Talk:Trmrng - Revision history

Jens at 18:57, 19 March 2009

2009-03-19T18:57:06Z

Jens at 18:16, 19 March 2009

2009-03-19T18:16:57Z

New page

[[User:Jens|jens]] 15:26, 18 March 2009 (CET)

Initially I need to have an example why this should be used. In my opinion a range can be defined by the geometry. That works with the example provided in any way.
One thought further I see the point that we might have problems with information saying "Ranges between 50 and 70 nm". That is indeed difficult. This can be a fact to be addressed to TSMAD how they intent to handle such fuzzy areas. If they don't provide a workable solution than go ahead. Probably the definition can be renamed to enable us to use it for other fuzzy areas too, like "unspecified/unreliable area of service/concern" or something like this. And, we should amend resolution, format and example accordingly.

What do you think?

Currently that attribute links to no object. We have all options free.

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 15:32, 19 March 2009 (CET)
There are several examples of where this is needed at ALRS Vol 5 Diagrams X1 (P269) and Diagram X2 (P270). The limits of the area are shown as dotted lines (.....) but the range for the station is not indicated by the green tint because full coverage is obtained and in many cases transmissions spill out into another NAVTEX area. The Black Sea is a particularly clear example of maximum ranges overlapping.
( I do not understand what is happening with Malta and Augusta. Which station does the dotted line refer to? I have tried to get the answer from the Editor but so far failed.)
I see from RADSTA that there is an attribute VALMXR. This is pretty close to what we need. I looked for something like this on Tuedsay, but as I was looking for a name like "range", I did not find it.

I think the answer to your 50 - 70 nm example would be to encode 70nm. As it happens there is only one station with a spread of range in our book and that is Pinneberg (Hamburg) 250 - 400 nm.

So my current proposal is to retire this attribute and add VALMXR but where? I think the right place is RDOSTA. So our model would be:

A Radio station; a peer to peer relationship to the [[navtex]] area and an association to [[condet]]. There are still some attributes we need that are currently only on [[rdosvc]] like [[timtrm]] and [[trmreg]]. We also need a solution for language and this brings us back to the deleted '''langge''' attribute in the Attribute word file.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 19:16, 19 March 2009 (CET)

I will check the VALMXR idea against S57.

The model idea has one wrong thought. I will come back with a new approach in a couple of minutes.

Jens at 14:31, 18 March 2009

2009-03-18T14:31:01Z

Jens at 14:29, 18 March 2009

2009-03-18T14:29:32Z

Jens at 14:28, 18 March 2009

2009-03-18T14:28:47Z

Jens: New page: ~~~~ Initially I need to have an example why this should be used. In my opinion a range can be defined by the geometry. One thought further I see the point that we might have problems wi...

2009-03-18T14:26:10Z

New page: ~~~~ Initially I need to have an example why this should be used. In my opinion a range can be defined by the geometry. One thought further I see the point that we might have problems wi...

New page

[[User:Jens|jens]] 15:26, 18 March 2009 (CET)

Initially I need to have an example why this should be used. In my opinion a range can be defined by the geometry.
One thought further I see the point that we might have problems with information saying "Ranges between 50 and 70 nm". That is indeed difficult. This can be a fact to be addressed to TSMAD how they intent to handle such fuzzy areas. If they don't provide a workable solution than go ahead. Probably the definition can be renamed to enable us to use it for other fuzzy areas too, like "unspecified/unreliable area of service/concern" or something like this.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 19 March 2009
Line 24:		Line 24:
	I will check the VALMXR idea against S57.		I will check the VALMXR idea against S57.

−	The model idea has one wrong thought. I ~~will come back~~ with a ~~new approach in~~ a ~~couple of minutes~~.	+	The model idea has one wrong thought. The diagram provides what I am thinking. [[Image:RDOSTA Diagram.png]]
		+
		+	[[navare\|NAVAREA area]] and [[navtex\|NAVTEX area]] are been used to describe an area as itself. No further action is needed.
		+
		+	The [[RDOSTA\|Radio station]] is the place where the technical equipement is located. Nobody is really interested in knowing that when trying to receive messages.
		+
		+	The [[rdosvc\|Radion service area]] is the place where the ball rolls. This object provides all attributes needed. If [[VALMXR]] can be used than it should be added to [[RDOSTA]]. In one case it would be identically with the maximum limits of [[rdosvc\|Radion service area]] (if it is a circle or part of a circle. In the other case it can be used to indicate the fuzzy area between [[rdosvc\|Radion service area]] and [[VALMXR]].
		+
		+	What do you think? Am I right?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 18 March 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:

	What do you think?		What do you think?
		+
		+	Currently that attribute links to no object. We have all options free.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:29, 18 March 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Initially I need to have an example why this should be used. In my opinion a range can be defined by the geometry. That works with the example provided in any way.		Initially I need to have an example why this should be used. In my opinion a range can be defined by the geometry. That works with the example provided in any way.
−	One thought further I see the point that we might have problems with information saying "Ranges between 50 and 70 nm". That is indeed difficult. This can be a fact to be addressed to TSMAD how they intent to handle such fuzzy areas. If they don't provide a workable solution than go ahead. Probably the definition can be renamed to enable us to use it for other fuzzy areas too, like "unspecified/unreliable area of service/concern" or something like this. And, we should amend ~~the~~ example ~~as well~~.	+	One thought further I see the point that we might have problems with information saying "Ranges between 50 and 70 nm". That is indeed difficult. This can be a fact to be addressed to TSMAD how they intent to handle such fuzzy areas. If they don't provide a workable solution than go ahead. Probably the definition can be renamed to enable us to use it for other fuzzy areas too, like "unspecified/unreliable area of service/concern" or something like this. And, we should amend resolution, format and example accordingly.
		+
		+	What do you think?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[User:Jens|jens]] 15:26, 18 March 2009 (CET)
-Initially I need to have an example why this should be used. In my opinion a range can be defined by the geometry.
+Initially I need to have an example why this should be used. In my opinion a range can be defined by the geometry. That works with the example provided in any way.
-One thought further I see the point that we might have problems with information saying "Ranges between 50 and 70 nm". That is indeed difficult. This can be a fact to be addressed to TSMAD how they intent to handle such fuzzy areas. If they don't provide a workable solution than go ahead. Probably the definition can be renamed to enable us to use it for other fuzzy areas too, like "unspecified/unreliable area of service/concern" or something like this.
+One thought further I see the point that we might have problems with information saying "Ranges between 50 and 70 nm". That is indeed difficult. This can be a fact to be addressed to TSMAD how they intent to handle such fuzzy areas. If they don't provide a workable solution than go ahead. Probably the definition can be renamed to enable us to use it for other fuzzy areas too, like "unspecified/unreliable area of service/concern" or something like this. And, we should amend the example as well.