| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 07.03.04 13:04l 230 Lines 9268 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2979-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 05, 5/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<VK6HGR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040307/1016Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:20534 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2979-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Andreas Junge - ARRL.NET" <n6nu@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:08:15 -0800
X-Message-Number: 27
Some of these points have been raised before. Here are my thoughts:
1) DOCUMENTATION: How does a APRS newbie get started? Is there documentation
explaining the basics available? If not, let's start there. www.aprs.net
www.findu.com ... should point to the same documentation.
Setup a database where DIGI ops/users can enter the preferred path (web
based?) New users enter a DIGI call and get the info they need to get
started.
2) Suggest the use of fixed path for stations that have cover some distance.
That way the packet at least travels in a certain direction and not all over
the place.
3) Have a beacon suggesting the proper path for the area. Maybe future
trackers can pick it up and set themselves accordingly.
73,
Andreas, N6NU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 12:08:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 28
On 3/5/04 at 8:24 AM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>>Except for digis, Kenwoods, TinyTracs, Pic-Es, Mic-Es,
>>HamHuds, MNEA trackers, etc!
>
>Aha, but presumably every user of those devices also uses
>some client software some time in their lives and presumably
>they might try to use the same abusive path as they do in
>their mobiles. Then they would see the feedback.
>
>Its action-response-feedback that they need to see. No,
>they wont see it when the encode their tracker, but if they
>see it often enough when they look at FINDU or at a
>client software, then they will get the message and the
>general knowledge base will improve...
You seem to have a comment on everything except my proposal, which WILL
take care of digis, Kenwoods, TinyTracs, Pic-Es, Mic-Es, HamHuds, MNEA
trackers, etc., and which will avoid the possibility of collateral damage I
see as a big problem in your proposal.
The only down side from your perspective I can see, is that instead of the
work your proposal generates for all of the IGate operators, and the
support headache your proposal generates for me, this places the
responsibility for weilding the weapon squarely on your shoulders.
Now Bob, you were rather fast to place this large amount of work onto
others, to maybe accomplish the goal of cutting offenders off of findU
(maybe being if and only if you get 100% compliance in the range of a given
offender). Realistically, you know this will take months for the authors to
roll out new versions and get IGates upgraded, if it happens at all.
Collateral damage starts occuring when the carpet bombing begins, and at
best it only affects a subset of the offenders. On the other hand, I have
offered you a smart bomb, free of collateral damage effects, which will be
in your hands an hour after you accept it.
None of the other authors have commented on this, I don't see a groundswell
of support for your proposal among the authors. I suspect my proposal is
the only chance you have of getting the ability to ban from findU. If it
really is as important to the future of APRS as you say, then I think you
need to step forward and accept the responsibility of being
commander-in-chief.
And no, I'm not going away with this until you either abandon the proposal
to have IGate operators filter long paths, or accept the responsibility for
weilding the power of findU banishment. I really hope it will be the later,
the more I think about it the more I think this could be a good idea, but
it needs someone at the head that is well respected, has no axes to grind,
and is not a lightning rod for controversy. It needs you, Bob! If you
aren't willing to accept the responsibility, fine, but say so publicly...
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Radar Camera mapping app - GB
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:15:22 -0500
X-Message-Number: 29
>But the police have this great way of prosecuting pretty much anyone for
>anything, by stating that you're "driving without due care and attention".
>Infact, you can be prosecuted for drinking water, from a bottle, whilst
>stationery at traffic lights! Incredibly British eh.
I saw a program on "worst drivers" (british) where traffic was backed up
behind someone in the fast lane, and someone else passed him in the slow
lane, and was therefore ticketed.. The idiot blocking the fast lane was
apparently just fine with the cops.
Somewhere I heard the comment made, "Driving with excessive cheek".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Excessive Path and Power
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 12:28:18 -0500
X-Message-Number: 30
On 3/5/04 at 4:50 PM john van sandt <n9yrx@hotmail.com> sent:
>If you think of WIDE 7-7 as excessive power for communication then it is in
>violation of the FCC rules and could be reason to alert the FCC for their
>comments. If you were to use 500 watts to communicate voice 2 blocks away
>it would be as excessive as WIDE 7-7 in 90% of the applications.
>Wait...don't get the FCC involved, we should be self policeing.
I think the rules are pretty clear as to power being an electrical
quantity. However, I think someone that is informed of the problems his
path is causing, does not have a legitimate need to use that path or beacon
frequency, and yet continues to do it, is causing deliberate interference,
a violation the FCC considers to be of greater concern than excessive
power.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: James Jefferson <jj@aprsworld.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:42:50 -0600
X-Message-Number: 31
>None of the other authors have commented on this, I don't see a groundswell
>of support for your proposal among the authors. I suspect my proposal is
>the only chance you have of getting the ability to ban from findU. If it
>really is as important to the future of APRS as you say, then I think you
>need to step forward and accept the responsibility of being
>commander-in-chief.
As author of aprsworld.net I agree with Steve that not i-gating people with
excessive paths is not a solution.
Doing a "bad paths" page similar to the NW APRS network could be good. I'd be
happy to supply data and resources to anybody that wanted to code that up and
maintain it. I don't have the time to do it myself right now.
-Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Path pot another thought
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:19:42 -0500
X-Message-Number: 32
On 3/5/04 at 11:40 AM John Kraus <flyfisher452@cox.net> sent:
>Perhaps Steve could combine the suggestions of IGATE control and an error
>page in a non-punitive manner.
>
>Bob's local IGate idea could be modified to inject something that Steve
>could parse.
>
>Steve could then cause parsed packets to be directed to a OOPs page with
>links to Bob's errata site. The page should also list what IGATE triggered
>the OOPs. Then at the bottom would be a link to the normal FINDU page.
It was consideration of this proposal that led me to my new proposal. This
is better than Bob's proposal, but still has some problems.
First, it requires a number of different IGate programmers to produce new
code, release it, and have their user base install it.
Second, the power of issuing the warning lies in the hands of IGate
operators. Are these the people that have the best perspective and
knowledge to decide the operating norms?
Third, without the big stick of banishment from findU, there is no
incentive to comply. Remember, this option is being consideredd for those
people that have failed to respond to email or snail-mail requests...it is
not meant to be a first-line educational tool. There is good reason for
this. Many users of findU are not actually the hams, but rather friends and
family. What is the point of telling a wife her husband has a too-long
path?
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Path pot another thought
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:25:36 -0500
X-Message-Number: 33
On 3/5/04 at 1:19 PM Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org> sent:
>It was consideration of this proposal that led me to my new proposal. This is
>better than Bob's proposal, but still has some problems.
poorly worded, should have said "It was consideration of a similar idea
that...."
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:44:46 -0500
X-Message-Number: 34
The proposal I saw from you was the hall of shame. But that is totally
repugant because it is trying to fit one rule everywhere. That just cannot
possibly work. If you made another proposal, I must have missed it.
Please re-state it so that we are on the same page.
thanks.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
