<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div>Reporting over non-RF doesn't mean you're not on RF via voice. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>On Tue, Jan 3, 2017, at 13:08, Jason KG4WSV wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div>
<div><div><br></div>
<div defang_data-gmailquote="yes"><div>On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jim Conrad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jjc@oceanviewcom.com">jjc@oceanviewcom.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div>
<div> <br></div>
<blockquote defang_data-gmailquote="yes" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;">My thought process is that positions no matter the source of actual hams (not objects) should be reflected on RF which provides a coherent picture for the RF stations.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>IMO you're sort of contradicting yourself. How does giving a picture of hams on cell/IP give you a picture of RF? It doesn't. It's noise. If they're not on RF, then they don't need to be on RF.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Now for non-APRS RF resources that may benefit by being announced on APRS, which what you may be headed toward, look at Bob's info here: <a href="http://www.aprs.org/localinfo.html">http://www.aprs.org/localinfo.html</a><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
</div>
<div><div>-Jason<br></div>
<div>kg4wsv<br></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><u>_______________________________________________</u><br></div>
<div>aprssig mailing list<br></div>
<div><a href="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org">aprssig@tapr.org</a><br></div>
<div><a href="http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig">http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig</a><br></div>
</blockquote></body>
</html>