Talk:RDOSTA

Associated geographic object: svcare; looks wrong for me. We haven't used such a construction now. The service area will be the geo-reference for this object. What do you think?

By David, I think a peer to peer relationship should be possible. I will ask James Ferguson, who is the modeller who has taken the lead since Peter left. Certainly we, that is Mal, Peter and I, had always understood that this was how it would work. I think that the same thing happens with NAVMET areas and NAVTEX areas that are covered by radio stations at VHF, MF and HF. In these cases we do not have a svcare; instead we have the NAVMET area or NAVTEX areas with a peer to peer relationship with the station that provides the coverage. If we do not think that the position of the NAVTEX station is important, could we have the information about these stations as attributes to an information object? that is an object without geometry? If we think that the position is important, should it be the position of the station building or the antenna if it is somewhere different? My guess is that very often it will be somewhere different.

By David 29 Jul 2008. Changed catmsi into catmab as catmsi is too narrow.

30 July Jens Seen that calnam is part of RDOSTA. That makes telcom indeed superfluous.

11 Aug David As calnam is now in condet, removed from here.

raphael 08:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC): Suggest adding TRMCTN as a fallback for types of broadcast/commnunication not enumerated in CATMAB, on the same principles as in RDOSVC.

jens 13:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Sounds good. I added TRMCTN to the list.