Closed denravonska closed 11 years ago
I'm thinking a TinyGPSQuality struct which also holds the hdop value. If you want to I can write a proposal for it.
Something like
gps.quality.hdop
gps.quality.???
What else beyond hdop?
Isn’t quality a rather subjective thing?
From: Marco Nilsson [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 1:54 PM To: mikalhart/TinyGPSPlus Subject: Re: [TinyGPSPlus] Aquiring data even without fix solution (#2)
I'm thinking a TinyGPSQuality struct which also holds the hdop value. If you want to I can write a proposal for it.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/mikalhart/TinyGPSPlus/issues/2#issuecomment-24477479 .Image removed by sender.
HDOP and solution (navigated/fixed) can be a start. In the future it can also hold PDOP and VDOP if necessary. They all are quality indicators, showing how precise the position is.
Marco,
When you get a minute, tell me what you think of 0.92 (uploaded a day or two ago). It addresses this issue by unblocking time and date and all the fields which don’t imply having a valid “fix”—which is what the ‘V’ means after all. That is, only lat/long and altitude are still discarded.
As a result, “good sentences” are now called “sentences with Fix” in the stats.
From: Marco Nilsson [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:34 AM To: mikalhart/TinyGPSPlus Subject: [TinyGPSPlus] Aquiring data even without fix solution (#2)
We are planning on using the GPS as an RTC time source to update the system time when a date+time combination has been received. While we do receive a valid time it seems like TinyGPS++ rejects the message since it's not navigated:
$GPRMC,071731.000,V,5918.2490,N,01801.7736,E,1.8,257.2,110913,0.0,W*69
An alternative to rejecting the message could be to accept it and allow the user to check the quality of the data within it. I can understand the rationale behind the current solution (easier to use) but I think the data in this case is still valid and up for grabs.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/mikalhart/TinyGPSPlus/issues/2 .Image removed by sender.
Looks great to me. Much smaller impact than what my proposal fix did and it solves the same problem just fine. I'll try to give it a shot on our receiver later this week or next. I'll drop a note here if I find anything wrong with it, but for now I'm satisfied.
We are planning on using the GPS as an RTC time source to update the system time when a date+time combination has been received. While we do receive a valid time it seems like TinyGPS++ rejects the message since it's navigated:
$GPRMC,071731.000,V,5918.2490,N,01801.7736,E,1.8,257.2,110913,0.0,W*69
An alternative to rejecting the message could be to accept it and allow the user to check the quality of the data within it. I can understand the rationale behind the current solution (easier to use) but I think the data in this case is still valid and up for grabs.