Re: [gpsd-dev] RFC: GPSd on Android as a system service

[Gary E. Miller]

Yo Adam!

On Mon, 06 May 2019 19:44:16 -0400
Adam Serbinski <address@hidden> wrote:

> >> It's not about passing on the unknown elevation, it's about passing
> >> on the cno and SV identifying numbers.  
> >
> >Which have no value without elevation and azimuth.  
> 
> That is incorrect. That data is EXTREMELY useful. At the most basic
> level, if I see NO SV's at all, then how do I know if the receiver is
> broken or it's just poor signal?

Either way, you do not.

> If I see a couple of SV's with a cno
> of 5, then I know that the receiver is good and I can probably get a
> fix just by moving it somewhere else.

Ditto if you have no cno.

> >> The -91 is incidental.  
> >
> >No, it tells us the data is useless.  
> 
> Incidental in terms of using it as a valid elevation. I don't care
> the difference between -91, -125, or a flag in another field that
> says there is no elevation.

Good, you don't care.  No PRN means no fix.

> >A good test for you would be to try to explain this to a casual
> >user.  
> 
> A casual user will see grey bars in GPS status, will see that they
> are short or tall, and know that after grey comes maybe purple, then
> yellow, then lock. Or the casual user will see nothing at all and
> wonder why.

He will know why, he needs to move.

I'm not sure what is unclear about gpsd not going to support
undocumented data elements.  You want it, get it documented.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
        address@hidden  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

            Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
    "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin

pgpLWtRf5U738.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature