[aprssig] Omni DFing...

[Robert Bruninga]

>>> Art Hostmark <ahostma at hostmark.org> 05/12/06 2:20 PM >>>
> 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.

Correct.  The ground rules establsihed by TAPR for
documenting APRS in the spec were that there was to 
be NO OPERATIONAL information in the spec.  Nothing 
but formatsl.   I was TOTALLY against that.  Because it 
is the *how-we-use* APRS that makes APRS what it is, 
not just a bucnch of formats.

So YES, I jump in and offer the *how-to-use* informatioin
that was all left out of the spec at every opportunity.
It is because of this omission that we continually see
APRS clones that do not do a lot of what APRS was
designed to do.  THey think all they have to do is
plot LAT/LONG on a map and that is all there is to it.

I have over 20 years experience in *how-to-use* APRS 
and its predecessor CETS and so I try to help others
when they may be not seeing the trees for the forrest.

>In short, the document does not define APRS the 
>same way you do.

Yes, because I am interested in how we *use* APRS to
serve applications in ham radio.  A dry protocol document
with a list of formats completely misses all of that.

>So how would a company wanting to manufacture a 
>new APRS product figure out how it is supposed to 
>work?  

Use the protocol to implement it.  But talk to the
people with the most experience about how it should
best be used and what is a good human interface.
And what applications in Ham Radio are ideal for it.

>Does that make it clearer?

Yes, and I hope you see that there is a big difference
between the spec which simply shows how to parse
data compared to the overall mission and applications
of APRS that can cover the width and bredth of
ham radio.

de Wb4APR, Bob

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


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