|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Satellite navigation:|
- 1 merge and redirect
- 2 Discussions from Talk:Satellite navigation system
- 3 GNSS Classification, original research?
- 4 Beidou update
- 5 Otheruses template in the header
- 6 SatNav
- 7 Accuracy
- 8 GNSS and GPS, higher term
- 9 Requested move
- 10 GLONASS: Operational or in development
- 11 What is "Evolution"?
- 12 This Article Is Misleading Regarding Implementation of Satellite Navigation Systems Around the World
merge and redirect
- FYI, de:Satellitennavigation merged the opposite direction. I tend to agree with a merger, but I think GNSS (This article) is probably the more important article name. --Dual Freq 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
GNSS is the accepted generic term for GPS and its peers. The taxonomy is as follows:
- Galileo, etc....
- While GNSS definately appears to be the correct generic term to describe GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, etc. I'm not sure I understand what a GNSS article would contribute that isn't already in the SNS article? Everything here seems to be redundant or original research. Does SNS simply gain a subsection explaining what GNSS means and a redirect (GNSS -> SNS)? - Davandron | Talk 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- GNSS should be the main article since, this is the accepted term. It should have all the generic info from GPS and SNS. The GPS, GLONASS and Galileo articles should have the "brand specific" info like system details, history, status, etc. I have tagged SNS to merge that info to GNSS. I guess we could leave SNS as a brief article, or we could just merge it all. Dhaluza 03:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the articles are now merged, with GNSS inheriting the content, I've copied over the SNS discussion topics.
DGPS only "eliminates the military advantage" as long as your DGPS transmitters are usable. DGPS transmitters can be either:
- large and hard to jam, but easy to destroy
- small, numerous, and difficult to destroy, but easy to jam
It's not accurate to say that "Some Japanese" started transmitting DGPS data and implying that this was some sort of hack, without mentioning all of the other parties (and governments) that also broadcast DGPS signals.
Arteitle 06:20 22 May 2003 (UTC)
The military resisted for most of the 1990s, but SA was eventually turned off in 1999.
An anonymous user (22.214.171.124), with no other edits, changed this date from 1999 to 2000, does anybody have a source that can confirm the year? Should the change be reverted? Edward 09:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Selective Availability was officially activated on Mar. 25, 1990 then deactivated on May 2, 2000. These dates are according to 'Introduction to GPS - the Global Positioning System' by Ahmed El-Rabbany 2nd Ed. pp. 45-46. El-Rabbany gives a citation for each date:
- Hoffman-Wellenhof, B., H. Lichtenegger, and J. Collins, Global Positioning System: Theory and Practice,
3rd ed., New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994. for the activation and
- Shaw, M., K. Sandhoo, and D. Turner, "Modernization of the Global Positioning System," GPS World,
Vol. 11, No. 9, September 2000, pp.36-44. for the deactivation.
It's TOTALLY WRONG to remove the GNSS link and link this to “Satellite navigation system” as the main term for this page is GNSS, which will replace the term “GPS” in long terms anyway. GPS is out and GNSS is in as most receivers will be GNSS (Global Satellite Navigation Systems) which includes Galileo, Glonass and the elderly and outdated GPS, but also Japan is soon introducing it’s own GNSS.
Having the European Community launching the new Galileo satellites gives totally new aspects in navigation and in this way Europe has beaten USA in space navigation systems for at least 15 years to come. Galileo has a better atomic clock, and while GPS is only based on 2MHz, Galileo will have a much better bandwidth with its 20MHz, so more data and functions will be introduced with Galileo.
Suggestion: Link this article into GNSS, which would be definitely right, unless Wikipedia pages are American centric? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 05:32, August 28, 2006 (UTC)
- Support: I did some research, and found the term GNSS was almost universally used by consensus based groups, including the UN. I added these links to the GNSS page (and did some clean up to facilitate the new linking):
- United Nations International Committee on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (ICG)
- Korean GNSS Technology Council (GTC)
- Institute of Navigation (ION) GNSS Meetings
- The International GNSS Service (IGS), formerly the International GPS Service
- International Global Navigation Satellite Systems Society Inc (IGNSS)
- International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) International GNSS Service (IGS)
- UNAVCO GNSS Modernization
- Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) GNSS Implementation Team
- Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
Dhaluza 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have tagged both Satellite navigation system and Global Navigation Satellite System for merging. As outlined above, the term GNSS is the consensus standard of consensus standards organizations, therefore it is the correct term for an encyclopedic entry. Dhaluza 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I must throw my comments in on something here; 188.8.131.52 why trash talk and make assumptions about the future? Your idea has merit (as Dhaluza found) and stands on its own legs without adding POV comments about what should be and what might be.
- I support the use of GNSS as Dhaluza proposes. (thanks for doing the great research!) - Davandron | Talk 17:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The opening sentence is poor - the terms "early" and "predecessor" are meaningless without some prior context. This article should start with a description of the subject, before starting on its history! --Pfold 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
GNSS Classification, original research?
I have searched the web to see if this is an existing concept, but can find no support. It appears to be original research. The only thing I found seems to be an opposing opinion on the classification.
|“||The GNSSP subgroup concerned with GNSS service levels convened on the 22nd and 23rd of April 2002. The subjects of discussion were Working Papers that presented a proposed GNSS classification scheme, service levels and also discussed how to use such a scheme in an operational environment. The group met following discussion in Working Groups A and B that had concluded that the classification scheme and service levels appeared unnecessary and that the added value needed clarification.||”|
- I Googled some of the text and turned up the apparent source.Dhaluza 04:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This section desperately need updating. The first generation is already fully operational with 3 satellite in orbit. The second generation Beidou system currently have 1 experimental satellite in orbit as of Feb 07, with new launches planned in a few weeks time. I will add these information and more to this section if no one object. Yongke 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- You were right that it was poor copy, but I feel you've missunderstood its purpose here. The reason Beidou is mentioned is because it might become a GNSS, not because its a RNSS. I've moved your edits over to the Beidou talk page; lets work on getting that page accurate first and then cleaning up all the pages that link to it. - Davandron | Talk 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Otheruses template in the header
- You're right! I'll undo my revert. Roesser 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
In the late '60s/early 70's there was a satellite navigation system called SatNav. The US Navy used it and it was expected to replace Loran. It wasn't as successful as hoped and I believe it is obsolescent. Lately, the term "sat nav" has become a popular generic term for GPS. I think this article should be updated to include information about SatNav enough to eliminate any ambiguity. Knotserious (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
GNSS and GPS, higher term
What is for You higher term? GPS or GNSS? Is GPS system just a part of the GNSS or You think that all positionig systems like GLONASS or in future Galileo, Beidou can have the prefix GPS (e. g. GPS Glonass, GPS Galileo ... )?! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- GPS refers specifically to the American "Global Positioning System", which is one type of GNSS. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, Sir. I find the term 'GNSS' highly misleading, as it suggests that navigation is the only purpose of a positioning system. While it might well be the most common application of a global positioning system, it most certainly is not the only one (I am using a GPS-enabled camera, for example, to have my pictures geo-tagged). The generic term for GPS, Galileo, Glonass, etc, should actually be GPS itself, imo. A pity the name is already taken. I would then suggest maybe GPSS - Global Positioning Satellite System, or would welcome any better name. The name, I believe, should *not* contain the word "navigation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romulan Empire (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, even if it is misleading (and I accept that many GNSS applications are doing more than 'navigation'), GNSS is the internationally accepted term for systems operating in the Radiodetermination Satellite Service (RDSS) and Radionavigation Satellite Service (RNSS) ITU bands. See: http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/ for example. Therefore GPS (as well as GLONASS, Galileo, etc.) is a specific implementation of a GNSS, and GNSS is the over-arching term. --MarkPos(User Page | Talk | Contribs) 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I use GPS all the time to find places that have Wikiarticles without photos, and to geotag the thousands of resulting Wikiphotos, and seldom for any other purpose. However, it's not for Wikipedia to decide that the conventional names for tools are wrong, even long after their literalness has been eroded away by new uses. We use conventional names. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Particularly since this article seems to state unequivocally that civilian satellite navigation systems are regional and not global in scope or implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da5id403 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
GLONASS: Operational or in development
The GLONASS article says that GLONASS is operational, like GPS. Should the GLONASS section of the Satellite navigation article be moved under the Operational heading? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
What is "Evolution"?
The chart under the #Comparison of systems section includes a row for "Evolution". This isn't defined, nor does there appear to be an entry for such a use of the word at Evolution (disambiguation).
What does it mean?
This article identifies only 2 [Satellite Navigation System]s around the world – [GPS] and [GLONASS]. Viewing the article [Wide Area Augmentation System] I noted that GPS covers, basically, North America. It seems to have spotty coverage of Canada according to the number of ground stations (reference and master) in relation to square miles. The only other fully functional satellite navigation system seems to be GLONASS, recently restored by Russia. Some indications are made that China, India, Europe, and Japan have systems under development, but years away from completion. That would mean places like Australia, South America, GB and Europe, most of Asia (including Japan)south of Russia have no satellite navigation system. There is even a map of GPS within the [Wide Area Argumentation System] article that seems to confirm the regional implementation of GPS to North America.
And yet, I know this is not true. I've seen articles discussing whether or not GPS systems purchased in the US will operate correctly in Australia and I have used my phone's GPS with a local SIM card in Europe.
A WP reader should not have to read beyond this article unequivocal information regarding the extent of implementation of satellite navigation systems.
PS: one of the linked articles has concentric rings around the Earth with radii distances measured in miles, kilometers, and "Mm" providing information of the kinds of satellites/systems orbiting at those distances – I can't even guess what what the Mm unit of measurement is and there is no diagram "legend" or other explanation.Da5id403 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I would have to agree. In terms of the purely technical standpoint, I believe that the only "global" systems are the GPS and GLONASS systems, where you can get coordinates anywhere on the Earth at any given time - all other systems are currently constrained to regional areas with 100% coverage all of the time. Though I haven't found any sources of information, I think a valuable stat to provide would be the percentage of global coverage where one can get a signal from the appropriate amount of satellites, at any given time (like if GPS/GLONASS are currently at >98% Earth coverage at any given time, if BeiDou is currently at 10% Earth coverage at any given time, and if Galileo is currently at 1% coverage at any given time). --18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)