Digipath question

[rleffler]

I've had my tracker for over two years, but I'm not just getting flying. It came preconfigured, so I've not changed anything from it's original configuration.

When checking the site to look for data from my second flight, I was surprized to see this. Can somebody assist me in educating me on what is needed to be done to resolve this?

thanks,

bob

Device:Byonics: TinyTrak3 (tracker)

Last path:N410BL>T0QU3T via WIDE2-1,qAR,KD8PHI-1
This station appears to be flying at high altitude and using digipeaters, which causes serious congestion in the APRS network. The tracker should be configured to only use digipeaters when at low altitude.

[Guy Prevost]

I'm still troubleshooting my tracker, but I noticed that packets that were previously labeled, "good path" are now labeled just like yours. I'm confused too. I'm using Wide2-1 only.

I'm beginning to wonder if the criteria have changed?

[Brantel]

As long as you are using WIDE2-1 only you should be OK.

I have found that status value to be flaky.

As long as your BB's are making it to the servers and the local hams are not wanting to lynch you, you should be good.

[humptybump]

Hi Bob,

Technically, using WIDE2-1 in airplane is above 3,000 ASL could be overkill in some areas - hence the aprs-fi website highlights it. The reality is that we either need configuration control of out trackers while in-flight or some algorithm for dynamically changing configuration based on altitude.

Once at altitude, if there are enough iGates, then a tracker could switch to WIDE1-1 but the pilot/operator would need to know the iGates for there area, altitude, coverage, etc.

So, from a practical point of view, WIDE2-1 is our best option. A number of use have had this conversation withing the HAM community and while it is not perfect, it is the agreed to compromise.

Guy - the "criteria" is just what a software developer stuck in the code. It is not any type of official classification based on specifications or standards. When the developer(s) of the website were adding features, they added "coverage rings" and along with that the message. In both cases, it does not reflect real coverage - it is just a simple formula based on altitude. As an example that it is primarily a "fun" feature and not realistic, I just checked the "transmission circle" for an airplane flying near Portland, OR at 4,000' and and the circle spanned to the east of Mount Hood (Elevation: 11,250').

[Andy J]

When you look at your raw packets do you see any other errors? As you know from altitude there are many igates receiving your packets. Due to network delays they arrive out of order at the aprs servers and this is a problem. I had issues and seriously bad path errors until I enabled time stamps. Here is a thread that explains :
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ighlight=stamp

[Guy Prevost]

I got my tracker working properly today, not only did the current track show up as a good path, but all previous ones now do too. It seems like the latest packets dominate in it's determination of whether or not a path is good.

[rleffler]

Originally Posted by Guy Prevost

I got my tracker working properly today, not only did the current track show up as a good path, but all previous ones now do too. It seems like the latest packets dominate in it's determination of whether or not a path is good.

So what did you do differently?

Bob

[Sam Buchanan]

Don't get hung up on the "good path/poor path" notes. This is just an opinion on what is a recommended tracker configuration and has no regulatory implications. It is altitude dependent and has nothing to do with how congested the local aprs traffic actually is.

WIDE2-1 is perfectly acceptable as a path and the only practical choice we have in an aircraft with the current state of inexpensive tracker technology. Turn the tracker off during formation practice and extensive pattern work and nobody will have a legitimate complaint about our WIDE2-1 trackers.

[Guy Prevost]

Originally Posted by rleffler

So what did you do differently?

Bob

I was getting very few packets out, and traced it to a faulty antenna. I replaced my antenna, but I'm not sure that had anything to do with the path quality rating on aprs.fi. See Sam's comments above.

Guy