You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Now that APRS-LoRa is growing but it hasn't grown too much, I think it would be a good idea to consider some way to identify devices based on the radio type used. VHF "analog" TNC, LoRa, maybe others in the future.
I know it's a far reaching change, just suggesting it should be considered.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
borjam
changed the title
Identifying radio type for APRS device ids
Suggestion: Identifying radio type for APRS device ids
Aug 4, 2023
I know it's not a trivial question and it would need careful consideration! But maybe in the future more radio interfaces will appear. Fow now LoRa is offering promising results, and there are even products available in the market.
Not starting to do this now, for the following reasons:
Many devices and software can use various different protocols and modems, not just one. There are already a lot of different methods used (APRS, DMR, various HF modes).
If we'd tag software X (running on a computer or mobile phone) as capable of doing APRS, LoRa and DPRS in this database, it would not communicate which protocol is being used at the moment. I presume one of your goals would be to filter stations based on the protocol, but this criteria would not work well for that when multiprotocol devices are out there.
Maybe the igates should be tagging themselves somehow, signaling that stations which were received by this igate callsign-SSID were on protocol Y.
Adding more details to the database will increase the amount of changes and updates, increasing the effort required to maintain it.
Hello,
Now that APRS-LoRa is growing but it hasn't grown too much, I think it would be a good idea to consider some way to identify devices based on the radio type used. VHF "analog" TNC, LoRa, maybe others in the future.
I know it's a far reaching change, just suggesting it should be considered.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: