Talk:Global Positioning System: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:21, 6 May 2017 editRHB100 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,197 edits →Still have misleading and confusing writing ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:42, 6 May 2017 edit undoRHB100 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,197 edits →Still have misleading and confusing writing Next edit →
Line 96:		Line 96:

	This is misleading and confusing, these synchronized ranges never occur unless we have the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. Therefore speaking of a solution occurring at the intersection of the surfaces of three spheres is misleading and confusing. A correct statement is to say a solution is found when we have found the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. For further clarity it could also be stated that a necessary and sufficient condition for a solution is that we have found the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. ] (]) 02:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)		This is misleading and confusing, these synchronized ranges never occur unless we have the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. Therefore speaking of a solution occurring at the intersection of the surfaces of three spheres is misleading and confusing. A correct statement is to say a solution is found when we have found the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. For further clarity it could also be stated that a necessary and sufficient condition for a solution is that we have found the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. ] (]) 02:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

			This brings up the question why would anyone want to write anything so confusing and misleading as the above quote from section 6.1? While you might say it results from good intentions but failure to understand how GPS works, it is now becoming undeniable that something else is at work. Although I hate to say it, it is now becoming so obvious that it cannot be overlooked that some editors are almost certainly deliberately attempting to confuse and mislead readers. It is all but certain that some editors feel that their livelihood is threatened by providing a clear and unambiguous explanation of GPS on Misplaced Pages. Thus we have ] madly rushing to close any discusion of any criticism of this all but obvious attempt to confuse the understanding of how GPS works. ] (]) 18:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

	== Intersection of three spheres is misleading ==		== Intersection of three spheres is misleading ==

Revision as of 18:42, 6 May 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Global Positioning System article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

Global Positioning System is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 9, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed

Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 14, 2005, February 14, 2006, February 14, 2007, and February 14, 2008.

Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geographical coordinates

Global Positioning System is of interest to WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which encourages the use of geographical coordinates in Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Geographical coordinatesWikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesTemplate:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesGeographical coordinates

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems: Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems.

Orienteering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orienteering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OrienteeringWikipedia:WikiProject OrienteeringTemplate:WikiProject OrienteeringOrienteering

Template:WikiProject Maritime Trades

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Geocaching High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geocaching, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Geocaching on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeocachingWikipedia:WikiProject GeocachingTemplate:WikiProject GeocachingGeocaching
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Maps Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Global Positioning System. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Do regional systems qualify as "similar to" the Global Positioning System?

I have temporarily reverted the removal of references to IRNSS and other, similar, systems that provide a user's global position within a limited region. At issue is whether a system must span the entire globe to be considered similar to the US's "Global Positioning System", or merely be capable of providing a global position. My opinion is that if they are satellite-based and able to provide GPS-like positioning data anywhere on the globe - even in limited areas - then they are "similar to" the GPS system. Other thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jtrevor99 No, regional Systems aren't similar to Global Systems, US GPS is globally (all continents) indian regional system IRNSS is only "Regional" isn't capable to have a Global coverage . Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System is only a Regional System similar to The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) .LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that IRNSS etc. only have "regional" coverage. However, within that region, they are able to provide a global position - information identical to what GPS provides. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with INRSS and the Japanese systems be mentioned here. Not because they are global but the article is about GPS which is a satellite navigation system. It is cleared stated that they are regional and helps the user understand that there are other systems out there. Also, FYI the article is about GPS a satellite based navigation system not a Global navigation system. In the Future please try to build consensus before trying to remove information. Most of this info has been debated and thus added. Misplaced Pages is a collective effort not a place for POV pushing. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

" If I want to change the added of the unknown , I need to Discuss in the Talk Page "? But Honestly the last version was added by ME and since 2 months that was here, Today the unknown have changed it , and then I had make a Good version of the section of GPS " GLOBAL - (G.L.O.B.A.L.) ("P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N") SYTEMS " for not make confusion Between "GPS " and other Global Systems with regional systems. , then you Have delete it without Talk in the Page , and You say me that I need to talk in the Talk page? and with no consensus you changed it?.... Why you still Believe that regional Indian deserves to be mentioned here in the same range of Beidou , Galileo and GLONASS?, I know that you are very Patriotic , But Honestly you can't say " I add Regional System of India" without consensus, AND Only because the regional system of India is a "Satellite navigation" here we are Talking about the GPS not about " satellite Navigation" ... please , C'mon , I assume that you can put a Tata car in the group of Ferrari or Mclaren saying that Tata is in the SAME group of Ferrari and Maclaren only because Tata is a " Car" , Can you understand that ? regional system of India don't deserves to be here and Believe me I don't have nothing against India, I like the legality, so what we make , we list ALL the regional systems that exist along with GPS and with the others Global Systems only because they are "Satellite navigation"?? Regional Systems like the Indian one, there's so many in every Continent and they aren't important , as well isn't true that we have talked here about the GPS , We had talked about the "Satellite navigation" ,You are confusing a Global system with a navigation system just because only here on Wipedia there is no a page about Global Systems and there's no the right Classifacation on here . we had an agreemend not here in the other section of Satellite navigation , so ins't true that we have talked about the GPS. So who has right ? You or I ? I'm educate so I don't want to change the version of today from part of the unknown to my Version that was here since 2 monts, waiting for a convincing reply.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk)-21:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 Firstly, IP editors have same rights as registered users on Misplaced Pages since is a community effort. IRNSS has been added multiple times on this page (by different users) and has been removed by you. Thus, this merits a discussion, similar to one we had on the Talk:Satellite_navigation. Misplaced Pages is a community effort and you thus there needs to be a broad consensus and no uni-laterally decisions. Now coming to the discussion at hand, no one is disputing the fact that IRNSS is not a global system. It is clearly stated on that page and its mention on this page as well that it is regional. On Misplaced Pages, the ""See Also"" section refers to other pages which might interest the reader and have some relation to the existing page. It does not mean that they are equivalent. There is a definite connection between GPS and IRNSS is that both of them are satellite navigation systems. Thus, it is okay to mention IRNSS in the See Also section. Similarly, the section header at the very end clearly mentions Other Systems. This is to point the user to other satellite navigation systems. The word regional again is mentioned clearly here. There is no attempt to equate these systems. I believe that your argument about cars is flawed here since there are many different car types and each car type has many examples. There are not many satellite navigation systems out there thus there is only a single page on Misplaced Pages, not a Global or a Regional one. It does make sense other systems are mentioned across pages since this list is not too long. If you like you can add the Japanese system here as well. Lastly, I have warned you in the past and do so again, that we are all here is editors and work together. It does not matter what our nationality is as long as we are fair in our analysis. Please refrain from bringing that in these discussions or basing your arguments on these irrelevant arguments. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What potential monitoring?

Need some details about monitoring potential (and sources!). GPS is one-way; the receivers are only receivers so as far as I can figure there is no potential for monitoring... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.36.79 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Monitoring what? fgnievinski (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the material in question. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Visual GPS

Is there potential for a visible GPS using geostationary satellites that are visible to the naked eye. Anyone could then measure the relative angles to work out their approximate position. 86.143.210.142 (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

See Astrolabe - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Still have misleading and confusing writing

The closing of discussion below by fgnievinski was somewhat premature. There are still important issues to be discussed. fgnievinski says this has been discussed before. This does not mean all problems have been solved. We still have misleading and confusing writing in the current section 6.1 called Spheres. No one should be allowed to protect misleading and confusing writing from criticism. Let's make sure fgnievinski does not get away with it.

Again quoting from the current section 6.1 called Spheres, "In a simplified idealization in which the ranges are synchronized, these true ranges represent the radii of spheres, each centered on one of the transmitting satellites. The solution for the position of the receiver is then at the intersection of the surfaces of three of these spheres".

This is misleading and confusing, these synchronized ranges never occur unless we have the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. Therefore speaking of a solution occurring at the intersection of the surfaces of three spheres is misleading and confusing. A correct statement is to say a solution is found when we have found the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. For further clarity it could also be stated that a necessary and sufficient condition for a solution is that we have found the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. RHB100 (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This brings up the question why would anyone want to write anything so confusing and misleading as the above quote from section 6.1? While you might say it results from good intentions but failure to understand how GPS works, it is now becoming undeniable that something else is at work. Although I hate to say it, it is now becoming so obvious that it cannot be overlooked that some editors are almost certainly deliberately attempting to confuse and mislead readers. It is all but certain that some editors feel that their livelihood is threatened by providing a clear and unambiguous explanation of GPS on Misplaced Pages. Thus we have fgnievinski madly rushing to close any discusion of any criticism of this all but obvious attempt to confuse the understanding of how GPS works. RHB100 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Intersection of three spheres is misleading

WP:SNOW close. This has been repeatedly discussed before, and rejected. I remind the poster to carefully re-read EdJohnston's 2015 warnings on their talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here is a quote from the current section 6.1 called Spheres, "In a simplified idealization in which the ranges are synchronized, these true ranges represent the radii of spheres, each centered on one of the transmitting satellites. The solution for the position of the receiver is then at the intersection of the surfaces of three of these spheres".

These synchronized ranges never occur unless we have the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. Therefore speaking of a solution occurring at the intersection of the surfaces of three spheres is misleading and confusing. A correct statement is to say a solution is found when we have found the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. For further clarity it could also be stated that a necessary and sufficient condition for a solution is that we have found the intersection of the surfaces of four or more spheres. RHB100 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not again... Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#User RHB100 and GPS article/topic. fgnievinski (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: