Chuck,

W3XX4, W3XX5, W3XX7 vs WR3AAA, WR3AAB, WR3AAC

They are really all just as cryptic as each other. With a little work, you 
could possibly get location specific Vanity calls. But if not, if you place all 
the callsigns requests at the same time, you could possibly get a consecutive 
block.

But Mark KJ4VO and I have had a similar discussion for a long time now. Just 
how are repeaters known? What do you program in the display in the text field? 
And the answer has basically been, everyone does it differently.

There are times you might call it the Chicago repeater, then other times where 
it might be the WR3DDD repeater, or the 444.075 machine.

So that answer is that no matter how you do it, someone won't like it. So my 
suggestion is to follow the well used practice of a different callsign for each 
repeater. That will guarantee you 100% compatibility with anything that ever 
occurs.

Ed WA4YIH



From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Charles Scott
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:26 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dstar_digital] Callsigns for Larger D-Star Repeater Networks


Ed:

I appreciate your perspective, but the problem is not a technical one,
it's an operational one. We were thinking of how to make the sites more
easily identifiable. This may be a moot point if all of the radios we
use can be configured with text tags for all possible combinations but
it would still be nice to be able to easily identify where (logically)
on the network our users are coming from by looking at the calls. For
add-hock connections a good cheat-sheet is probably going to be in order
anyway. So, you may be right that this is more of a perceived problem
than a real problem. But that's one reason I asked the question.

Thanks,

Chuck - N8DNX

Woodrick, Ed wrote:
> Getting the callsigns is relatively easy and makes sure that everyone stays 
> completely legal.
>
> Just get some callsigns and don't worry about trying to fix an issue that 
> doesn't exist.
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to