Different LQI values in generated map and device tab in Zigbee2mqtt

There is a similar topic about this (Trust Z2M map or the main tab's LQI?) that post is about offline devices while mine are online and function well. However, when I generate a map of my ZIgbee devices (I am using zigbee2mqtt), I see that some links have very low quality value, even zero, and judging from the map it’s understandable because those links connect devices that are very far away from each others. But in zigbee2mqtt device list there is tab LQI which always shows very high values, most of them are 255. This is what I expect because I have many powered devices that should act as routers.

What should I believe? The generared map or LQI shown in the device tab?

It’s been a while since I did a little research on the definition of LQI values, however I seem to remember this number can be a rather subjective value determined by each vendor that has no common calculation formula between vendors. I did most of my looking at these values when I was more focused on the ZHA based network I had, however I ASSume the reported numbers would be the same by a device moved from a ZHA network to a Zigbee2MQTT network… If I do look at the map generated by Zigbee2MQTT, it does seem to show different values for end devices depending on the vendor of the router that the end device is attached to. End devices attached to old Centralite routers all show a 255 for their LQI value in the map, however show a non-255 value in the table. Where the same brand device connected via a different router shows a non-255 value in the map (example I have two Ikea motion sensors one connected via the Centralite plug and one connected via a Jasco wall socket, the Jasco being a much ‘newer’ device I believe). Additionally, I believe you can have two parties report the value for any given link, so the view may again show an arbitrary choice by Zigbee2MQTT as which to report.

I am wondering if the two views table vs. map are showing ‘kind of real times’ some what subjectively chosen non 255 value vs. point in time (in case of map) report?

So, I am not sure there is ‘good’ science to either view…

As a follow up, I kind of threw up my hands on getting a good answer to all of this during my investigation when I first ran across the ‘none of the above’ term/‘type of link’. You see these words as non-selected but possible to select option in the Zigbee2MQTT map. I remember from my research that ‘none of the above’ is an ‘official’ term in the zigbee standard. However, without a clear definition. Go figure :upside_down_face: If this term were used in a programming language as a variable type definition, I am guessing if you asked what type data was held in the variable, the answer would be … well none of the above… :roll_eyes:

Thank you David for the long answer. Well it obviously it didn’t clarify the things, perhaps with the exception of one thing: LQI values may be subject to their interpretation by respective routers. Judging from the values I am getting in my network, the map values are to be least trusted, simple because many of them are shown as zeroes, and I double-checked that I am getting decent and quick respone from the associated devices.

My initial interest in LQI values was to identify potentially irresponsive devices and then reconfigure them by removing from the network and pairing again. But all of them to be responsive disregarding very low values they show in the map. So I tend to believe in more optimistic picture from zigbee2mqtt table where they all are above 200.

As somebody said in one of the threads: as long as your system works, leave your devices alone, whatever LQI they report. So I am going to follow this advice.