer foliage caused significant attenuation
- Some points tested fine in spring but showed weaker edge performance in summer
- At the same mounting height, signal penetration varied greatly by direction
Solution:
- Avoided forcing coverage directly through dense canopies
- AP mounting height set slightly above typical terminal usage height, but not excessively high
- Coverage at tree-array boundaries designed with angled projection rather than direct penetration through greenery
- Reserved supplementary points for key areas requiring future gap-filling
Difficulty 3: Peak-period concurrency was several times higher than on ordinary days
Problem:
On normal days, speed tests looked excellent. But on weekends or holidays, authentication slowed down, video traffic stalled, and latency increased.
Solution:
- Used CF-WA973 in key areas as the main access-bearing device
- Controlled load by hotspot zone
- Optimized access policy on the core gateway side
- Restricted abnormal terminals from occupying resources for too long
- Reserved expansion ports for sudden short-term traffic bursts in critical areas
Difficulty 4: New conduits could not be routed to some points
Problem:
Scenic area approvals, construction windows, and landscape protection requirements jointly limited the cabling methods available.
Solution:
- Used CF-E115A for bridge backhaul
- Avoided placing bridge links directly in the main scenic line of sight
- Planned backhaul links and access links in separate layers
- Re-tested bridge links in rainy conditions and at evening humidity peaks
Difficulty 5: Earlier projects lacked complete documentation, making later maintenance difficult
Problem:
The most common issue in legacy projects is not that equipment fails, but that nobody knows exactly “where this point is connected.”
Solution:
At delivery, we additionally created:
- Point numbering lists
- Switch port mapping tables
- Power supply relationship tables
- AP installation location diagrams
- Bridge pairing tables
- One-page troubleshooting flow sheets
This part may not look eye-catching, but it is exactly the kind of work many engineering teams fail to do properly.
12. Final Equipment Deployment List (Illustrative)
The following is a typical deployment approach used in this case, suitable for project article presentation:
| Model | Purpose | Deployment Logic |
|---|---|---|
| CF-WA973 | Main outdoor AP for the scenic area | Key viewing zones, high-concurrency visitor areas, enhanced coverage near service nodes |
| CF-EW87 | Gap-filling and continuous coverage AP | Walkways, causeways, visitor transit corridors, continuous strip coverage |
| CF-E115A | 5.8G wireless backhaul bridge | Areas where cabling is difficult, remote nodes, surveillance/WiFi backhaul |
| CF-AC200 | Core gateway for the entire network | Unified egress management, policy control, isolation, and operations management |
| CF-SG1241P | 24-port gigabit PoE switch | Front-end access aggregation, centralized PoE power supply, simplified construction and maintenance |
13. Results After Project Implementation
After project completion and a period of live operation, the overall outcome met the client’s original objectives and proved even more stable than expected.
Actual improvements achieved
- WiFi access success rate in the main visitor activity zones improved significantly
- Disconnections during movement along the scenic routes were greatly reduced
- Short-video uploads, livestreaming, and QR code access at popular viewing spots became smoother
- Scenic area service staff reported more stable connections for operational terminals
- The maintenance team could quickly locate fault points based on the documentation
Project value delivered
- For visitors: better Internet experience and fewer complaints caused by unstable connectivity
- For the scenic area: improved smart-tourism service capability, supporting guide systems, service access, and online dissemination
- For maintenance teams: lower long-term troubleshooting costs
- For management: a network construction approach better aligned with landscape protection and long-term operation requirements
14. Feedback from the Client and Users After Acceptance
This is the part that truly makes a project case compelling, because it reflects real post-delivery reputation.
Client feedback
During acceptance, the client was most satisfied with three points:
First, the network was not just locally good—it felt smooth overall.
Previously, a few spots had strong signals, but visitors would lose connection after walking just a short distance. Now, the experience felt more continuous along the whole tour route.
Second, the construction footprint was very well controlled.
Scenic area management was highly sensitive to both the appearance and installation positions of devices, and we kept device visibility very low, which earned strong approval.
Third, the delivery documentation was highly professional.
Many teams leave as soon as construction ends. We provide the materials truly needed for long-term maintenance, which made the scenic area’s operations team much more comfortable.
Front-line user feedback
In the period after acceptance, several of the comments relayed by scenic area staff from both visitors and on-site personnel were concentrated on the following:
- “The QR code pages load faster than before.”
- “It’s much less likely to get stuck while posting videos along the route.”
- “Livestream interruptions have become less frequent.”
- “Visitors ask less often how to connect to WiFi now, which means the experience is more intuitive.”
- “It is much easier to locate problem points during inspections than before.”
15. What Made This Project Different from What Most Engineering Teams Do
This was one of your emphasized requirements, so it deserves its own section.
Many engineering teams handling scenic-area WiFi projects make the following common mistakes:
- They only estimate coverage by flat map distance
- They ignore the effect of trees, lake reflections, and visitor stopping behavior on wireless experience
- They only care about single-point speed tests, not about the experience along the whole visitor route
- They do not carry out real peak-time testing
- They fail to leave clients with maintenance documentation that is actually usable
What we did differently in the West Lake project can be summarized in four main points:
15.1. We designed the network according to visitor behavior, not according to map distance
Where people take photos, where they scan codes, where they queue, and where they linger—we incorporated all of that into the deployment logic.
15.2. We treated landscape constraints as design conditions, not construction obstacles
Instead of complaining that the scenic area was difficult to work in, we designed from the beginning according to scenic-area standards for hidden installation and minimal visual disruption.
15.3. We used wireless backhaul as an engineering tool, not as a compromise
CF-E115A was not something we used “only when there was no other option,” but a highly efficient engineering supplement in scenic-area environments.
15.4. We focused on long-term operational sustainability after delivery
A truly professional contractor is not judged by how impressive the project looks on the day it goes live, but by whether the client still finds it easy to manage, stable to operate, and low in faults three months, six months, or a year later.
16. A Few Practical Suggestions for Other WiFi Engineering Teams
A project like West Lake may look like “just outdoor AP coverage,” but in reality it tests the team’s overall engineering capability. Based on this project, here are a few very practical suggestions for other teams:
16.1. Do not be obsessed with “high power and large range” in scenic-area projects
Long-distance coverage does not equal good experience. Continuous and stable performance matters more than a single powerful hotspot.
16.2. In mixed environments of lakesides, tree arrays, walkways, and landscape structures, always conduct multi-period on-site testing
Do not survey only once during a daytime off-peak period and then produce the final design. That is how projects fail.
16.3. High-concurrency zones and transit zones must be designed separately
A viewing platform and a walkway are fundamentally different wireless scenarios.
16.4. Use wired links wherever possible, and only use bridges where wiring is not practical
But once bridges are used, you must carefully evaluate line of sight, angle, rainy/foggy weather, and seasonal tree growth.
16.5. Delivery documentation must be complete
What truly makes a client remember you is not just what happened on the day of construction, but whether they appreciate your documentation when they carry out maintenance later.
17. Project Conclusion
The “Xizi Cloud Corridor” Outdoor WiFi Coverage Project for Hangzhou West Lake Scenic Area was, for us, not just a routine AP installation project, but a typical wireless experience reconstruction project for a scenic area.
In this project, based on the real conditions of West Lake’s open space, causeways and walkways, vegetation blockage, lakeside reflections, landscape protection requirements, and high tourist concurrency during peak periods, we adopted:
- CF-WA973 for high-quality access in key areas
- CF-EW87 for continuous coverage and gap-filling along the route
- CF-E115A to solve wireless backhaul in areas where wiring was difficult
- CF-AC200 for unified network-wide management
- CF-SG1241P for front-end PoE power supply and access aggregation
In the end, we transformed the project from a situation of “scattered hotspots with only average experience” into a scenic-area outdoor wireless system that is “more evenly covered, more natural in roaming, and easier to maintain.”
