Talk:Global Positioning System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Older topics have been archived

Please start new topics at the bottom of the page. Older discussion topics have been moved to /Archive 1.

[edit] What is the relationship between GPS and WGS84?

The WGS84 article claims that "WGS 84 ... is currently the reference system being used by the Global Positioning System."

Perhaps this GPS article should mention WGS 84.

If the D.O.D. wanted to convert the entire GPS system to some reference system *other* than WGS84, would that require sending up a completely new constellation, or is it "merely" a matter of reprogramming the ground recievers?

--DavidCary 05:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

According to what I know of the Global Positioning System, the locations of the satellites are set according to some fixed reference point in the WGS-84 system. This (current) location of the satellite as well as the orbital information is sent to the satellite from ground stations. Along with the time code, each satellite broadcasts this position information. The GPS receiver (GPSr) uses this information to synchronize its clock and update its internal database of satellite location and orbital information. Everything is calibrated according to WGS-84, but the GPSr could perform its calculations and render the results in some other Earth model. Val42 15:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

To say it shortly: A coordinate is useless as long as you don't have a reference system. Maps have a reference system, too, the most common is WGS84. All GPS-coordinates are natively WGS84-coodinates. If you have another (like ED50), you cannot plot your coordinate directly in the map, but you have to calculate the ED50-coordinate (It will make a difference of a few meters, but in some areas it can become up to 200 meters). --Lowfly 09:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plain English

This article seems a good technical explanation. Wikipedia though is an encyclopedia for everyone and the article needs, in addition, a plain English overview explanation for intelligent and interested entry level newcomers. Unfortuanately I dont have the knowledge to write this. Lumos3 09:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New entry for gps receiver

I am going to start a separate entry for GPS Receivers. If anyone sees a link to _GPS_ receiver, please replace it with _GPS reciever_ --Omnicog 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is the "please replace ..." request above - it reads as nonsense. I have converted GPS receiver back to a redirect. I think there should be consensus here before a fork is started. -- RHaworth 11:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What fork? The GPS is a system of satellites, the GPS Reciever is a electronic device. You erased the entire entry? --Omnicog 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Satellites

I was going to revert the 29 sats back to 24 as well until I checked the satellite almanac at USCG navcen[1]. Health code 000 means the satellite is healthy and I count 29 satellites. Am I counting wrong or is there something that says 24 somewhere else? --Dual Freq 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of sats question again - I'm counting 29 active satellites, and 1 inactive with health code 063 (PRN 15).[2] [3] See also this warning about more than 30 PRNs indicates a 31st will be launched soon. I changed the page to 24 and noted it is the min required. Active PRNs change often enough it doesn't make sense to maintain a current number in orbit. Dual Freq 12:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the number should be the number of satellites, not the minimum that they want to keep active at one time. The article / paragraph is about the GPS, not a position system. Davandron | Talk 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The GPS redirect page

Hello,

I would like to propose that the page named GPS, which is currently a redirect to Global Positioning System, become the disambiguation page. The main reason I suggest is that a GPS receiver is frequently referred to as "a GPS", and the person looking up GPS is highly likely to want to learn about a GPS receiver rather than the actual satellite system that runs it. I believe that as many or more people looking up "GPS" want to know what "a GPS" (receiver) is as would ever be interested in C/A codes and ionospheric effects.

Such a page would start out saying something like "GPS stands for Global Positioning System."

Then it would go on to list all of the non-navigation related things GPS can stand for. Reswobslc 02:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, if one turns to an encyclopedia, they should expect a discussion of the proper noun first, with an "also see, ..." at the top for related but slightly dissimilar topics. I understand where you are coming from, and if GPS Receiver can stand on its own as a page then there should be a "also see" at the top, but Global Position System is GPS, where as GPS Receiver is not the same as "a gps." Its not a matter of disambiguation. Davandron | Talk 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective Availablility

Selective availability has not been discontinued - as the GPS entry has been re-edited to say. It has been set to zero, which, while effectively the same thing to the average user, has an obviously much different meaning. 2SOPS did not discontinue SA (like its some kind of an iPod or something). Would it make sense that they would take that capability out of the system when simply setting it to zero produces the same effect? The article should reflect the correct information. the_other_steve_jobs 15:51 7 Nov 2006 (UTC)

As you can see by the Presidential Directive, what i am saying is exactly what has happened. "The decision to discontinue SA is coupled with our continuing efforts to upgrade the military utility of our systems that use GPS, and is supported by threat assessments which conclude ***that setting SA to zero*** at this time would have minimal impact on national security." That should be reflected in the article. Based upon the Presidential Statement and the fact that there is no logical argument for why going thru the hassle of removing the capability from the system, and that it would actually take time and cost money taking out a capability from the system - i think its clear that the article should read that SA is now set to zero. the_other_steve_jobs 15:56 7 Nov 2006 (UTC)
The Presidential Directive uses the phrase "discontinue SA" (or some variant of that) five times, and "discontinuing the use of SA" once. It doesn't imply that the capability has been removed, just that its use has been discontinued. "Setting SA to zero" doesn't make any sense to me. "Discontinue SA" is much clearer. Pfalstad 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The point of the PD was to obfuscate. It says both "discontinued" and "set to zero". The fact is: it is _actually_ set to zero, and not discontinued. If something is discontinued, that means its gone, never to return. But that is not the case, SA is not gone. Setting SA to Zero vs. Discontinue is the difference between the volume knob on your car stereo being turned all the way down vs. your car stereo unplugged and sitting on a shelf. SA has not been unplugged. SA is, in fact, turned on right now. I just saw the screen this morning. The amount of error put into the NAV uploads at this time is "0" Circular Probable Error. This means that the system is processing SA, its just that the error is "set to zero". Hopefully, its obvious and clear that that distinction is quite important: If its not unplugged - the knob can be turned. the_other_steve_jobs 19:45 7 Nov 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "discontinued" implies it's gone forever. For the history section, I think we should say "discontinued" or "turned off". "Discontinued" because that's what the PD says. (Do you have a source for the claim that obfuscation was the goal?) "Turned off" because that clearly implies that it is now off but could be turned on. The details of how it was turned off are not of historical interest. It doesn't matter if SA is still bring processed but the result multiplied by zero. The result is still the same as if it were not being processed. Saying SA was "set to zero" is too much technical detail, esp. for the history section.
For the selective availability section, if you want to supply the exact details of how SA was turned off, be my guest. You clearly know what you're talking about. But don't just say that "SA was set to zero", because it's not clear what that means. Try to make this article as accessible as possible.. [4] Pfalstad 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to sound critical.. but the fact that this is confusing at all proves my point that there has been obfuscation around the whole issue... the PD used two different terms that could lead someone to come up with different understanding of what exactly happened. That's the definition of obfuscation. The technical _fact_ is that SA is neither turned off nor is it discontinued. Selective Availability is currently turned on, and it is being processed each day across the quad from me. "Discontinued", to me, implies much more permanance than it does for you. For example, i've tried to buy a discontinued iPod mini, and it was a bitch because they don't make them any more. This is different than "being turned down to zero", a la a volume knob. That is to say, its much harder to get a "discontinued" iPod than it is to turn the volume up on an iPod which is plugged in and turned on and right in front of me. For the history section - i would simply say "state the facts" and add some dialogue to make it abundantly clear. For example, something to the effect of
"As of 2000, a PD states that the US is no longer putting intentional errors into the GPS signal. All public users are able to process GPS signals without any induced error. However, the SA capability to insert error remains completely in tact and has not been removed."
I think its also clear that a section needs to be put in about SA to technically discuss what SA is and how it works, as well as its current status... that SA is actually *on* and that its error radius is set to 0m, and that it can be adjusted at a moment's notice, etc. I think that a history section is a bad place to discuss this - you're right. But i don't think that its too hard to understand what being "turned down to zero" means... you're car stereo has a mute button, and iPods have a volume adjustment that can be turned to zero - and SA is the "volume knob" for error. the_other_steve_jobs 21:45 7 Nov 2006 (UTC)
It's not hard to understand if you explain it, sure. Which you now have done. Pfalstad 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
btw: i just remembered where i first saw the term "SA set to zero". it was on this page - [5] in the Constellation Status message. "4. Selective Availablility (SA) levels set to zero. On May 2, 2000 at 0400 UT, SA levels were set to zero. For more details, check the Interagency GPS Executive Board (IGEB) web site at http://www.igeb.gov." I should have referenced that at the extreme beginning of this whole change. My bad. the_other_steve_jobs 02:10 10 Dec 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miniature Atomic Clocks

There is a presentation from the Sept 2006 GPS meeting which discusses how new miniature atomics could improve GPS: PPT of Presentation. Think it might be good to integrate into the article, especially in a future improvements section?Davandron | Talk 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bicycle Application

The bicycle application section added by 222.2.104.196 appears to be original research and needs sources. Without additional info, I'm not sure how the bicycle application is any different than navigating in an automobile. Davandron | Talk 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Article Length

The main article is now 64k in size, double the recommended size, so this maybe a good time for a split. It looks like there is enough information to break away the Applications section into its own article. What does everyone think? - Davandron | Talk 14:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Applications section is going to continue to grow. I would support a separate article for Applications of GPS at this stage. We should probably spin off a few of the specific applications into separate articles of their own as well. I'm thinking that GPS Surveying and Location Based Services could be expanded into individual articles. - Justin 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on splitting it right now, and leaving short but usable prose in its place. One thing that is clear is the technical discussion currently in the application should migrate elsewhere in the main article. The sections I'm thinking of right now are L1 & L2 comparisons for surveying and how "GPS time" is composed. For the moment, they are moved into the split but that will be fixed by myself or others.
In addition to the split, I'm moving the (now stubby) application section further down. Since the wiki is an encyclopedia, my understanding is the article should be arranged "What it is, How it works, When it came to be, How its used."
BTW, it looks like this split will lead to a sizeable reduction; approximately 20% - Davandron | Talk 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't split Applications from the GPS article. I think the article can be shorteded significantly with a little careful editing, which I already started. If there must be be a split, I think it would be better if the Technical section was set on its own, not Applications, for two reasons. First, the article has been flagged already as being too technical, and splitting the more technical part off on it's own would help with that. And second, the Technical section is longer than Applications, so it splits the article more evenly in length. --Michaelfavor 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Michael, I'd like to hear your arguements on why the applications section should not be split. I know you've been working on length-edits as well, which is great. Unfortunately, even with a full split on applications the article is still way above the recommended limit.
I wish you had added your input earlier. At this time we've got 2 in favor and 1 opposing an applications split. I'm going to restore the split because that will generate more discussion, and because a period for comment was given prior to the split occuring. - Davandron | Talk 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Davandron, I offered what I thought were two good arguments above. Below, Reswobslc suggests that more people are interested in GPS Receivers (Applications) than are interested in the technical details of how the system works. I happen to think both topics are interesting, but I see his point. It seems reasonable to me that if any part of the article is going to be split off, it should be the more detailed information, not the more popular Applications section. At the very least, I would say that makes the vote tied 2-2 in favor of not removing the Applications section. As I mentioned above, the article has been flagged as being too technical. If the Applications section is removed, it tips that balance even further in the wrong direction.
I appologize for not responding to your proposal sooner, but frankly, there had been a lot of discussion on this page recently that I had stopped following. It is also customary to add new topics at the bottom of the page. Now that I am aware of your suggestion, I don't think my previous lack of a reply should be held against me. At no point did you say, "I'm going to make a major change to this article in X number of days unless anybody objects." If you had, I think it's likely that somebody would have objected. In my own way, I'm taking the opportunity to object now. Although the article is larger than recommended, it is a more complicated topic than most. I believe the article is too long mainly due to a lack of focus, redundant information, extraneous and off-topic details. As you noticed by the article history and our edit conflict this morning, I was in the middle of trimming out some of that fluff when you made your big move. My position is that although the article is too big, it can get a lot smaller without breaking it up, and if that is possible, it is better not to break it up. First of all, I ask you to give me a week or two to edit for length. If you still feel the article is too long, maybe we can compromise and separate the Technical Description section rather than the Applications section. In the meantime, since is is clear that we do not have a consensus, I humbly request that you leave the article in once piece until a few more people have a chance to offer their opinions. Thanks for your consideration. --Michaelfavor 20:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, lets try to edit it down without the split. The article was shortened from 64kbytes to 50kbytes via the split; if we can accomplish 75% of the benefit without a split I'd say its worthwhile. - Davandron | Talk 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Davandron, that sounds reasonable to me. If it doesn't work out, I'm open to a different solution down the road. --Michaelfavor 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The page is now at 52kbytes. --Michaelfavor 02:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently had the "good fortune" to be editing this article on very old machine with little memory, running on a dialup connection; it was a pain in the ass. While this size is ok for viewing, some contributors are probably going to face the same difficulties I did and I can understand why the 32 kbyte size is suggested. Even at 52kb, I think we as editors need to explore how to refractor the article so that is manageable to all users.

[edit] How it works - availability of at least four satellites

Hi, basically there should be at least four satellites on the horizon. But I heard in special cases the positions of the satellites can be changed be the Military to provide a better coverage of selected areas, but I never found a reference for this. Does someone know more? --Lowfly 09:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I know quite a bit - but only because of my job, not because i'm really smart. The satellites are in more or less fixed in their positions per the way the constellation must be laid out. There are 6 orbital planes, and 4 nominal slots per plane. Obviously, when a bird dies, we have the ability to move a new bird into a slot, and we have a number of birds sitting nearby a current bird ready to take over their slot when they get too old and die. Also, routinely, the birds are very gently scooted if their orbit has moved outside of a nominal constraint - but its not by a lot... its just a scootch. Bear in mind, however, the there is only so much fuel on board each bird. If you used up fuel on the bird to move the bird around, you'd end up "killing" the bird very fast. So to directly answer your question - no - massive moves of birds for a particular coverage area are not done. Its easier for the military to work around GPS, instead of the other way around. They can simulate the constellation and look ahead and see when coverage is going to be optimal or sub-optimal. Bear in mind that at its worst, GPS can still put a bomb on any reasonable target without much issue.the_other_steve_jobs 02:20 10 Dec 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Older discussion topics moved to Archive 1

I moved a lot of older discussion topics to /Archive 1 as suggested by WP:ARCHIVE --Michaelfavor 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A small sidebar: I remain concerned about the archiving, which is only a "technical how to" in the guidelines, and make the simple proposal that all moves err on the side of caution; waiting until its definately too big and the things being moved are definately old. - Davandron | Talk 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Michaelfavor, please do not edit my comments, even if you feel it would make more sense. The talk page guidelines (which you recently linked) discourages editing of anyone's comments, including your own, and marks it as unacceptable behavior. - Davandron | Talk 18:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I appologize if this upset you, that was not my intention. I did not remove any of your words, or mis-represent your meaning, only refactored your comment slightly. Since this seems somewhat off-topic for this page, I have posted a full reply at User_talk:Michaelfavor#Editing of comments. --Michaelfavor 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also understand your lingering concerns. If our positions were reversed, I would probably have concerns, too. I will try to answer those as time permits. For now, I can only reassure you that my goal is to continually improve the article in a thoughtful, intelligent way. It seems to me that most issues that appear on the talk page have a natural life-cycle, eventually they are addressed in the article and/or reach some other natural final conclusion. It seems reasonable to me to archive inactive topics somewhere on the order of once a year, possibly as often as quarterly depending on the level of traffic, but probably not more often than that except in special cases. When the size of the talk page reaches the size limit of an article, I think it's time to start looking at archiving. The amount I moved to the first archive was roughly twice the size of the article. I ask you to trust me on this, and don't worry too much about something that hasn't happened yet. There are plenty of actual defects in currently existing articles that are more worthy of your time and attention. --Michaelfavor 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the archive, I found a couple of small topics relating to the currently ongoing discussion of the overall structure of the article, and a couple of small topics with recent comments which have not been addressed yet in the article. I have moved these back to the main talk page. Archive 1 is about 125k, and this talk page is now about 33k. --Michaelfavor 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPS vs. GNSS

This article is too US specific, covering generic GNSS functionality under the more specific GPS term. To make the article more international and generic, GNSS items should be in a GNSS article, and the GPS article should focus on the unique features of GPS that distinguish it from other GNSS. The applications split was a good first step down this road, and I was going to propose changing "GPS Applications" to "GNSS Applications", before it was reverted. (See the GNSS article for links establishing GNSS as the correct generic term.) Dhaluza 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the GNSS article is actually little more than a stub, and should probably be merged with satellite navigation systems. It's easy to imagine how anyone who searched for "GNSS" might be dissapointed with the result. I think a redirect to satellite navigation systems would be better. --Michaelfavor 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No, GNSS is the accepted generic term for GPS and its peers. GPS is essentially a brand name of GNSS. The taxonomy is as follows:
  • SNS
    • Obsolete systems
    • GNSS
      • GPS
      • Glonass
      • Galileo, etc....
It is OK to keep SNS as a separate overview article that covers the history up to GPS. All the generic content from the GPS article, such as applications, belongs in the GNSS article, since it is similar for Glonass, Galileo, etc. The GPS article should contain GPS specific information like GPS program history, and technical differences like SA, C/A, P(Y) etc.
Until now, GPS has been the dominant GNSS, so there is some conflation of the two, kind of like the US brand name "Kleenex" being used instead of the generic term tissue. This needs to be corrected since it is not in line with Wikipedia MoS formality requirements, especially now that Galileo is scheduled to enter service in 2008.
See also: Talk:Satellite navigation system —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.198.253.77 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Are you saying GPS should be renamed/replaced with GNSS? If so, I don't agree with that. GPS is a specific system and implementation. The applications section could definately move, as thats related more to GNSS than GPS, but the technical content is specific to the US DoD's NAVSTAR / GPS. - Davandron | Talk 20:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
GPS should stay, but should focus on GPS specific topics. GNSS general topics belong together. Dhaluza 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applications

As you mentioned a lot of the apps section is fluff / redundant / "me too!" It seems that the GPS boils down to three functions/services usable by applications, so how about this structure for the reformated content:

  1. Location Determination <- what's a better way of saying this?
    1. Navigation and Guidance (covers navigating for all topics; sentences not subsections. Conceice is the goal; no need for redundant "me toos")
    2. Surveying & Mapping (Quick blurb about how gps is used for surveying and mapping)
  2. Time Transfer (covers use of GPS to synchronize regardless of distance)
  3. Nuclear Detection (short and sweet blurb)

Yes, the article is long, and there are some redundancies. However, all this editing is getting out of control, and is very hard to follow. Also we are losing content, and this is no good. For example, the whole Precise time reference section seems to have been deleted, and this is no good. It should have been moved somewhere, not erased. I'm trying to go through all the revisions, but there have been over 250 in the last month. This makes it very tedious to check on what has changed. Dhaluza 00:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhaluzu, I would like to reassure you that I have tried to be careful not to lose any important content. The 'precision time reference' section you mentioned is definitely not missing, it's still in the 'applications' section, under 'other'. Perhaps I should have used the sandbox method to reduce the number of edits, but it seems to me that due to the limitations of the Wikipedia 'version/difference' system, that would actually make it harder for people to check my work. Also, it seems to me that Wikipedia lets you bundle together as many changes as you like. If you want to lump together all of my edits, or even compare the version you are familiar with from last month with the current version, I think Wikipedia makes it pretty easy for you to do that. My goal today was not offend anyone, only to try to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the article in the most transparent way possible. It occurs that although I am responsible for a large number of edits, your experience of 'missing' content may have actually been due to an edit by someone other than me, but since you didn't mention any particular version, it's hard to tell. Best regards, --Michaelfavor 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Michaelfavor, the problem is you are both moving and changing content, and this completely breaks the version comparison. Most of the changes you are making are helpful, but it is difficult to check your work, and the work of others that has been mixed in. Dhaluza 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(original comment withdrawn) I incorrectly stating the timing section had been removed; it had been relocated, and I missed it with all the edits. My apologies to Michaelfavor and my thanks to TiCPU for the correction - Davandron | Talk 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that the Applications section should be shorted and the more fluffy bits should be removed. All of those thigns smack of poorly produced Discovery Channel blurbs to fill time in a 60 minute special. I will keep out of the editing seeing as how it appears that there are already too many cooks. I will, however, put in my technical 2 cents here in the Talk section when i see something that needs to be corrected from the space and control segments (user segment being the 3rd and final other segment of GPS). I would assume, without knowing full names here, that i most likely have the best vantage point to those segments, unless there's someone else that can throw paper airplanes and have them land in a 2 SOPS operator's cubicle that's doing editing around here. I think that if this is going to be a "GPS" article (vs. a GNNS article) - which it should be - i think it would be pretty interesting to put in data about the consetellation - like status and other intersting NANUs. ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/gpstd.txt is a great page and i think that kind of constellation details wouldn't hurt to replace the "you can put a GPS on your bike!" type fluff. That's just my opinion, and like i said, i see there are a lot of guys hacking on the article, so i'll stay well away. The Other Steve Jobs 2040 9 Dec 2006 (MST)

[edit] Topics sorted by date

I propose to sort the topics on this page by the date the topic was started. I hope no one will be offended by this gentle refactoring, and if so, this entry should provide a convenient revert point. I'll move just one topic at a time, to try to make the sort as transparent as possible in the page history.

Adding new topics to the bottom of the page will make it somewhat easier to archive in the future, if necessary. --Michaelfavor 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you propose something, don't you think its appriopriate to give time for a reply? I've reverted so that that discussion can take place.
Some questions and thoughts.
  • To my mind, if we are archiving off old topics, it makes more sense and is a better use of page-space to have new topics be added to the top with old topics rolling off the bottom. Besides the "+" button functionality, is there any reason to have new topics be appended?
  • (addressed in original post, sorry!) As for how they are chronologically organized, is it by first post or most recent post? I assume its by first post date, as recent post doesn't make much sense to me (since it will quickly "breakdown"). But what is the advantage?
  • What is the indentifier for something moving to archive? The relativity war here has continued for a long time and might get started again if the lengthy discussion is missing (due to it being archived since it has no new edits).
- Davandron | Talk 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Davandron, Wikipedia guidelines suggest, in bold, start new topics at the bottom of the page. This is an established Wikipedia convention, lets not reinvent the wheel here. Likewise, the Wikipedia guidelines for archiving talk pages suggest answers to your other questions. Briefly, the plan is to wait until the page is obviously bloated, and not to move topics that are actively being discussed, which seems reasonable to me. Regarding the other debate you mentioned, as Grandad would have said, let's let sleeping dogs lay. If it does flare up, I'm prepared to argue that this is not the proper forum for that discussion. --Michaelfavor 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the guideline regarding ammending discussions to the end. It seems we could all benefit from reviewing that once more.
Since that addresses my main point of discussion, I will not oppose the re-org if it helps in the archiving. I do request it be done without creating a flood in the history. I don't mean it as a personal attack but the two pages of consecutive edits on the main article is very annoying. Please use the preview button, review your work, then hit save. (I also just learned there is a {{inuse}} tag, explained here).

Davandron, thanks for your thoughtful reconsideration of this and other issues over the last few days. Both of your appologies are accepted without malice. And I'm sorry if the briefness of my comments caused any concerns. Sometimes I have a tendency to want to skip over the explanation of detailed steps, and jump straight to the conclusion. This was a constant complaint of my first Algebra teacher ("show your work!"), and I'm afraid I sometimes fall prey to the same habit today. I actually intended my opening phrase "I propose to sort..." in the sense that I wanted to imply "...beginning immediately after I save this comment, and continuing indefinitely into the future. If a new topic is started at the top of the page in the future, I may move it to the bottom of the page, in accordance with the wikipedia talk page guidelines and refactoring policy, and possibly without further comment other than an edit summary." I used the word "propose" because I didn't want to state flatly that I will do it, in the sense of a promise to do it, but if I happen to be reading this page and something strikes me as out of order, I may change it. My comment was intended to be, as briefly as possible, my explanation in advance. It probably would have been better if I had cited both of the relevant guidelines in the very beginning. --Michaelfavor 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article?

Theonlysilentbob tagged the article as a Featured Article Candidate (woohoo!) but, as Dhaluza commented, now probably isn't the best time for peer reviews (since there is on-going discussion for a significant edit). It's been pulled from the canidates page but do we also need to replace the {{fac}} tag with the {{facfailed}} tag? - Davandron | Talk 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of Techniques to improve accuracy

I've re-written the section labeled "Techniques to improve accuracy" in order to improve that section and the whole article. A major goal was to convert the list to prose (per guidelines), and I ended up also migrating specific examples which had their own article into a link-through approach.

The sections on Precise Monitoring are specific to GPS so they were left mostly intact. I didn't re-write the RPK section since I wasn't familiar enough with it. Can someone help there.

My edits left two things on the cutting floor, which need to find a home in the wikipedia:

  1. Wide Area GPS Enhancement (WAGE) is an attempt to improve GPS accuracy by providing more accurate satellite clock and ephemeris (orbital) data to specially-equipped receivers.
  2. Exploitation of DGPS for Guidance Enhancement (EDGE) is an effort to integrate DGPS into precision guided munitions such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).

Please help these orphan snippets by either linking them into the GNSS Augmentation article. - Davandron | Talk 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/Talk%7EGlobal_Positioning_System_fadb.html"