[aprssig] Gating Objects from Internet to RF (fina?l)

[Robert Bruninga]

I disagree still, and strongly.

1) These are objects being created by a KE4ERJ Engine, and
should have that originators call.  That is how APRS is supposed
to work.  APRS displays the source of OBJECT packets as it
should.

2) This engine should not be creating an originators call on
behalf of someone else.  It violates the principle of least
astonishment. 

3) AND it creates callsign conflicts with everyone who is on
APRS and also on Echolink!

4) AND it wastes display space on the mobile radio by displaying
these callsigns TWICE 

5) AND it does not display the source.

All 5 of these problems are significant, and I do not see one
single reason for persisting in putting the Echolink Node call
as the AX.25 call in light of all these already reasons to the
contrary.

Please reconsider.

Thanks
Bob, WB4APR

> -----Original Message-----
> From: aprssig-bounces at tapr.org 
> [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of Lynn W. 
> Deffenbaugh (Mr)
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:36 PM
> To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Gating Objects from Internet to RF
(fina?l)
> 
> Steve,
> 
> There was discussion both ways, some people believe it should
be both 
> ways.  There is no technical nor legal reason (on APRS-IS) for
one vs 
> the other, although some mistakenly believed these objects 
> would somehow 
> conflict with the real station's position.
> 
> My final decision was based on the following factors:
> 
> 1) There's no interference for using the station's callsign
> 2) The ToCall of APELNK will be google-able and define where 
> the objects 
> are coming from
> 3) My call will be in the path of the raw packets on the
Internet
> 4) All of the information in the object is controlled by the 
> node's owner
> 5) I'm only reformatting data, not authoring anything new
> 6) All information is already available to the public 
> (EchoLink status)
> 
> Mike (kb8zgl) put it best at 10:39 today:
> 
> "It would seem odd to me to see my KB8ZGL-R EL object come 
> from someone 
> else's callsign. That would bother me more than seeing it 
> come from my 
> own callsign even though I didn't put it out there."
> 
> I agree with him wholeheartedly.  I really wouldn't want to
see some 
> other callsign "owning" my EchoLink Nodes object.  I might not
like 
> seeing someone else injecting the object, but at least the
object 
> acknowledges my "ownership".
> 
> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
> 
> Steve Dimse wrote:
> > Maybe I missed something. Didn't everyone agree you should
not be 
> > sending data with other hams callsigns as the origin?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
> >
> >> Curt,
> >>
> >> Done.  Check out the current proposed objects at 
> >> http://ldeffenb.dnsalias.net/EchoLink.txt.  It only uses 
> PHG if the 
> >> frequency doesn't adhere to the valid ones listed in 
> >> http://aprs.org/info/freqspec.txt, including the GHz 
> ranges near the 
> >> bottom of that page.  Any "invalid" frequency will still 
> be included 
> >> in the status text, but only in its owner-specified 
> format, not in a 
> >> normalized FREQ object.
> >>
> >> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aprssig mailing list
> > aprssig at tapr.org
> > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>