[OZAPRS] European v USnewparadigmand pathlimiting +confusion....

Fri Nov 10 20:36:54 EST 2006

How are going to get people to use the new "standard" when some cant even 
get the one we are using now right. I think we will be pushing s@#t up
hill 
for quite some time.

I am liking all this discussion, so hopefully things will work out right. 
Maybe we can change the topic to "Oznewparadigm and 
pathlimiting+confusion..." instead of European vUS as none of us are in 
either place.

Ben Lindner
VK5JFK

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Hill" <chris.hill at crhtelnet.com.au>
To: "'VK / ZL APRS Users'" <ozaprs at aprs.net.au>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] European v USnewparadigmand pathlimiting 
+confusion....

> Hi Andrew,
>
> When travelling down the west coast, south of Perth, it would be nice to
> have a total of 3 WIDE digi's to ensure reliable reception into a
reliable
> igate, from a mobile anywhere south of Bunbury (or more accurately,
south 
> of
> Binningup).  Hence the "APRS v WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2" suggestion.
>
>
> At the moment, "APRS v WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1" (ie, a max of two digi hops)
would
> probably work, most of the time...  but a mobile doing something 
> interesting
> (like driving to Margaret River) would not appear on people's D-700 or
on
> UI-VIEW in Perth.  You would however, _probably_ be able to see them
(via
> the igate) on the internet...  which is OK for people that prefer to
> experience APRS via a web browser, rather than as a mainly RF-centric
> experience.
>
>
> For areas that want to clamp it to a maximum of two digi hops, why not
do
> the following:
> 1.  Let mobiles use the guideline of "APRS v WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2";
> 2.  Add "WIDE2-2" to the UIDIGI list, so that is treated the same
>    as WIDE7-7, etc...  that is, callsign substituted and no further hops
>
>
> In other words, it appears easy for paths to be truncated in the
network, 
> to
> suit local needs...  but of course it's pretty hard to expand a user's 
> path
> to be longer, for the more remote areas (where long paths are needed).
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Chris
> vk6kch
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au [mailto:ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au] On
> Behalf Of Andrew McDade
> Sent: Friday, 10 November 2006 5:38 AM
> To: Tony Hunt; VK / ZL APRS Users
> Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] European v USnewparadigmand pathlimiting
> +confusion....
>
> I guess the question we need to ask, is whether 2 hops will allow ALL
aprs
> stations within Australia to reach an Igate reliably.
>
> If we have a situation where all stations can hit an Igate in 2 hops or
> less then well and good, WIDE2-2 is definitely the way to go. But if
there
> are still some areas that require 3 hops to achieve this, then where are

> we
> with regards to a standard, default, documentable, promotable Nation
Wide
> config for general APRS users.
>
> I would hate to see a situation where we've got different default
configs
> for different areas ie. WIDE2-2 for some areas and WIDE3-3 for others. I
> think this would be a regressive step.
>
> So the question again , are there any areas within Australia that
require 
> 3
> ( or more ) hops to reliably access an Igate ?
>
> Regards .. Andrew .. VK5EX
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tony Hunt" <wavetel at bigpond.com>
> To: <ozaprs at aprs.net.au>
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] European v USnewparadigmand pathlimiting
> +confusion....
>
>
>> Whats this idea I see of WIDE3-3 for home stations?? Currently we 
>> recomend
>> and use predominantly WIDE2-2 in Adelaide .. If we use WIDE3-3 then we
>> will
>> cross the border to Mildura and Ouyen .. Is there any need for this
many
>> hops if all satations are within 2 hops of an Igate ?? WIDE3-3 will
just
>> increase the amount of traffic in our situation and likely insure alot
of
>> VK3 traffic right through to Pt Linclon instead of just the occasional 
>> bit
>> here and there..
>>
>> Or are we going to recomend WIDE3-3 and then Trap the last hop in the
>> digis
>> which is one approach..
>>
>> Ive seen this WIDE3-3 mentioned a couple of times now and thought it
must
>> have been a typo at first ..
>>
>> Also 50 stations within 50miles of Adelaide.. I concur with Terry.. We
>> must
>> be on a different map or planet to Bob .. Our Igate shows about 15
locals
>> presently which is about normal
>> http://121.44.67.103:14501/
>> There are 23 VK5s currently listed on my Client here some of which are 
>> via
>> the Igate and not on RF..
>>
>> There are about 40 listed here but about 1/2 of them are over a day old
>> with
>> no recent posits.
>> http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?vk5*
>>
>> 50 Stations!! I gota to see that .. Talk about rush hour in Adelaide..
We
>> are just an oversized country town here and pleased to be that way..
>>
>> Melbourne is the traffic worry on 2m APRS from what Ive experienced..
>>
>> Tony  Hunt  VK5AH
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> Your thoughts Richard 3JFK too please.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 11:06 +0800, Chris Hill wrote:
>>> > Hi All,
>>> >
>>> > May I suggest the following "KISS" outcome for APRS in VK:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 1.  Mobiles set path to "APRS v WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2"
>>> >
>>> > 2.  Home users set path to "APRS v WIDE3-3"
>>> >
>>
>> Bob Said
>>
>>> Boy was I wrong.  I just zoomed on the first call I saw and
>>> found that even Adelade is probably just about optimally loaded
>>> and cannot afford much coming in from say Melbourne without
>>> having some impact on throughput.  I see 50 stations within 50
>>> miles of Adelade and that is about as high as you want to go
>>> without losing reliability for small trackers.
>>>
>>> Then I zoomed in on Melbourne and see that it is as dense as
>>> some of our highest density cities in the USA!  We use WIDE2-2
>>> in those areas...
>>> (see MAP on http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/aprs/fix14439.html
>>>
>>> Seeing these maps, I now am convinced that you are on the right
>>> track to implement the New-N paradigm measures to help improve
>>> the reliability of local area APRS.  And since these population
>>> densities seem quite well focused with big gaps inbetween, then
>>> it does make sense to limit the WIDEn-N hops so that mobiles in
>>> one area are not QRMING long distances away to the other
>>> areas...
>>>
>>> Great work!
>>> Bob, Wb4APR
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ozaprs mailing list
>> Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
>> http://aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 
>> 11/7/2006
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ozaprs mailing list
> Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
> http://aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ozaprs mailing list
> Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
> http://aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date:
9/11/2006 
> 6:00 PM
> 

_______________________________________________
Ozaprs mailing list
Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
http://aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://second.aprs.net.au/pipermail/ozaprs/attachments/20061110/9e4baa56/attachment.htm 