| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 13.05.04 09:56l 225 Lines 7869 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3233-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Apr 24, 4/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0BEL<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040513/0746Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:23901 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3233-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Compromise proposal (was: Re: The APRS-WG andspec improvements.)
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:03:40 -0400
X-Message-Number: 20
I dont see the advantage. Everyone can use !Wyz! and get WGS84 precision.
But those in the UK might want to use !Oyz! so that they get that same
precision on all their maps that are OSG based...
So I see your proposal not as a compromise, but an added restriction.
Bob
>>>Henk de Groot <henk.de.groot@hetnet.nl> 4/24/04 6:49:51 AM >>>
Hello Bob,
At 18:30 23-4-2004 -0400, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>If that were the case, then there is no need for a DATUM
>signifier byte and it becomes !YZ! format. But I thought
>everyone wanted the datum. So I's rather stick with
>the !XYZ! format.
Or have both! Leave the optional !XYZ! on the plain-format and MIC-E, and
still require WGS84 on the base-91 format (Making !XYZ! pointless for a
base-91 transmission since the datum ik known by specification).
That way we have at least 1 reliable datum format with high precision for
those applications and situations that realy need it and that is available
today in all implementations that support base-91 posits.
But hey, I said it was a *compromise* to bring both camps together in a
proposal acceptable to both. Of course compromises do not work if you only
want to stick to your own original proposal.
Kind regards,
Henk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compromise proposal (was: Re: The APRS-WG andspec improvements.)
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:40:25 -0700
X-Message-Number: 21
I am missing something. Why limit the compressed format to WGS84? What
does that accomplish versus any other datum?
Jim, WA6OFT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
To: "TAPR APRS Special Interest Group" <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
Cc: <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 1:03 PM
Subject: [aprssig] Re: Compromise proposal (was: Re: The APRS-WG andspec
improvements.)
>I dont see the advantage. Everyone can use !Wyz! and
>get WGS84 precision. But those in the UK might want
>to use !Oyz! so that they get that same precision on
>all their maps that are OSG based...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: OpenTrac
From: "Bill Diaz" <william.diaz@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:39:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 22
After hearing considerable hype over the last year or so about the OpenTrac
protocol I visited http://opentrac.org to learn a little more about it and
to view the documentation. Much to my dismay, the documentation (and
therefore the protocol) posted at opentrac.org is far from complete. Very
difficult to comprehend some of the examples. I visited SourceForge and
didn't find much of value there either.
Could anyone provide a link to more complete documentation? I am
particularly interested in documentation relating to how OpenTrac will use
AX.25.
Bill KC9XG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: APRS in ICOM-2200?
From: John K9IJ <k9ij@vx5.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:03:43 -0500
X-Message-Number: 23
Has anyone else noticed that ICOM is advertising some form of APRS ability
in their new IC-2200 (IC-2100H replacement)? Not much deatail to be found
but there's a full page 'ad' in the new AES catalog. 'Implied' is that
something called 'Enhanced APRS=AE' will combine voice/APRS on a single
channel with an attached GPS. Nothing yet on the icomamerica website, but
watch for this one at Dayton.
http://www.icom.co.jp/world/products/amateur/2200h/index.htm
John - K9IJ
-
John Rice K9IJ
k9ij@vx5.com
Webmaster, Network Admin, Janitor
http://www.k9ij.com
http://www.suhfars.org
http://www.vx5.com/~teampf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: OpenTrac
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@3xf.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:08:10 -0700
X-Message-Number: 24
Unfortunately, the whole thing is far from complete. I've got a whole list
of revisions to make to the spec document that I haven't had a chance to get
to. The whole site needs an update, and I plan to add some sections
detailing proposed uses.
Other people have contributed code, but so far the documentation is pretty
much all mine, and I'm the first to admit it's been neglected. I'll try to
improve things over the coming weeks, but if you've got any specific
questions feel free to email me.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS in ICOM-2200?
From: "Joe Della Barba" <joe@dellabarba.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:14:06 -0400
X-Message-Number: 25
My reading of this is that ICOM will have TOTALLY SEPARATE system for
position/data exchange that will not work at all with APRS. "UT-115 DIGITAL
UNIT Provides digital voice and data capability at 4.8kbps (Voice 2.4kbps +
Data 2.4kbps)." Doesn't sound like APRS to me.
73
Joe N3HGB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS in ICOM-2200?
From: John Rice <rice@vx5.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:22:32 -0500
X-Message-Number: 26
At 07:14 PM 4/24/2004 -0400, Joe Della Barba wrote:
>My reading of this is that ICOM will have TOTALLY SEPARATE system for
>position/data exchange that will not work at all with APRS.
>"UT-115 DIGITAL UNIT
>Provides digital voice and data capability at 4.8kbps (Voice 2.4kbps + Data
>2.4kbps).
>"
>Doesn't sound like APRS to me.'
Then they shouldn't call it APRS in the catalog.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS in ICOM-2200?
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:49:14 -0400
X-Message-Number: 27
From what i've been able to figure out (and these are just my guesses)....
the radio is probably using the AMBRE chipset spoken so much about at the
DCC last year, and it therefore uses 1/2 if's bandwidth in data for a 2400
baud data stream, and has 2400 baud left over for GPS data. What I am
thinking will happen is that as you key up, it will digitize your voice,
while at the same time transmitting 100% of the data your GPS spits out at
the same time. This will make for some interesting moving map
stuff.... Think about it... your position is continually updated as long
as you are pressing the PTT button.... I'm sure this could be integrated
into some APRS clients, and then they could publish that data received as
objects... I envision an APRS server application for this. Heck, it could
be a simple PIC processor hooked to a TNC, or even a modified tiny trak,
since tiny track already reads GPS data at 4800 baud. Just be
brainstorming though..
It does grate on my nerves when Icom continually uses APRS in their
advertisements and they really aren't playing APRS at all... what was that
rig which had a tft color screen on it? The ad said APRS, and the idea
being you could use the TV to diplay video out on your laptop.... sure...
800x600 or a 242,000 pixel 2inch diagonal tft display.... sure.
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: UI-Radar INF files
From: "Eric H. Christensen" <kf4otn@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:31:42 -0400
X-Message-Number: 28
Anyone have a Long Range INF and a Short Range INF for Newport-Morehead City
(MHX) radar? I couldn't figure out how to make it up last time I tried.
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Martin [mailto:wa6rtx@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 18:40
To: ui-view@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ui-view] UI-Radar INF files
Anyone have a Long Range INF file for Jackson, Mississippi already made up?
Bill - WA6RTX
---
END OF DIGEST
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
