[aprssig] CWOP packet formatting requirements

[John Gorkos]

Fair enough, on all counts. Unfortunately, the wview code looks to be 
untouched for about a decade, and I'm not even sure which codebase is 
the correct one to "fix", since it's on sourceforge, and at least two 
branches exist in github.  I'm perfectly happy dropping the packets, I 
just wasn't sure if CWOP was held to the same protocol standards.  
Thanks for the quick response.


John Gorkos

On 8/12/21 4:33 PM, Steve Dimse wrote:
> The APRS protocol is strict. Any such packets that do not meet the spec are discarded by findU. But many errors persist.
>
> The issue is not that some of the weather clients incorrectly format their packets, it is that they do not check what the users enter. We have over the years begged them to provide better directions and error checking, to limited results.
>
> In general this is not much of a problem for active CWOP stations. Part of the signup process is they must verify their packets are appearing on findU before asking to get added to CWOP. When they enter it incorrectly the data isn’t there. It is a problem for me because most of these people email me to complain, sometimes rather rudely. It is one of the reasons I look forward to being done with the signup process!
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Aug 12, 2021, at 7:06 PM, John Gorkos <jgorkos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Probably a question for Steve only, but I'll pose it to the larger group.
>>
>> I'm reworking a bunch of JavAPRSLib decoder code, and I'm particularly looking at weather parser code.  I'm looking specifically at CWOP data right now, and I'm seeing stations with malformed packets coming through.  Here's an example:
>>
>> DW3637>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CWOP-7:@122247z42.1N/72.6W_257/000g004t073r011p011h91b10135.wview_5_20_2
>>
>> According to the APRS spec, this is a malformed packet because lat/long should be 2.2X/3.2Y (i.e. this one should be 42.10N/072.60W.
>>
>> My question is, do stations submitting data to CWOP required to adhere to the APRS protocol spec for packet formatting, or do we not care because it never goes "over the air"?  Would I be out of line submitting a bug request to the wview folks asking that the format their packets "properly" according the Spec?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> de AB0OO
>> John Gorkos
>>
>> <OpenPGP_0x5ABA26A5D49D346B.asc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
>> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x5ABA26A5D49D346B.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 32367 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20210812/9ffd4155/attachment.asc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20210812/9ffd4155/attachment.sig>