Ignore specific message

[John Halleck]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Wookey wrote:

> [...]

> >   In recent conversation with Olly Betts, he made statements about possibly
> >   making the changes to the way fixed points were handled, since in this
> >   day of GPS you might have several GPS fixed points, and they have uncertainty
> >   that would have to be accounted for...
> 
> The *FIX syntax already allows for X,Y,Z SDs to be specified after the

  (And hopefully the XY, YZ, and XY STD's?)

> co=ordinates, but this info is not yet used. Presumably you were
> discussing the sums implementation. I'm really just thinking about the
> data-format/user interface implementation.

  I'm much interested in the underlying maths, but not much in the
  data-format/user-interface issues...   So I suspect I won't have
  much usefull to add to the discussion.
 
> Thinking about it I'm not sure that this is the right answer, as I don't
> want to have to specify 3 extra numbers on every single GPS entry. I just

  There are six numbers...   Since this is a 3D  problem and not three 1D
  problems...   But I'm being nitpicky.

> want to say they are GPS entries and get a ensible default, or perhaps
> even specify a GPS entry and a time (SDs decrease with time of logging),
> or some other quality indicator.

  There is a goodly deal of information availiable on the accuracy of
  GPS measurements.   I have no doubt that some general purpose defaults
  could be agreed upon.
 
> I suppose what this amounts to is DATA styles for points as well as
> legs....maybe that's the way to go.
 
> >   So... I suspect that the discussion might become a lot more interesting
> >   when Olly gets back...
> 
> yes, but in the meantime we can establish what we think is correct
> behaviour/what problems people have/relevant features they would like. So
> long as said features don't include any sums then other people are
> capable fixing the code accordingly (I avoid the bits with the sums in
> like the plague!)

  Good point.

> [...]