[aprssig] RE: European Digipeating standards

[Cap Pennell]

See below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org
> [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Jan T. Pharo
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 14:32 PM
> To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] RE: European Digipeating standards
>
>
> "Cap Pennell" <cap at cruzio.com>, Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:03:11 -0800:
>
> >Luckily, it's a short step from RELAY,WIDEn-N to the improved
> over-the-air
> >efficiency of more modern "traceable WIDEn-N" alone, and any
> fill-in digis
> >can operate WIDE1-1 instead of RELAY.  The improvement can even be
> >implemented one station at a time, so there's no need to wait
> for the better
> >modern system.  UI-View32 can be used to do the digipeating job handling
> >both systems at once.
>
> You will of course be aware that the highly dense populated areas with
> high terrain walls that your have especially in California, have a
> _much_ larger APRS user density and a _very_ different topography than
> most areas in Europe; mountain top digipeaters covering areas with
> several million inhabitants aren't there. Also, Europe are several
> independent nations with independent amateur radio associations and
> different radio frequency legislations (we have - for all practical
> purposes - one band plan, though).
> I have said previously - and am still saying - that there should be an
> agreement, preferrably through the IARU region 1, about the parameters
> in this area, rather than groups of digipeater owners doing one
> solution and other groups or individuals in the neighbouring areas
> doing another solution, making up a mess for travelling APRSers inside
> each country or crossing international borders. Unlike north America,
> we europeans can cross almost any international border inside Europe
> with car or walking/bicycling without even stopping for any customs or
> passport control, so the need for _one_ system is there; the openness
> to get to a mutual agreement, howeveer, isn't. Each party has a
> religious belief in their own system; RELAY,TRACEn-N, RELAY,WIDEn-N
> (traceable or not), the US WIDE1-1,WIDEn-N (these are for
> mobiles/portables).
>
> --
> 73 de Jan, LA2BBA
> Hvaler, Norway

Jan, yes certainly, the network topology is different in "flatland" and/or
"sparse" regions (like much of the Central US and Texas too).  But there
too, the main objective a VHF station seeks to accomplish is accessing the
_first_ digi in a path, rather than needing a much _broader_ path.

In the US, where as you know we freely travel between our States, as you do
between European Union states, the newer "traceable WIDEn-N" system has been
implemented through common understanding of it's benefits as a more
efficient system allowing greater capacity on VHF and hence more potential
courtesy to more fellow ham operators as the future unfolds.  Our prior
beliefs in older less efficient systems involving RELAY have evolved forward
for the common good.  It hasn't been done by edict or enforcement, but
rather by cooperation and education and experience, and is still occurring
one station at a time.  Anybody and everybody can help.

Working toward a effective and efficient "universal" path system for VHF
travelers too?  Think "traceable WIDEn-N" (and surely not RELAY anything).
Our modern fill-in digis (WIDE1-1 only) retain the advantages old RELAY
digis once had for travelers, but eliminate the inefficiencies of that old
system.

Of course, there often _is_ political resistance to cooperation between
"empires" of all sorts due to inexperience with the advantages of
interoperability, but truly we are all in this together.

There needn't be a configuration problem to fly your tracker across the
ocean and have it work on the other side too.  If we're to share a system,
let's share the more efficient and courteous modern one.
73, Cap KE6AFE