[aprssig] IS-to-RF proposal (rev b)

[Steve Dimse]

On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Andre wrote:

> Op 30-12-2011 3:34, Steve Dimse schreef:
>> The three paths are for the no hop, one hop, and two hop ranges for the IGate. The IGate operator decides, for example, that someone 75 miles away should be send with two hops, while someone 5 miles away should be send with no hops. This is NOT something the user sets. Read the proposal carefully. 
> That makes no sense to me, the closer I get to the igate the lower the hopcount will be?, that is completly contradicting the proportional digipaths system where direct is every minute, 1 hop is every 2nd minute and 2 hops is every 4th minute. pathing is realy getting messed up this way.

This has nothing to do with proportional pathing. The proposal is for infrequent (say once every 30 minute) positions of nearby, Internet-only stations sent to the RF network. Individual IGate operators are free to set the values any way they wish. You could set it up so everything goes out with one hop if you wanted. The idea behind Bob's proposed parameters is that the guy 200 miles away from the IGate does not need to see the internet-only station. Each IGate author would no doubt modify the parameter names and meanings somewhat to fit the way the rest of their IGate is configured.

>>> even if paths are selected on some calculation yet to work out there still has to be an option to select if you want to be gated or not.
>> Why? If you are sending your position to the APRS IS you are voluntarily putting it out where it can be seen by millions of Internet users. Are you really going to object if it is also sent out to 25 people on RF?

> People are already objecting or at least sugesting there should be an option to opt-out or opt-in

Yea, and there are people objecting to the sun rising in the east. When I created findU there was a huge uproar (from a few people) about me putting people's position on the internet without their position (though it is absolutely legal). So I added the internet standard "x-no-archive" flag, and later added the abbreviation "!x!" for those wanting not to waste comment space. Out of the last 160000 packets on the APRS-IS there have been 14 from 2 stations using this opt-out, an experimental firenet gateway and a tracker with an LB9 call. And this is from a very obscure network to a very public one. Bob's proposal is in the opposite direction, taking positions voluntarily sent on a totally public network and injected into an obscure network with few listeners. I have no problem with allowing an opt-out, but I'd be very opposed to requiring opt-in.
>> 
>> That is not at all what I said. You were making it sound like Bob was all talk. He has done a hundred times more than you've done for APRS, like say, creating it. No matter what you have done, Bob has done more. Much more. He does not deserve to spoken of as someone who is nothing but words!
>> 
>> Steve K4HG
> fair enough but you have to admit that a lot of his projects never made it past ideas, time will tell if this mgate or rgate idea actualy becomes something, there is probably room for both and the sysops decide what they want, all Bob and I can do is give the options, bob has the advantage that he controlls the proposed specs and I have the advantage of an already working system.

I think Bob would be the first to agree that most of his ideas don't get implemented. But I suspect he will say it is because people don't make the effort to understand them. However, even if all of Bob's unimplemented ideas were bad (which I don't think at all true) His implemented ideas have accomplished amazing things. And I don't think having bad ideas is something you can hold against someone. Who is more valuable to society, the guy who implements his only idea and it is great, or the one who implements 10 great ideas and throws out 90 bad ones? For me the answer is the later, even though his record is only 10% he has done ten times what the guy with the 100% record accomplished.

And your system does not do what Bob is proposing. Your system is more like a remote-base. A mobile user (with very specific and uncommon hardware requirements) can make it seem they are wired to a TNC in a different physical location. Bob's proposal is about linking the increasing numbers of handheld consumer devices being carried by hams with the RF network. These hams are not going to run full-time battery-hogging APRS clients to take advantage of your system. Your system has uses, it is just not a great match to the problem Bob is addressing.

Steve K4HG