[aprssig] Re: FINAL note on the 1 foot precision debate

[Ron McCoy]

You seem to have lost sight of the fact that the SPEC you are so rabidly
defending is designed for tactical communications to accomplish a purpose.

If I am lost and the SAR team is using tools that are appropriate within
their known group of searchers that make it more likely that I will be found
well and whole, I say: Thank God.

This is akin to the constant debates I see on HAM lists about how many FCC
regulations can dance on the head of a pin. What is it that makes so many
HAMS more interested in arguing about the boring than doing the interesting?

I don't know the entire history of the APRS Spec but one thing is clear. You
are hurting your own cause with your attitude and seeming unwillingness to
deal in an open manner. No one seems to know where to find the canonical
version of the Spec or what might next be obsoleted at the foot of the
Kenwood god. If you really want to defend your Spec, document it clearly in
a well known place in PDF format. Have a working group that is transparent
and when the group reaches a decision that not all within the group ratify,
publish it. Let the minority faction state in writing their objection and
post it. Then no one can imply that any funny business went on in the
decision making process.

Or, if you don't want to do that, be honest and just say, "It's my Spec, I
made it, you can't play with it, it's mine, mine all mine."

Oh I forgot, then this list couldn't be clogged with hundreds of messages
that serve no purpose, in no way move the hobby forward, provide a forum for
endless ad hominem attacks and generally seem to be the sole purpose of HAM
radio for to many people.

</rant>

-----Original Message-----
From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]
On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:12 PM
To: aprssig at lists.tapr.org
Subject: [aprssig] Re: FINAL note on the 1 foot precision debate

>>> kevin at kevinratcliff.com 01/04/06 8:47 PM >>>
>I must have missed part of this discussion. I 
>understand there is the proposed !DAO! format, 
>but what are the other two methods Xastir (or 
>other client software) can use to transmit ~1 ft 
>precision and still maintain compatibility?

Actually there are more than 4, and all of them
are compatible with the kenwoods.

1) Send the OBJECT as a compressed POSITION by 
simply changing the callsign in the packet to the 
name of the object.

2) Send the object as a 3rd party compressed position
report format

3) Send the object as a raw GPS NMEA string

4) Implement the proposed !DAO! format.

Personally, I would prefer to see option #1.  This
is even more efficient than the compressed object
report.  And the kenwoods can see and display all
of the above I am pretty sure...

de Wb4APR, BOb

>>> Robert Bruninga 01/04/06 11:57 AM >>>
Copy for those that have quit reading this diatribe....
and a few corrections...

************************************
Here is the bottom line on this debate.  I have no more
time for this refusal of XASTIR to move beyond the
1 foot precision problem.

1) XASTIR insists on sending the depricated obsolete
compressed object /item format that has been known
to not work on the thousands of Kenwoods for many 
years which  reprsents 85% of our mobile APRS community 
that sees objects in their mobiles.  This undermines the
communications on-air integrity of APRS when mobiles
cannot see these objects.

2) Yet there are 3 ways XASTIR could UPGRADE and
transmit objects to 1 foot resolution if they wanted
to instead of just bashing kenwoods, and using an
old format known not to work.

a) use KISS mode and send the object as a $GPGGA packet
b) Send the object in 3rd party format as a $GPGGA packet
c) IMplement the new APRS 1.1 !DAO! format.

To me, This insistnce on using the obsolete/depricated 
compressed object/item format is what is holding back 
progress, missleading the community, and bashing a
very useful product (Kenwoods) that almost half of us 
depend on for our APRS picture.

If XASTIR would instead, use one of the existing formats
or update to the APRS 1.2 spec  proposal which does try to 
be responsive to user needs, then ALL users will be able to 
see what is on the air at a come-as-you-are event even if
the sender is using XASTIR.

de WB4APR, Bob


_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.12/220 - Release Date: 1/3/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.12/220 - Release Date: 1/3/2006