| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 16.06.04 10:59l 783 Lines 29516 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3475-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jun 10, 5/8
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0BEL<7M3TJZ<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040616/0732Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:25938 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3475-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:10:43 -0700
X-Message-Number: 85
Whoa, slow down Danny. You don't want Jeff thinking you're trying to take
over his spot as resident Bob-heckler, do you? =]
Scott
N1VG
>Why the ______ have you spent DAYS arguing AGAINST updating the APRS spec,
and now this???
>
>I am BEYOND SHOCK... or this some more smoke and mirrors?
>
>This is utterly insane.
>
>I need some ritalin to help me focus on what just happened here.
>
>Danny
>KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:19:45 -0700
X-Message-Number: 86
>In other words, protocol colors aside aside, there is no real difference, at
>the physical layer, between OpenTrak and APRS. Usages and impact on the
>highway are identical. In fact, one could make the argument that OpenTrak
>treats the highway BETTER then APRS due to the more efficient payload
>compartment. Meaning, more payload can be transported across the same
highway
And it's also important to keep in mind that, were OpenTrac to go to another
frequency, it'd have to share many of the same digi locations as APRS. This
means a very real possibility of mutual interference unless you invest in
expensive filtering hardware.
To stay with the highway analogy, imagine that the OpenTrac cars and APRS
cars are segregated to different highways. BUT, we've already established
that they're the same market - they're going to want to go the same places
and follow the same routes. But now we've got twice the land used, and with
two highways running side by side we've got traffic jams (or expensive
overpasses) whenever you need to get on or off the highway. All this for a
small number of OpenTrac cars. If you're going to invest that much in
infrastructure, it makes sense to make sure everyone can use it.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:32:16 -0700
X-Message-Number: 87
>>I hope we do not as a group try to
>>defeat one of the key benefits IMO of APRS: all area stations are
>>directly seen on a single frequency.
>>
>
> One hundred percent agree here.
I'm not suggesting we change that. I'm saying to expand input to more than
one channel to reduce collisions and improve capacity.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:50:07 -0400
X-Message-Number: 88
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:48:49 -0400, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>You seem to have no clue. READ MY LIPS!
"No new protocols."
Sorry, could resist the oft quoted papa Bush from the early 90's. (i.e. READ
MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:54:55 -0400
X-Message-Number: 89
Except in situations where there's noone listening on the input freq to
dump to the national network.
It's a nice idea, don't get me wrong.. But you're talking more hardware
just to listen in on that frequency, one way or another.. Either way I
can't see people embracing the idea.. It's not an 'information not being
direct' thing with me, although that is a concern for everyone. It's a
'We'd need additional hardware at the digi locations'.
If people can't afford to implement Opentrac because they're using hardware
solutions in their TNCs, then I can't see them willing to add additional
radio hardware to do this.
I'm intrigued though if there's a way around all that which I haven't
seen. I'd put another radio and antenna up for Opentrac if need be, but
that's purely because I am or would be in my power to do so. Some people
aren't, and who knows, next week, tomorrow, etc. maybe I won't be in such a
posotion either.
The new Miss Universe is on FoxNews. Maybe she can come over and her and I
can.. ahem... sort this out.. :-)
--Droo, K1XVM
At 04:32 PM 6/10/2004, Scott Miller wrote:
>>>I hope we do not as a group try to
>>>defeat one of the key benefits IMO of APRS: all area stations are
>>>directly seen on a single frequency.
>>>
>>
>> One hundred percent agree here.
>
>I'm not suggesting we change that. I'm saying to expand input to more than
>one channel to reduce collisions and improve capacity.
>
>Scott
>N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: APRS and Weather Spotting
From: Gerry Creager <gerry.creager@tamu.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:02:36 -0500
X-Message-Number: 90
I'd appreciate hearing via private e-mail from folks actively involved
in using APRS for spotter management, cell identification and tracking,
watch/warning coordination, and other weather-related activities.
I need to finish up a presentation by Tuesday night or so, so time's of
the essence.
Thanks,
Gerry
--
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020
FAX: 979.847.8578 Pager: 979.228.0173
Office: 903A Eller Bldg, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: question about possession of an object.
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:05:06 -0400
X-Message-Number: 91
Each time I show APRS to a NWS office, for example, I show them how I can
create a funnel cloud on the map. I also point out that if my station is
destroyed, another station can pick up the "ball" and run with it. The
next statement from the NWS folks is that they don't want people moving
"their" funnel clouds. How can we lock an object so that only one station
can own it?
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:09:14 -0700
X-Message-Number: 92
>Except in situations where there's noone listening on the input freq to
>dump to the national network.
That's why I'm proposing to start with the weather stations and other fixed
telemetry sites. You know where they are, and you can coordinate use of the
alternate frequency. Users listening on 144.39 generally won't notice the
difference.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:10:22 -0400
X-Message-Number: 93
Hey Scott:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:10:43 -0700, Scott Miller wrote:
>Whoa, slow down Danny. You don't want Jeff thinking you're trying
>to take over his spot as resident Bob-heckler, do you? =]
I resemble ^h^h^h^h resent that remark ;-). I prefer to think of it as a
challenge to back up some of his wild assertions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:15:36 -0400
X-Message-Number: 94
There has also been concern that there is no room for OT packets in the
already overcrowded APRS channel. Thing is, when I do get OT on the air, I
will not be using APRS packets. I like the car analogy.. I can't drive two
cars at once. Running dual mode trackers like the balloon will have to be
forbidden.
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:24:27 +0300
X-Message-Number: 95
what have I missed?
>>>Why the ______ have you spent DAYS arguing AGAINST updating the
>>>APRS spec, and now this???
>>>
>>>I am BEYOND SHOCK... or this some more smoke and mirrors?
>>>
>>>This is utterly insane.
>>>
>>>I need some ritalin to help me focus on what just happened here.
>>>
>>>Danny KE4RAP
Julian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:33:35 +0300
X-Message-Number: 96
Why the change of heart?
I really don't get it?
Julian
>>>Why the ______ have you spent DAYS arguing AGAINST updating the
>>>APRS spec, and now this???
>>>
>>>I am BEYOND SHOCK... or this some more smoke and mirrors?
>>>
>>>This is utterly insane.
>>>
>>>I need some ritalin to help me focus on what just happened here.
>>>
>>>Danny KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:34:12 -0400
X-Message-Number: 97
See embedded comments below.
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:19:45 -0700, Scott Miller wrote:
>>In other words, protocol colors aside aside, there is no real
>>difference,
...
>And it's also important to keep in mind that, were OpenTrac to go to
>another frequency, it'd have to share many of the same digi
>locations as APRS. This means a very real possibility of mutual
>interference unless you invest in expensive filtering hardware.
>To stay with the highway analogy, imagine that the OpenTrac cars and
>APRS cars are segregated to different highways. BUT, we've already
>established that they're the same market - they're going to want to
>go the same places and follow the same routes.
Yes, but also don't forget the Market is already saturated, everyone that
wants a car, already has a car. So for someone to climb in that shiny new
car, the first have to park the old car, before they merge into Route 439.
The end result, over a large sample, is the traffic flow is statistically
similar.
>But now we've got
>twice the land used, and with two highways running side by side
>we've got traffic jams (or expensive overpasses) whenever you need
>to get on or off the highway.
And don't forget, the same number of drivers now divided across two highways,
which into itself may or may not be a bad thing, I just wanted to make it
mostly clear that the number of drivers will not be doubling, it will remain
basically the same, since each driver can only occupy one vehicle at a time
and only on one highway.
>All this for a small number of
>OpenTrac cars. If you're going to invest that much in
>infrastructure, it makes sense to make sure everyone can use it.
I brought this up mostly to show that layerone and protocol are two different
things. Differing protocols can have identical layer one considerations and
loading, and inspection by the eye, lets say with carrier times and loading,
would make OpenTrak and APRS appear identical. That is, by the "ear", you
couldn't tell the different between a APRS packet and a OpenTrak packer,
where as the difference between a PBBS or tcp/ip packet, would be extremely
obvious. OpenTrak is just a different colored duck then APRS and makes
identical waves in the pond.
And as you (or I?) said, with less then 100 opentrackers in the wild, there
is no reason to overreact and black list people. That much being said, as we
go forward, this needs to be closely watched. But we need to pay attention to
facts here, and not wild ass guesses or our own personal prejudices.
Hey, it is the seven day anniversary of the Tetroon flight that started these
threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Limiting the future of Mobile Computing!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:37:37 -0400
X-Message-Number: 98
>If OpenTrac [went to] another frequency, it'd have to
>share many of the same digi locations as APRS and
>would cause interference to APRS still.
If I were OPENtrack, I'd choose a different band like 440 MHz then the two
could co-exist. Or better yet, it sounds like OPENtrack might be the way
to go on 802.11... that makes it a $60 per repeater instead of $600 each.
AND it is just so dumb to want to put something as forward looking as
OPENtrack claims to be on a 1200 baud channel in the first place!
I think what so many newcommers are not understanding is WHAT APRS is. A
tactical real-time netork to get useful data to the MOBILE user at 1200
baud.
But they see its popularity and think that there is so much else on their
600 MHz pentiums that they want to play with, that they want to send to
someone else's computer so therefore it MUST get JAMMED into APRS. and into
the APRS spec so they can transmit it over the radio..
Which is not being very thoughtful. There is so much new stuff that
computers can do that NEED to be transmitted over HAM radio, such as what
OPENTrack claims to want to do, that it would not be smart in my opinion
to then LIMIT that potential by trying to operate on a saturated 1200 baud
channel..
If HAM RADIO is going to grow to fullfil the TRUE NEED of mobile computing,
it CANNOT DO THIS on a 1200 baud channel that is already saturated..
Doesnt anyone see the foolishness of all this? APRS on 144.39 at 1200 baud
CAN NEVER carry the needs of the mobile computing requirements, not NOW,
and NOT in the future. YET WE DO NEED THIS CAPABILITY.
THUS WE MUST GROW IT elsewhere at 9600 baud at least or rum straight to 1
Megabit using CHEAP 802.11
Why-oh-why hold back the future of mobile computing in HAM radio to 1200
baud on 144.39. Shackling the future of HAM radio (which OPENTrack
claims to represent) to just be another less efficient protocol on 144.39
shows how it is really not going to accomplish anything but RUIN what we
have now with no net gain.
The THING TO DO is rally and run with it. START from scratch, on a new
frequency using 9600 baud or whatever. HAMS have been talking about that
for 18 years! I am so tired of talk... JUST DO IT...
And leave the 1200 baud APRS network to the mobile who only need what APRS
was designed to do...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Compressed Positions -was- Re: Tetroon collateral damage report,
revision1
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:43:43 -0400
X-Message-Number: 99
You dont seem to understand how SPEC's work. Nothing is ever REMOVED from
the spec. All that means is that certain things are IDENTIFIED in the
follow-on versions that are annotated as "not recommended for future use".
and "not guaranteed to be received by all recepients".
That is what I mean by "removed"...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: "Kurt O. Jauss" <kf6hjo@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:50:12 -0700
X-Message-Number: 100
Wait.... You won't move OT to a new frequency but want me to move my
weather station? Wow!!!! I run a weather station and an IGATE so I need
two radios and 2 computers and 2 TNC's and... If you want to run OT ( Not
APRS!!!! ) then you need to find a new frequency. PERIOD! nuf said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Compressed Positions
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 101
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Doug Bade wrote:
> I think the stats were 7% of the packets sent are Mic-E packets, I
>think that is unfair, and an unjust request....I for one use 8 public
>service event radio/trackers which are pic-e/mic-e transmitters, and as
>they actually do monitor for channel activity unlike some other encoders, I
>think they can stay.. thank you very much !!!!!
I think that was his point...
1.05% of posits are currently Base-91 Compressed, and that number
has been rising. So where do we draw the line? 0.1%? 1%? 5%?
--
Curt, WE7U 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 Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:50:28 -0400
X-Message-Number: 102
I realize this, but you're still asking people to add additional hardware
somewhere in the mix.. In some areas of my state, we have one Digi that
represents something along the line of 50-80 mile circle..
I don't think people would be receptive to investing the hardware to
monitor another freq. IT's not getting people to use it, it's having
infrastructure to actually make it matter.. Reliable infrastructure even..
It's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that when the thought is applied
to Maine, I can't see people willing to do it. In other places where
there's entirely too many DIGIs in a very small area, I can see it working.
--Droo, K1XVM
At 05:09 PM 6/10/2004, Scott Miller wrote:
>>Except in situations where there's noone listening on the input freq to
>>dump to the national network.
>
>That's why I'm proposing to start with the weather stations and other fixed
>telemetry sites. You know where they are, and you can coordinate use of the
>alternate frequency. Users listening on 144.39 generally won't notice the
>difference.
>
>Scott
>N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:50:55 -0400
X-Message-Number: 103
>>>"Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org> 6/10/04 5:09:14 PM >>>
>That's why I'm proposing to start with the weather stations
>[moving them off of 144.39] and other fixed telemetry sites.
>You know where they are, and you can coordinate use of
>the alternate frequency. Users listening on 144.39 generally
>won't notice the difference.
I would! I like seeing Weather on my D700 display. I look at it
frequently during poor weather while driving to chose my route...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 104
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Wes Johnston wrote:
>There has also been concern that there is no room for OT packets in the
>already overcrowded APRS channel. Thing is, when I do get OT on the air, I
>will not be using APRS packets. I like the car analogy.. I can't drive two
>cars at once. Running dual mode trackers like the balloon will have to be
>forbidden.
Well... The way it does the dual protocols is to key up, send both
back-to-back, then unkey. It's probably no worse than having a too-long
TXD set, plus you have the advantage that all the Kenwoods can see where
you are too.
Not saying whether or not it should be allowed, just focusing on the
channel time used...
--
Curt, WE7U 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: question about possession of an object.
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 105
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Wes Johnston wrote:
>Each time I show APRS to a NWS office, for example, I show them how I can
>create a funnel cloud on the map. I also point out that if my station is
>destroyed, another station can pick up the "ball" and run with it. The
>next statement from the NWS folks is that they don't want people moving
>"their" funnel clouds. How can we lock an object so that only one station
>can own it?
We can't. The APRS spec says that anyone can take over an object/item from
anyone else and from then on assume the responsibility for generating that
object.
Bob has mentioned on numerous occasions here that the intent was to be able
to do that with regular stations also. I don't know how many client
programs implement that variant of it, but I know one that doesn't.
It would take a revision to the spec to allow the functionality you're
describing.
--
Curt, WE7U 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: Compressed Positions -was- Re: Tetrooncollateral damage report,
revision1
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:56:09 +0300
X-Message-Number: 106
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny" <danny@messano.net>
>I have a question.. Who is "WE"??
>
>This still wreaks of Bob making decisions SINGLEhanded for all of APRSdom
>based on what side of the bed he got up on and what the temperature is
>outside.
>
>This is tyranny at it's best.
>
>Danny
>KE4RAP
Just catching up with all this madness after being away all day. It seems
that Moses has climbed the mountain and been given the word of (a.
Kenwood?) (b. APRS-WG) (c. the users) (d. God) This seems like stonewalling
to me Bob. Who do you think you are that you alone can write a new spec
that will not only affect the Unites States a but the global APRS
community? Its not a dictatorship, its Ham radio and user input and
feedback matter.
If for whatever reason you're writing a new spec, please consider one
thing. Don't make any quick decisions based on emotional bullsh*t. If
you're going to do it, do it correctly and work with a group of people who
can give you good honest feedback and build a future proof spec. You'll be
respected for that.
Funny thing, I though bill gates was an A**hole.
Julian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:03:54 -0700
X-Message-Number: 107
> Wait.... You won't move OT to a new frequency but want me to move my
>weather station? Wow!!!! I run a weather station and an IGATE so I
>need two radios and 2 computers and 2 TNC's and... If you want to run
>OT ( Not APRS!!!! ) then you need to find a new frequency. PERIOD! nuf
>said.
Please, read the thread again. I was suggesting this (as others have before
me) even before OpenTRAC ever saw the light of day. It only requires a
second receiver at the digi site. If you've got a digi serving a large
number of weather stations, you can add the receiver there, and simply QSY
the weather stations. They still get heard and gated on 144.39.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:13:40 -0400
X-Message-Number: 108
On 6/10/04 at 3:36 PM Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net> sent:
>So, now we have 40,000 automobiles on Route 439, right? Nope, we don't
>because, each automobile needs a driver (ham) and for each OpenTrak auto put
>on the road, that means a APRS automobile had to be parked in the garage. So
>the net increase is zero.
I disagree with some of tour assumptions...
New drivers are coming on the the road all the time. A lot of effort is
being expended in some areas to make room for these new drivers. Two years
from now, there will be more than 20k drivers...not 40k, but 25 or 30k is
certainly possible.
If opentrack completely replaces APRS, then the total number of drivers on
the road would be the same as in the pure APRS system at any given point in
time. This is not a likely scenario though, as this would mean the 38% of
US hams with Kenwood investments would need to abaondon them. However, in a
shared system there there may be the same number of drivers, but the cars
may get larger...
Imagine if the road had two lanes with a very pronounced crown...you could
drive on the right, and see the scenery off the right side of the road, or
drive in the left lane and see the scenery on the left...but if you drove
in the middle, taking up both lanes, you could see all the scenery. Some
people might be content to see half the view, but a lot of people will want
to see both sides, and to be seen by both sides. Each of these people
counts as two in tabulating the carrying capacity of the highway.
This amounts to a lot more traffic on a road already bumper-to-bumper in
many areas...
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:14:10 -0400
X-Message-Number: 109
On 6/10/04 at 5:15 PM Wes Johnston <wes@johnston.net> sent:
>There has also been concern that there is no room for OT packets in the
>already overcrowded APRS channel. Thing is, when I do get OT on the air, I
>will not be using APRS packets. I like the car analogy.. I can't drive two
>cars at once. Running dual mode trackers like the balloon will have to be
>forbidden.
Nice theory, but since the internet systems will be separate, in order to
be seen on both, you would need to run both modes. I doubt many people will
be willing to not be seen by APRS users in order to use opentrack, and if
opentrack attracts a large following, vice-versa. Not a big deal if the two
systems are on different frequencies, but sure could be a problem when
opentrack uses the APRS channel. If opentrack were to succeed in attracting
many users, I'd add a second radio and have both hooked up, I want to see
everything that is going on when I'm mobile. Who is going to forbid me from
doing that?
Add in the fact that, at least initially, IGates for the opentrack internet
system will be more spread out, so some people will probably be running
longer paths to get to those IGates.
I just hope before opentrack reaches this point I'll have continuous
internet connectivity in my truck so I will not need to use the rf APRS
network, it could be a mess...
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21:48 -0400
X-Message-Number: 110
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:37:21 -0400, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>Sorry, the one good thing to come out of all of this is that we do
>need to go back and keep moving on the spec. I am getting the APRS-
>WG together now to try to issue APRS1.1 in the next few days
I hope you post pictures from this meeting. The last meeting only had four
members show up, but still seeing each of the members interact with each
other was interesting.... those tie votes always are most difficult...
http://www.monkeyspit.net/sites/macquarrie/Jims%20multiple%20personalities.jpg
But don't forget there is a "tiebreaker" mechanism in the charter. No need
to come to blows like last time. Good luck and I have a feeling you'll be
able to deprecate the compressed format from SPEC without too much
resistance from the other members.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:23:05 -0700
X-Message-Number: 111
>I would! I like seeing Weather on my D700 display. I look
>at it frequently during poor weather while driving to chose
>my route...
<banging head on desk>
You would still see it! The digipeater would have TWO INPUTS! You just
save collisions on the input channel. The only way you wouldn't get it, is
if you were in direct range of the weather station, but NOT in range of the
digi.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: James Jefferson <jj@aprsworld.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:17:07 -0500
X-Message-Number: 112
>I would! I like seeing Weather on my D700 display. I look
>at it frequently during poor weather while driving to chose
>my route...
>Bob
As short of summary as possible:
Input frequency: not 144.39
Output frequency: 144.39
Action :Fixed stations transmit to local digipeater the pops them onto the
144.39.
Result: Less hidden transmitter problem and 50% less channel usage because the
digi will transmitting the objects.
Analogy: MIC-E repeater grabbing MIC-E bursts from voice repeater and putting
them on 144.39.
Conclusion: you still see all the stations from the digi and you have more
channel capacity.
Just because N1VG suggested it does not automatically make it wrong. This
is a fundamental level 1 issue. I have not seen anybody make any comments
about its validity at level 1, instead they just knee-jerk react and say
that it is bad without even thinking that they loose nothing and gain a
whole bunch.
-Jim KB0THN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
