[aprssig] Why Not "Gate in Vicinity" (phones)

[Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)]

On 12/26/2011 1:25 PM, Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists wrote:
> But the problem stems back to the IGate becoming the arbiter on what gets gated to RF and must ensure proper operation.<snip>
>
> <snip>  Everything beyond that is simply an IGate sysop's decision of what else they can -safely- gate to RF that might be of interest to the local RF operators.  That decision has nothing to do with who might be in the area on APRS-IS only.

I agree whole-heartedly.  What goes onto RF through an IGate must be 
decided by, and controlled by, the IGate operator.  S/He cannot, in my 
opinion, rely on any centrally configured rules, nor on any client-side 
configured settings that "request" or "demand" nor even "control" -IS to 
RF IGating.  What gets transmitted is the responsibility of the IGate 
operator, who defers that decision to arbitrary -IS stations running 
some APRS client at his/her own peril (read: wrath of the local APRS RF 
community).

Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

PS.  Just watch the APRS-IS stream for a while and you'll readily see 
stations doing crazy things just as Pete's original observations that 
started this whole thread.  Mayhem (and not the funny guy on the recent 
commercials (USA TV reference)) follows APRS-IS stations with crazy and 
bizarre beaconing practices.

73, Pete Loveall AE5PL pete at ae5pl dot net

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Bruninga
>> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 12:04 PM
>>
>> A smart-phone AP in use by a ham should be seen on local RF in my opinion.
>> So to answer the question of how-often, I'd propose this rule:
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>