[Xastir] A problem decoding PHG...

[Eric Christensen]

Makes sense to me.  I thing weather packets are long enough as they are
without adding a bunch of stuff on to the end of them.

Don't worry about me posting anything to the APRSSIG... I left that
group many moons ago and don't think I'll be going back.  Very
unfortunate, though.  It could have been a very good place to get
information.

Eric


Tom Russo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:05:58PM -0500, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of the <kf4otn at ericsatcom.net> flavor, containing:
>> Okay.  So there shouldn't be a PHG statement at the end of the weather
>> data?  That is interesting.  I know that UIView doesn't integrate the
>> PHG in like Xastir does so John (KE4TZN) was simply putting the PHG
>> statement in the comment portion of the station ID so it would be in there.
> 
> Ah.  Well it's certainly wrong just to bung it into the comment field.  The 
> PHG data belongs in a specific place in the information field; specifically 
> PHG belongs in the "Data Extension" field, right after the symbol code in byte 
> 28 of the packet, according to the spec.  No spec-compliant software should be 
> decoding it from the comment field.
> 
>> I wonder if there is a way to modify the spec to include these
>> situations?  
> 
> Sigh.  The spec is pretty well ossified, although there are a large number
> of "errata" out there on Bob B's web site.  You could always ask on APRSSIG, I
> guess, but let us know when you before you do so --- I, for one, need to 
> order a new asbestos suit before reading any subsequent traffic over there.
> 
>> If a digipeater were setup to also be a weather station
>> you'd definitely want to know the approximate coverage area.
> 
> Yep.  Such a digi should be transmitting extra packets with a station 
> comment (containing a canonical set of information to show its capabilities)
> and PHG info.  It is not enough for it to just burp weather info.  This is
> usually done by programming a set of beacon strings into its TNC to be 
> sent out at infrequent intervals.
>