jcplatt1@mmm.com wrote:
> While HamIM is allowed per the current rules, and while it may be a useful
> tool in the more highly populated areas such as the left and right coasts,
> here in the mid section of the county 2m FM simplex simply does not have
> the range to cover the many miles that we rove. HamIM, in its current
> form, is not a valued rover tool for those of us who rove the wide open
> spaces. I do respect that it may work well for those rovers who live in
> more highly populated areas.
Agreed. I've taken APRS along on one rove, and dropped it the next
year, because as I asked around the locals "anyone see me on there last
weekend?" the answers were all "I never even looked", or "I was too busy
operating".
> In watching and listening to the rover-APRS discussions, my first thought
> was "why not". I agree with your comments that it constitutes
> self-spotting is a weak argument for not allowing its use. I was
> initially warm to the idea. Then there was more discussion. That
> discussion touched on the concern that if rovers were allowed to use APRS,
> that fixed stations would be watching the Internet instead of searching &
> making noise on the VHF bands and activity looking for that (elusive)
> rover. The concern is that allowing rovers to use APRS may actually hurt
> activity, not help it.
I think the thought that you could stop ANY contester from being active
on the radio, just because they were diddling with a keyboard and mouse,
is somewhat ludicrous. They still need contacts, even from the
"non-rare non-rovers" to win... you can't just sit there watching for a
few rare rovers and put up a real score. Having the capability to have
someone doing some monitoring like that at a multi-op would be a team
effort, and at a single-op, you juggle... just like you juggle in a
single-op rover.
The "self-spotting" argument doesn't hold water completely either. It
tells someone where I am, as a rover. It doesn't tell them what band
I'm currently on, what direction my antenna is pointed (although astute
folks who've seen my rover photos would know the antennas are fixed, so
my last direction of travel might be a good guess, but still not
perfect), and whether or not I even have any radios on, or if I'm out of
the vehicle, watering the weeds. (GRIN)
Now, could I see someone setting up such a system that would give that
data... complete with IM-like "away" messages and/or data from the rigs
as to what bands and frequencies they're on? Sure... but will it take
away from just operating? Nah... it'd just make it more "feature rich".
Those good at processing LOTS of data at once (useful in any contest)
would benefit, those who can't pay attention when they're tying their
shoes, might not find such additional data flying their way as "fair"...
> So which model would actually generating more contest activity ..... one
> model where stations may be prone to watching the Internet only to pounce
> on the rover when they are in a new grid, or the model where stations have
> to actively go in search of the rover by making some noise, perhaps calling
> CQ, spinning the VFO, and turning the rotator ?
Out here, everyone listens for the big guns working the rovers in new
grids anyway... someone watching on an Internet-based map might get one
call in before the big guy would pounce and then everyone on the band
knows the rover changed grids anyway, at that point in time. I think
it's a non-issue. If I hit a new grid and give a CQ call with the grid
square in it, people have their clocks set and know from ASKING me where
I am, where I'll be in 1/2 hour... and if they're worried that I won't
"self-spot" in a quick conversation, all they have to do is ask for my
6-digit grid square and what grid I'll be in next. A road map, a ruler,
and a watch are all they need to know to figure out when I'll probably
hit the next grid. Time/Speed/Distance aren't rocket science. Do many
think of doing it? I think many just naturally do it in their heads,
really.
In fact, out here in the West, from reading the traffic on the list(s)
in the past, it would appear the big guns are MUCH more friendly about
HELPING others make contacts. I can't think of a more professional and
courteous group of operators than W0EEA, W0KVA, N0POH, and W6OAL.
None are going to go out of their way to hurt their scores when things
are hopping, but when things are slow and a couple of folks are trying
in vain to work a rover... especially on microwaves, I've personally
been the beneficiary of the big guys transmitting carriers to help both
ends get tuned up correctly, and also as a "target" for me to aim at and
then swing a particular number of degrees off of them to find the other
station... with the big guys even helping with passing 6-digit grid
squares, lat/long, whatever was necessary to make the contact.
I don't think things are quite so friendly in more active/densely
populated areas. If the big guys had thirty other microwave targets
(rovers) to go chase, they probably wouldn't be as helpful, but I don't
know... people are good to each other out here, and ESPECIALLY good to
rovers... they might help anyway.
> Does allowing rovers to use APRS help us or hurt us in terms of overall
> activity ? Would we entice more people to give roving a try if we
> allowed the use of APRS (perhaps because it would be more fun) ?
APRS is popular, and many people have the capability. I think it should
be allowed, if for nothing else... safety. Single-op rovers are out in
the middle of nowhere, and surely a friend or two on the bands might
come looking for them if they disappeared in the middle of a rove, if
the map showed their last location was the side of a long lonely dirt
road somewhere.
Of course, even with high-mountain digis, there are areas of Eastern
Colorado, Southern Wyoming, and Eastern Nebraska and Kansas where even
if I were allowed to digi, no one would ever see the packets... just
think... if it were allowed, I might start contacting some hams out in
the boonie areas and helping them build digis, expanding the network's
coverage... just so I'd be in range of the overall network out in the
middle of nowhere. It wouldn't be expensive, and it certainly wouldn't
be difficult... but there's no motivation for me to do it today...
Just some thoughts to munch on. Operators will operate, no matter how
much Internet data you throw at them. Multi-ops are already watching
propagation reports on the web, and what-not... it would just be an
add-on activity for that guy to watch an APRS map for the rovers...
The biggest argument I seem to get from folks is "we never had that back
when *I* roved!"... well, you didn't have airbags, elctronic stability
control, and a bunch of other things either... who cares? Move up and
move on with modern technology.
I say to the old-timers, you didn't have WSJT either, and those contacts
are absolutely 100% impossible for someone without the right gear to
copy... just like the complaint that some won't be able to monitor the
APRS traffic... but it's allowed, and rightly so.
Nate WY0X
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|