[aprssig] Gating Objects from Internet to RF (fina?l)

[Michael Wolthuis]

Lynn,
What you quoted from me is accurate, however, I thought the fromcall would
be better as ECHOSRV.  Thus only one "callsign" while tactical is used to
send.  

I agree with Steve and I am not certain that each individual callsign makes
sense either.  I just know I objected to my object coming from something I
don't have control of....


Hmmmm.... We need to think this through a little further.. I still agree it
would be nice to have especially with autotune on the d710s.  I wish I had
this capability every road trip I go on.  I always end up plotting IRLP and
EchoLink nodes for my trip ahead of time, but it would be so much nicer to
just have it pop up on my 710.

Mike
kb8zgl



On 7/22/09 4:36 PM, "Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)" <ldeffenb at homeside.to> wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> There was discussion both ways, some people believe it should be both
> ways.  There is no technical nor legal reason (on APRS-IS) for one vs
> the other, although some mistakenly believed these objects would somehow
> conflict with the real station's position.
> 
> My final decision was based on the following factors:
> 
> 1) There's no interference for using the station's callsign
> 2) The ToCall of APELNK will be google-able and define where the objects
> are coming from
> 3) My call will be in the path of the raw packets on the Internet
> 4) All of the information in the object is controlled by the node's owner
> 5) I'm only reformatting data, not authoring anything new
> 6) All information is already available to the public (EchoLink status)
> 
> Mike (kb8zgl) put it best at 10:39 today:
> 
> "It would seem odd to me to see my KB8ZGL-R EL object come from someone
> else's callsign. That would bother me more than seeing it come from my
> own callsign even though I didn't put it out there."
> 
> I agree with him wholeheartedly.  I really wouldn't want to see some
> other callsign "owning" my EchoLink Nodes object.  I might not like
> seeing someone else injecting the object, but at least the object
> acknowledges my "ownership".
> 
> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
> 
> Steve Dimse wrote:
>> Maybe I missed something. Didn't everyone agree you should not be
>> sending data with other hams callsigns as the origin?
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
>> 
>>> Curt,
>>> 
>>> Done.  Check out the current proposed objects at
>>> http://ldeffenb.dnsalias.net/EchoLink.txt.  It only uses PHG if the
>>> frequency doesn't adhere to the valid ones listed in
>>> http://aprs.org/info/freqspec.txt, including the GHz ranges near the
>>> bottom of that page.  Any "invalid" frequency will still be included
>>> in the status text, but only in its owner-specified format, not in a
>>> normalized FREQ object.
>>> 
>>> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at tapr.org
>> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>