| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 10.05.04 08:17l 263 Lines 9980 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3178-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Apr 20, 7/17
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0BEL<JK1ZRW<WB0TAX<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 040510/0647Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:23696 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3178-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: APRS greater precision
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 27
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>1) it was not implemented by many applications.
Two applications implemented it, as far as I know.
>2) It was intended for compression, not precision
It helps with both.
>3) Too many people confuse precision and will use
>it wrongly since precision is useless without knowing
>the DATUM.
But, if we go by the spec, we DO know the datum.
>So for the sake of standard comunications protocol
>that will have a good chance of proper interpretation
>at the "other end of a comuniations network" one
>should not use the compressed format...
I disagree. I'd rather use a binary protocol like OpenTrac to tell the
truth, but as far as APRS protocol, the Base-91 is the best thing we
currently have in the spec. It's adequate for the uses I need to put it
to.
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS greater precision
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:16:19 -0400
X-Message-Number: 28
At 12:23 PM 4/20/2004, Curt, WE7U wrote:
> Kenwood: 3322 14.18 468866 11.06 77.97
> Hamhud: 8 0.03 989 0.02 68.30
> Opentracker: 8 0.03 152 0.00 10.50
>-------------------------------------------------------
Sorted in order of popularity:
Unidentified: 8693 37.10 1626514 38.35 103.37
Ui-View: 4508 19.24 809714 19.09 99.23
Kenwood: 3322 14.18 468866 11.06 77.97
Std Mic-E: 1297 5.54 216213 5.10 92.10
Aprsd: 1070 4.57 118847 2.80 61.36
WinAPRS: 961 4.10 235589 5.56 135.44
TinyTrak: 855 3.65 170949 4.03 110.46
Wow.... kenwood is 14% of 23,000 aprs users. Wow.. that is really
phenomenal!!!! I probably know all 8 ham hudders' email addresses from
memory.... lol.
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Kenwood Radios
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:17:29 -0500
X-Message-Number: 29
>Kenwood has my support... but they also have my suggestions for making
>their product better. Provide us a better software tools to talk to the
>TNC and display.
How about making it possible for end users to install new firmware, or even
(gasp) open source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [ui-view] Removal of the UI-View message extensions fromUI-View32
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 30
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>Its easy, we have argued over and over on this SIG that
>it is just plain WRONG to transmit a position with precision
>to ONE FOOT if the position is NOT known to that accuracy.
>And to my knowledge NONE of the existin g common mapping
>programs in use on APRS have anywhere near that kind
>of precision.
If you're using County GIS Shapefile-format maps (or one of the other
GIS-format maps we support), you can do that with Xastir.
Would you call Xastir a common mapping program used for APRS yet? We're at
over 800 downloads/month now, and that doesn't count the many advanced
users that have figured out that CVS is the way to go, so they can skip the
big file downloads from now on.
>Compressed posit format is in the SPEC for use in special
>CLOSED systems where you can GUARANTEE that the
>precision transmitted has that precision, otehrwise you
>are doing everyone a disservice by transmitting WRONG
>data.
And relative positions of objects/items is an exception to this rule. GPS
is not required for this, therefore we don't have to stick to GPS
resolutions.
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: D700 and Garmin GPS-V
From: Rick Stoneking <w2rds@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:31:56 -0400
X-Message-Number: 31
All,
I have been using my D700 (which I love, BTW) for about two years now. I
have been using a Delorme TripMate as the GPS receiver attached to the
radio and it works great. I have recently purchased a Garmin GPS-V and I
was hoping that I would now be able to have the D700 display other APRS
stations as Waypoints on the GPS-V screen. I have read through the manual
and it appears that the only input (into the GPS-V) protocal is a Garmin
proprietary protocol not supported by the Garmin GPS-V. Can anybody on the
SIG confirm that I am out of luck with the equipment I have, or I have I
missed something?
Thanks,
Rick
W2RDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS greater precision
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 32
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Scott Miller wrote:
>So why wasn't it indicated in the spec? The easy solution is to do what we
>did in the OpenTRAC spec - it explicitly states that all positions are in
>WGS84.
It is indicated, early in the spec, that WGS84 is to be used. Unfortunately
it was thought early on that WGS84 would be put out in the NMEA strings
that a GPS puts out, no matter what the "display" datum used for the GPS
screen was set to. That turned out to be an incorrect assumption, as all
Garmin's that I know of set the output serial stream to whatever you set
the datum to for display purposes. That caused a big mess on APRS.
>So why is it Mic-E is OK, but compressed format is not? Mic-E introduces
>unprintable characters, subverts the TOCALL field, and generally makes life
>miserable for software authors, but it's used everywhere while the more
>straightforward compressed format is shunned.
Yea, Mic-E is a big pain, and has caused a lot of problems for people in
the past, and still does so on a less regular basis nowadays (mostly do to
filter/mfilter settings in TNC's that are set to ASCII mode instead of
KISS). Mic-E is supported in most all of the clients though, including the
fixed-firmware Kenwoods.
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Kenwood Radios
<LYR36507-194979-2004.04.20-12.06.38--mikejp#videotron.ca@lists.tapr.org>
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:35:27 -0700
X-Message-Number: 33
>>All I know is I love my D700.
>>Especially that it can display APRS positions as waypoints on my plain
old GPS.
>>Beats trying to secure a laptop to my car dash! ;-)
>
>There are other ways to do it as well. The Anti-tracker is one.
My biggest problem with the TM-D700 is the obvious one - price. Looks like
there's promotion on right now, Gigaparts has it for $464. More than I
want to pay for something that doesn't do what I want. As Wes said, if
there was a way to control the screen directly, that'd be cool.
I think this comes down to a fundamental problem in ham radio. We're no
longer a culture of experimenters and innovators, we're consumers and
appliance users. Kenwood gave us a couple of radios with APRS features how
many years ago? And what have they done to improve them or correct them
since? What tools have they given us to make improvements ourselves?
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Fwd: Re: APRS loves PropNET, you just didn't know it. :)
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:34:54 -0400
X-Message-Number: 34
Sorry, Ev,
You are absolutely right. I did not know that when you said the VK altnet,
that it was only 2 bytes and that none of the others were used. I guess I
was remembering an earlier renddition back when we tried using CQxxxx and
found that that didnt work in all clients.
I appologize for my missunderstanding... Yes, its hard to keep up with
everything going on...
Bob
>>>Ev Tupis <w2ev@arrl.net> 4/19/04 9:12:48 PM >>>
Bob,
I don't have any idea where you get your information, but PropNET
frames look
like this.
W2EV>VB,HOP3-3:>FN03xdH#PHG123456/
VK *IS* the ALTNET for 6 meter operation. There is nothing else in the
field. Based on your opening up the PHG to be variable length, we've
encoded almost everything there. The only thing that doesn't fit well is
the band-of-origination designation...and that is a perfect fit to the
ALTNET premise.
In addition...you are wrong about your own protocol's wildcard. APxxxx is
only one of *several* approved wildcards. CQxxxx and IDxxxx are two more.
Page 13 of the protocol spec also says that the field may "contain up to" a
total of 6 characters, but there is no need for it to be 6 characters.
I will, of course, be happy to see an on-list statement from you clarifying
your misunderstanding. I've never understood your resistance to PropNET
until now. Little did I know that you never took the time to stay current
with its development over the years.
Ev, W2EV
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
