Talk:Satellite Navigation System

DGPS

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 (talk • contribs) 08:24, March 12, 2003 (UTC)

Japanese DGPS

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

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)

Glonass

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)[reply]

Merger

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most receivers will be GNSS (Global Satellite Navigation Systems) which includes Galileo, Glonass and the elderly and outdated GPS, but also Japan is soon introducing it’s own GNSS.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 (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):

Dhaluza 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I redirected to complete this merge but apparently there's something wrong with that. All content here is redundant to the other article; is there anything that needs to stay separate? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

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)[reply]