[aprssig] Why Not "Gate in Vicinity"

[Lawrence LaBranche]

Of course. The group the reverse igate would subscribe to would be the one they want to. There maybe some defaults that could be done at higher levels. Others such as state, or metro area. Or not at all. The idea is to empower the reverse igate owner with reduced time needed to install and maintain such a gate. Lets face it, nothing will ever be 100%

KI6ZQY

Sent from my iPod

On Dec 26, 2011, at 11:17 AM, "Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)" <ldeffenb at homeside.to> wrote:

> On 12/26/2011 1:18 PM, Lawrence LaBranche wrote:
>> 
>> Maybe a subscription based model with rules might be the answer. A reverse igate would be subscribed to rules that would be decided on as a group, and automatically updated in the clients.
> 
> As you can tell by the periodic "proper path" and "allowed beacon rage" discussions that rage here periodically, there is no "one size fits all" for those APRS parameters.  What is reasonable and proper for one area may be way too much or decidedly not enough for other areas.  There is no central committee for APRS that would work planet-wide AFAIK.
> 
> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32
> 
> PS.  And having been a long-term observer of APRS rates and coverage areas, I'll stop another suggestion before it comes up.  I have seen no way to determine channel loading nor coverage area in an automated fashion.  RF conditions are just too variable and the packet origination load is a complete unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig