[aprssig] Re : Re : NWS ON rf

Ben Jackson bbj at innismir.net
Sun May 10 18:21:31 EDT 2009

John Ronan wrote:
> On 10 May 2009, at 22:26, rttyman wrote:
>> The solution for future is use zero figure before tactical signs or place
>> tactical labels on map with use of Objects + original call in source.
> Solution to what?  I don't see a problem. If the agency I'm dealing
> with/showing maps to calls it an ICP, and I call it an ICP, I put it on
> the map as ICP, why would I put it up as "0ICP"?. That makes no sense at
> all?

It's the solution to Sergej's "problem" which is "I don't want to see
tactical calls from my feed."

OK, so, can we end this thread? The onus here is on you Sergej. You seem
to be the only one that sees this as an issue. Everyone else is OK with
the default APRS-IS behavior. So, this means that the fix needs to be
done by you. I see three possible solutions here:

* Build a solution that filters out tactical calls from the APRS-IS feed.
* Establish an authenticated alternative to APRS-IS in which people
can't use tactical calls and the packets can be traced.
* Find a way to rewrite the APRS standard to support an easy way to
identify tactical calls.


Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA
bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/

More information about the aprssig mailing list