| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 20.01.04 16:07l 136 Lines 4762 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2691-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jan 18, 5/5
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<IK1ZNW<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 040120/1320Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:17198 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2691-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:58:20 -0600
X-Message-Number: 35
>My example was meant to show that when faced with garbage, the results are
>unpredictable. Some programs will assume an unexpected character in that
>position is one of the valid characters, others will reject the packet
>outright, still others might correctly parse it.
It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to change the TOCALL to
contain and indication of operator activity at the console. What should
happen is that the software should 'watch' the users activity with a timer.
While the user is 'active' the TOCALL would be 'APRSNT'. Any other time,
the TOCALL would be whatever the software let the user select (or the
software provided).
'active' would be defined in different ways for different station types.
A mobile APRS station with messaging would be APRSNT when it was moving at
a minimum, and could have a 'car running' indicator to further qualify
present. The 'car running' indicator could be a simple digital in. The
user could then provide a switch to operate when portable etc.
For a home station, you could use a switch, or an activity timer based on
mouse and keyboard banging etc.
There are ways that this could be made to work, and it does add some
interesting information.
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:02:48 -0700
X-Message-Number: 36
I've thought about this while building my LSU for Lightning detection!
I'd never use this feature....and just would not care to let you or anyone
know if I was there or not. Just my personal feeling on this.
Back to trying to figure out how to get lightning on APRS.
Jim, WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:07:53 -0500
X-Message-Number: 37
>A mobile APRS station with messaging would be APRSNT when it was moving at
>a minimum, and could have a 'car running' indicator to further qualify
>present.
>
>The 'car running' indicator could be a simple digital in. The user could
>then provide a switch to operate when portable etc.
I'm willing to stipulate that a moving vehicle is probably attended, by at
least a driver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
<LYR30523-172303-2004.01.18-21.15.34--kb2scs#optonline.net@lists.tapr.org>
From: kb2scs@optonline.net
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:44:18 -0500
X-Message-Number: 38
Hi All
See below.
On 18 Jan 2004 at 21:11, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>I tested the D700 and it accepts either case of N/S. So the reports so
>far on the availabiility of this bit are:
Snip
>Test would be !4044.44n/10555.55w-Test
Checked PMmap Code. PMmap follows the spec it would drop the above
packet into the bit bucket. On the other hand PMmap has not been
released yet so a change would not be a big deal.
Let us hope we never witness the "Silence Of The Hams"
73 DE John KB2SCS
E-Mail: kb2scs@arrl.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attended vs Unattended
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:05:18 -0600
X-Message-Number: 39
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David VanHorn
>
>I'm willing to stipulate that a moving vehicle is probably
>attended, by at least a driver.
Does a tracker count as an attended station? If all we are doing is
trying to determine if a warm body is somewhere near the radio, it seems
to me this is somewhat useless information and, since it won't be
automatic, probably not utilized.
On the topic of backward compatibility, javAPRS requires proper, per
spec, formatting. This is done to reduce erroneous positions caused by
packet mangling by IGates (and other sources). IMO, the proposed change
would not be, by definition, fully backward compatible. The
recommendation of using the UNPROTO to indicate someone is at the
keyboard would be fully backward compatible. I vote to not modify the
base protocol specification (lower case in the lat/lon). If this is
determined to be something that the majority feel is a useful feature, I
vote for using the backward compatible method of indicating operator
presence at the keyboard via the UNPROTO. IMO, I do not see any
usefulness in this feature, but that is only my opinion.
73,
Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete@ae5pl.net
---
END OF DIGEST
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
