[aprssig] Re : Re : NWS ON rf

Steve Dimse steve at dimse.com
Sat May 9 16:39:08 EDT 2009

On May 9, 2009, at 4:22 PM, rttyman wrote:
>> I think you will find it is impossible to convince people to  
>> implement
>> this. Many systems, for example Citizen Weather, depend on the calls
>> as implemented currently.
> For first step APRS leaders and maintenators should recommend to  
> tactical
> calls ops, to CWOPs and other APRS sub-systems add zero figure  
> before their
> signs and continue of their operations. Other step - filter all  
> packets w/o
> number in source (to be done in APRS server's s/w). I'm understand  
> that this
> sub-systems is userful for someone, so why its operators and  
> maintenators
> will not follow us?
Well, this is one leader that is completely opposed. Tactical  
callsigns have always been a part of APRS. The fact you lose a  
character of tactical call length and make the tactical callsign much  
less readable (exactly the opposite of the reason for tactical  
callsigns in the first place) is enough for me to vigorously oppose  
the proposal. Add the fact that just for Citizen Weather alone you are  
talking about cooridinating the efforts of dozens of programmers, and  
throwing chaos into an operation system relied upon by thousands of  
people, and your proposal the proposal appears terribly self-centered.

Steve K4HG

More information about the aprssig mailing list