Dave_D
Member
Hi Lindsay,
Could you please verify for us whether or not RR v3.0 will support multiple location points per conventional system? From the Alpha 1 discussion, I'm still unclear and want to encourage it.
A single point/radius simply isn't sufficient for many applications. Take, for example, these counties:
Of course, polygonal boundaries would be even better -- let the applications determine the best geopoints/radii for a given area -- but multiple location points is good enough for now and a quantum leap from unipoints.
I hope you appreciate the position you're in. What you do with location data now could define the state-of-the-art for manufacturers to follow. Think big.
Thank you for hearing me out. I hope this is helpful.
Dave
Could you please verify for us whether or not RR v3.0 will support multiple location points per conventional system? From the Alpha 1 discussion, I'm still unclear and want to encourage it.
A single point/radius simply isn't sufficient for many applications. Take, for example, these counties:
- Nye County, NV. Some 245 miles across and, lovingly, "T" shaped. By the time you squeeze this sucker into a circle, you've encroached on three states, to say nothing of the thousands of square miles of non-Nye Nevada territory. If we're building an application-based system (an exclusive system), then this level of inaccuracy (gluttonous inclusiveness) undermines.
Another important factor: Uniden scanners, for example, accept a maximum radius of 50 miles for any given location. Nye's unipoint would consequently round down, shaving off thousands of square miles; more than half of the county's area. What's more, this one unipoint (how's that for redundant?) wasn't chosen with a 50-mile radius in mind; it's almost outside of the county and the resulting circle incorporates few of Nye's populated areas. As a result, most Nye County residents would be locked out of their own county's frequencies!
- El Dorado County, CA. This county fits neatly into a 35-mile radius circle. Unfortunately, Uniden scanners, for example, allow for either a 30-mile or 50-mile radius. Pick one. If the scanner or application rounds the county's location radius up to 50 miles (as it should), then all of El Dorado's frequencies will be unlocked from an extra 15 miles away while other, closer county frequencies are not because they fit more snugly into their respective circles. This can get kinda weird -- nearby sites are locked out while sites much, much further away are unlocked.
As it turns out, El Dorado is better described by two 20-mile radius circles. Problem solved. And this is typical among larger counties. Geometrically speaking, smaller circles provide better resolution and will therefore scale more accurately between scanners and applications. By contrast, when you force scanners and applications to use larger circles, your margins of error increase accordingly.
Of course, polygonal boundaries would be even better -- let the applications determine the best geopoints/radii for a given area -- but multiple location points is good enough for now and a quantum leap from unipoints.
I hope you appreciate the position you're in. What you do with location data now could define the state-of-the-art for manufacturers to follow. Think big.
Thank you for hearing me out. I hope this is helpful.
Dave