Talk:GPS signals

message: I know its still rough, but I thought it best to get this out into the main Wikipedia instead of my sandbox, so that people can start using it and improving it. - Davandron | Talk 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of Article 

message: How to incorporate these, as there are numerous articles that need a link to good definitions of these concepts?  The descriptions in this article would suffice, however without any headings, there's too much text to read to make linking to this article feasible, and the original author of the article opposes any sub-headings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.10.41 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed in this case as the subject matter under each heading ended up being only one or two sentences. It seems it would be better to link to a section of two or three paragraphs that explain, in context, what those two concepts are. - Davandron | Talk 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions for Almanac and Ephemeris

message: In this article, it is claimed the almanac takes 12.5 minutes to transmit.  In Global Positioning System, it says, "Time to collect the complete almanac is 30 seconds for each satellite that is present in the constellation (for example, 24 satellites would take 12 minutes)."  Only one of these statements is correct.  Which is it? --  Denelson83  05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct figure is 25 frames (12.5 minutes) for the whole almanac (it's not per satellite).  Reference page 103 of spec IS-GPS-200D.  I'll fix it and remove the tag... LouScheffer (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction re: Almanac 

message: GPS signals states that "..this new MNAV is packeted instead of framed, allowing for very flexible data payloads. ". It isn't clear to me that there is any fundamental difference between a packet and a frame (when these terms are used in the generic sense). Maybe the statement being made is comparing fixed-length frames with variable-length packets - in which case I can see the advantage. Should this be so, then it would help if this were explicitly stated. Maybe someone in the know can clarify.
P.S There seems to be alot of duplication of information at GPS
Peartree85 (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MNAV Navigation message - packeted vs framed? 

message: Can we get a reference for the following paragraph:
The details of the W-code are kept secret, but it is known that it is applied to the P-code at approximately 500 kHz, which is a slower rate than that of the P-code itself by a factor of approximately 20. This has allowed companies to develop semi-codeless approaches for tracking the P(Y) signal, without knowledge of the W-code itself.
68.35.69.60 (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref needed for codeless approaches to tracking P(Y) 

message: The Global Positioning System article currently has a good bit of content on the signals that this one doesn't. I am proposing merging that additional content into this article with the eventual goal of reducing the size of the GPS article (it is currently far in excess of recommended size guidelines). Since the content here overlaps substantially with that article this obviously means making choices about which version of the content on specific items to keep.
As I have not been a contributor to either until very recently I wanted to put this up for discussion here. Please feel free to volunteer to be the one to do the merging.
--Mcorazao (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a stab at merging into this article. It still needs a lot of work ... --Mcorazao (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: Under L2C Frequency information, there's a claim that navigating on L2C only gives you 65% more position uncertainty. The reference sends you to IS-GPS-200D. I've looked through both Revision D and E, and could not find anything relating to that. Anyone know where the claim comes from? And in case it has no basis, we should probably remove it.
DemonBeaver (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't fathom where this claim would come from; it certainly is not factually correct as the position uncertainty is going to be based much, much more on other factors like the quality of the receiver, the receiving environment, and the methods used for positioning.  This should be removed. siafu (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise in position uncertainty for L2C 

message: The article lead is redundant and doesn't adequately summarize the article. The second paragraph, for example, would read better as part of the section on the actual types of signals.  If there is to be a second paragraph, then it should contribute to the summary of the article.Jodayagi (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GPS signals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107091706/http://www.u-blox.com:80/images/stories/Resources/gps_compendiumgps-x-02007.pdf to http://www.u-blox.com/images/stories/Resources/gps_compendiumgps-x-02007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908003700/http://www.losangeles.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070803-059.pdf to http://www.losangeles.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070803-059.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/signals.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article may be improved by explaining technical jargon, such as the acronymonious CNAV and MNAV.  
Is one a civilian navigation message format and the other a military message.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plain Vocabulary 

message: Discussions going back to 2007 and up to 2013 should be archived. If nobody else does it and nobody objects, I'll do it soon. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive old discussions