[aprssig] The best resolution of position from APRS

Robert Bruninga bruninga at usna.edu
Tue Jan 3 20:21:59 EST 2006

>>... for the last 6 years I have asked for everyone
>> to not use the compressed object format and it
>> was obsoleted in the APRS11 adendum.
>The 1.1 web page says: "Call for Vote 30 July 2004".  
>Was it voted on and ratified? 


> Is there a static PDF of the ratified 1.1 spec, or only 
>the web pages that may be modified at any time?  
>In other words, how static is the 1.1 spec?

There is no PDF, but the only thing I modify on that page
is the TOCALL list of version numbers when requested by
new users, and the list of experimental formats lead-
character when requested.  That way, those lists always
remain current.

> Who was involved in the process?

The APRS working group.

>I find this deprecation of compressed objects/items 

Stalemate.  I find the continued use of compressed
opject/items unacceptible as it leaves 10,000
APRS users unable to see them.

>If I'm at SAR base placing objects on a map and 
>have only 60' resolution for this placement, I 
>cannot place them where needed at times.  

Then use the APRS1.2  !DAO! format which gives 
a resolution to under a foot AND includes the DATUM.
AND is 100% compatible with everything on the air.

>As compressed objects/items were in the spec from 
>day one until at least July 2004,

But not recommened for years.

> and since the most popular APRS clients support it 
>(plus we don't use Kenwoods much in our county's 
>SAR), I see compelling reasons to use compressed 
>objects/items in order to take advantage of the 
>needed resolution.

No.  There IS a backwards compatible method of sending
object resolution to under a foot AND it is compatible
with the Kenwoods, and since there are 10,000
Kenwood users out there that would be affected, I
cannot agree to use the obsolete depricated format.
It would undermine the integrity of APRS, meaning it
would work some places and would not work others.
I cannot see any way to encourage such incompatibilities
in APRS  when doing so would guarantee on-air confusion 
and missed information.
>Yes, there's a conflict between me screaming about 
>Kenwoods not being upgradeable and me _not_ 
>screaming about UI-View32 problems:  There's not a 
>whole lot anyone can do about UI-View32 except replace
>things via the plug-in API, which will only go so far. 

Same goes for the kenwood. But we CAN prevent
incompatibilities by not using the depricated obsolete
compressed object format and we can fix all the other
software by adopting the !DAO! format and I am sure
that someone can write an add-on to UI-view that 
would parse the added 1 foot  resolution of the !DAO! 

Remember, !DAO! is 100% compatible with absolutely
everything out there.  It does not leave anyone out.
The only thing older users would miss is the added
1 foot resolution.  Everyone would still see the object at
the 60' resolution.  WHen someone makes an add-on,
then UIview too would see the 1 foot resolution, but
meanwhile they can see the 60 foot object.

And since 99% of all APRS users could care less about
1 foot resolution most of the time, and it doesn't
add any incompatibilities, then !DAO! has nothing but
positives.   But continnuing to use the obsolete depricated
compressed object format does cause all 10,000 users
of the kenwoods not to see those objects AT ALL.  TO
me that is unacceptible in a communications system 
based on compatibilities across platforms.

Sorry, its the best we can do and still keep everyone
talking to each other.

de Wb4APR, Bob

More information about the aprssig mailing list