Talk:Satellite navigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Satellite navigation:

merge and redirect[edit]

I think this article should be merged with satellite navigation systems, and redirected there. Any objections? --Michaelfavor 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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:

  • SNS
    • GNSS
      • GPS
      • Glonass
      • Galileo, etc....

It is OK to keep SNS as an overview article that covers the history up to GPS. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.253.77 (talkcontribs) 17:42, 8 December 2006

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)
Support: I should have read the text in merge template closer (sorry!). After the merge, we should at least explain the SNS term.
BTW, we've got this discussion occurring in two places; here and in Talk:Satellite navigation system#Merger
- Davandron | Talk 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussions from Talk:Satellite navigation system[edit]

Since the articles are now merged, with GNSS inheriting the content, I've copied over the SNS discussion topics.

DGPS[edit]

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

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anome (talkcontribs) 08:24, March 12, 2003 (UTC)

Japanese DGPS[edit]

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)

SA[edit]

The military resisted for most of the 1990s, but SA was eventually turned off in 1999.

An anonymous user (218.101.54.21), 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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.31.102 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Glonass[edit]

The GLONASS article says that the GLONASS system is (or soon will be) once again fully operational. Should we change that in the text of this article? -- WhiteDragon 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

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 202.5.89.119 (talkcontribs) 05:32, August 28, 2006 (UTC)

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; 202.5.89.119 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)

Wording[edit]

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?[edit]

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.

Does anyone else know of support for this component of the article? - Davandron | Talk 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I Googled some of the text and turned up the apparent source.Dhaluza 04:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Beidou update[edit]

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[edit]

Regarding this revert[1], I wonder if GLONASS does not stand for "GLObal NAvigation Satellite System". --Sjhan81 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right! I'll undo my revert. Roesser 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

SatNav[edit]

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)

Accuracy[edit]

One column that needs to be added to the Comparison of GNSS systems is the accuracy (i.e. resolution) of each system. Pma jones (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

does the global navigation satellite system have cameras —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.172.1.4 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Another omission is there are receivers that can combine multiple satellite systems for higher accuracy and/or better coverage. Doyna Yar (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

GNSS and GPS, higher term[edit]

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 78.0.215.8 (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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Appears uncontroversial, despite several previous moves. Rationale is a bit lightweight but valid. Andrewa (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Global navigation satellite systemSatellite navigation — Far more common term. --GW 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 (talkcontribs) 20:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

GLONASS: Operational or in development[edit]

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? --50.48.104.164 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What is "Evolution"?[edit]

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?

Thanks Bongomatic 07:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This Article Is Misleading Regarding Implementation of Satellite Navigation Systems Around the World[edit]

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). --99.250.141.178 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Satellite navigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

IRNSS[edit]

Since IRNSS is not a Global, and instead is rather a regional navigation system, does it belong in the GNSS comparison section on the page? It is already mentioned in the regional section, it would seem like it belongs only there, rather than both sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.191.118.205 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't a reason as it why should it be removed from the comparison. The article is about satellite navigation systems and since we do not have separate article on Global vs Regional this is a fine place to compare them. Please refrain from removing information without discussing this on the talk page first. The idea of wikipedia is to build consensus not POV pushing. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80:Please don't make same comparison since you have put Regional system of India in the GLOBAL section of the Navigation Systems, It is true that this section of wiki talks about Navigation Systems, in this section talks about Global and regional systems, every section has their correct list . BUT that doesn't means that you put Indian regional system together with global Systems ( Indian regional system is already quoted in the section of "Regional Systems"), that is why I have added the word "Global" in the list for not make confussion with people that read Wikipedia Because India regional Systems isn't equal with Global Systems, then you can agree or no, but is not correct that you try to put Indian regional system as a Global System and trying to forget and not respecting that this list describes and WARNS that is only for " Global Systems". However I agree to create another list with "regionals systems" that would be good for people that want to learn more from wikipedia about Global Systems and regional systems, put it all together , we are making only confusion and fake argumentations. --LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29, First very important point, do not revert without reaching consensus. As far as I see there is no consensus on this topic since more then one editor has voiced an opinion other then the one you have. Please remember that these pages are written with consensus not unilateral decision making. Now, let's look at this page which talks about satellite navigation which can be both regional and global. Both those systems should be on this page since there is no separate page for either on Wikipedia. There is no arguing the fact that IRNSS is not a global systems but a regional one. My point here is to move the comparison of the systems to a separate section where it can be compared against all systems (global and regional). We can have a row in that table which clearly specifies what is global or regional to avoid confusion. But I think it is nice to have more systems to compare across since they use different kind of frequencies, orbits, and number of satellites. I want to reiterate again, this is not an attempt to equate IRNSS with any of the global systems but just have a comparison between all of them. If you disagree with this, please comment. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Well I'm always against vandalism and Since I saw that there here guys putting here in confrontation Indian regional system ahead of Galileo Global Navigation System in the list of Global Navigation System and not in accordance with instructions , it sound little Confusing as well very funny. the list here talks of Global Satellites and Important thing, they said and Warns " Please don't add Indian regional" , Because there always vandalism of Guys putting here India in the list. disregarding warnings, as if wikipedia was an Indian invention for their use. and yet I find that you do not respect that rule, they talk and specify that the list is for Global Systems, and if it is true that someone wants to make a serious and suitable Table for Wikipedia, First we have to put all systems in a table, adding all the regional systems (NOT JUST INDIA) or you want make fake progaganda pro India? I think it is not a good way for talk about a great country and not a good think for India, and when I say all regional systems, it means ALL! and also make a color for Global systems (expl. blue) and regional ones (yellow, or another color!) in this way we could do a job done very well, otherwise you will end up doing always what always happens on wikipedia ( vandalism pro Country / or I do not care what warnings says as in the case of the list of Global Navigation systems),I will not change the list that you have changed today But , waiting for a good agree and with a good suitable Table of Navigation System/ Global and regionals for Wikipedia. would be good in the table or future list, we separate the two Systems( Global and regionals) with colors and specifying the data of the satellites launching and the right date of operation. and Important Thing Specifying that they aren't equal. you and I know that they aren't equal , But people around the world no. Greetings Luigi. --LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 First, I think you have a misunderstanding on what constitutes as Wikipedia:Vandalism. There exists a fine but a definite difference between misrepresenting facts for malicious purposes/POV pushing and good faith edits. This article is about Satellite Navigation not "Global" Satellite Navigation thus a comparison can be made between all satellite navigation systems(global or regional). One can argue that the placement of the table was restrictive since it was under global and that should have been corrected by moving it to an independent section and making it very clear the extent of the system(both of these have now been done). Next, may I inquire who created this rule you speak of? Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment which is way to reach consensus(and on conclusion has to be respected by all editors) on any topic where 2 or more editors cannot reach an agreement. AFAIK, there as has been no RfC on this very discussion but there has been one on merging all Satellite Navigation systems into a single page. Third, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort and so information is added incrementally. If you wish to add other regional systems to that table or make it more "colorful", you are free to do so but you cannot remove any existing information unless it is wrong/fabricated. Lastly, I have warned you before and do so again to stop looking at these discussions through prism of a single country. On Wikipedia, all of us are editors and have to work together responsibly and respectfully since this a community resource. At times editors do tend to add information about their country because they know about it more and care about it more which does not mean that they are trying to show others down or prove that their country is the best. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: well my friend, I don't want to turn come back to talk always about who was the person that have put the Indian regional system in the list of Global systems. But it is always nice to remember that nobody here in the "talk Page" of Navigation System hasn't agreed to put Indian regional System together with Global systems, that is why someone had put this message in the list after repetitive acts of vandalism -"FOLLOWING TABLE IS FOR GLOBAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS. PLEASE DO NOT ADD THE INDIAN IRNSS (NAVIC) AS IT IS LIMITED TO THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT IN ITS COVERAGE." that is why then I have delete the Indian section, But you're right since the "Page" talks about Navigation Systems( Global and regionals) so instead to put a colour for the Global systems , would be constructive to put BeiDou,Galileo,GLONASS,GPS,NAVIC and QZSS of Japan, I will put the Systems in alphabetical order and I will delete the warning message to put Indian satellites together with the others Global systems, since this Page talks of Navigation System and not Global Systems.-- LuigiPortaro29 (talk)13:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion to add diagram/image of coverage of various systems[edit]

There are now many systems that have been replayed that provide coverage in different regions. It would be ice to have a map that shows the coverage of the various systems available. Somerandomuser (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)