Re: [gpsd-dev] Another query on terminology

[Gerry Creager - NOAA Affiliate]

I have to strongly agree with Greg. GNSS is straightforward, unambiguous and explanatory. We (the navigation community) spent a lot of time settling on GNSS some years ago as the catchall, when this arguement first came to my attention. I feel like I've falled down that rabbit hole again. 

I'm also obligated to pedantically note that neither unaugmented inertial systems nor LORAN fall into GNSS, but that is a sidebar.

gerry

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Greg Troxel <address@hidden> wrote:

Sanjeev Gupta <address@hidden> writes:

> <p>This document uses the term <strong>GPS</strong> to mean two different
> concepts; the idea of a navigation using views of satellites (collectively
> called <strong>GNSS</strong>: Global Navigation Satellite System), and
> the particular implementation of this concept by the US Air Force
> (earlier called Navstar).  Technically, only the latter is GPS, but
> popular usage may use the term to cover similar systems (currently
> includes GLONASS (Russis), GALILEO (EU), BeiDou (China), MSAS and QZSS
> (Japan), GAGAN (India)).  It is hoped that the usage of the term is
> clear from context. </p>

Also, if we use GPS to refer to GLONASS, why don't we use GPS to refer
to LORAN and inertial systems?

The other terminology problem is people referring to a "GPS receiver"
(which is really one member of the set known as the "user segment") as
"a GPS".   It seems the project has used the term GPSr for that, which
is both compact, not really confusing for those who don't understand,
and a non-offensive abbreviation for those who do.

--

Gerry Creager

NSSL/CIMMS

405.325.6371

++++++++++++++++++++++

“Big whorls have little whorls,

That feed on their velocity; 

And little whorls have lesser whorls, 

And so on to viscosity.” 

Lewis Fry Richardson (1881-1953)