[aprssig] Omni DFing...

[Art Hostmark]

I feel like you totally missed the point of my post.

My problem is not with PHG data which I find useful and it is not hard
to set up even in UI-View.  My problem is that you repeatedly jump in
here saying you are doing this wrong, it is supposed to be this way.  We
then look at the protocol document and say no, it does not say that
here.  In short the document does not define APRS the same way you do.
So how would a company wanting to manufacture a new APRS product figure
out how it is supposed to work?  Read the protocol then read every one
of your posts on this list?  I doubt that they will, I suspect that they
will go elsewhere.

Does that make it clearer?

Art KI4GYZ

On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 11:14 -0400, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> >I keep hearing a common theme and I feel that 
> >I have to comment or drop this list entirely.
> >... you think that PHG is "required" for fixed stations...
> 
> Yes,  ham radio is about antennas, gain and location.  
> It is surprising to me that every ham does not 
> include this fundamental characterization of his station
> in his routine APRS position report.
> 
> >The [TAPR] protocol document ... does not [say
> >"required"]... If you want to see things change then 
> >get the protocol written, corrected, voted on, and 
> >published. 
> 
> A much easier approach is just to get people to do it
> themselves.  ANY station, no matter what APRS clone
> he is using can trivially enter his PHG into his position 
> comment...  Just type in PHGphgd...
> 
> And whenever a DF signal report is needed all he has 
> to do is call it up and simply change -one- digit
> to make it DFSshgd... to turn it into an instantaneous 
> DF signal report that can contribute to the localizing
> of this interferring signal in his community.
> 
> Getting users to participate in the community by 
> providing such reports is good for everyone.
> This is a much more viable approach than forming a 
> committee to change one word in a spec.  Which will
> have zero effect on users.
> 
> >If you ever want to see your changes in the 
> >protocol implemented by software developers, 
> >hardware manufacturers, or radio manufacturers you
> >will have to get the protocol document updated.  
> 
> Don't need to.  The spec fully supports both PHG
> and DFS reporting. We just need USERS to be
> better educated and to use it.
> 
> thanks
> de WB4APR, Bob