[Xastir] A problem decoding PHG...

[Robbie, wa9inf]

I have been running UI-View32 for a very long time, and use the "add-on" 
UI-PGH, which at least for UI-View users, draws the Range Circles for 
stations sending the PHG.

For UI-View stations, we can place the PHG in the Comment feild, but it 
will not show on maps that adhear to the "Specs". On UI-View maps, the 
Circles appear grey, indicating that the PHG is not in proper place.. 
The other PHG that is in the Spec location, will appear in color..

I don't remember the outcome when I tried placing the PHG in first 
spaces of the WX report, as I also run a 24/7 weather station.

At least with the UI-View Add-on, we can enjoy the PHG display of the 
range circles.

Robbie

Eric Christensen wrote:

>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.
>>
>>    
>>