[teqc] inexplicable value on Galileo Navigation Message
lou at unavco.org
Fri Feb 1 06:56:02 MST 2019
No one has commented on this in the last two days, either to this list or to me personally.
If you have any thoughts or comments about it, I suggest you try to send me something very
soon, or this particular bit of grizzle in the sausage (*) will remain as part of RINEX
creation in the next teqc release and may be around for a while after that.
* see https://postal.unavco.org//pipermail/teqc/2018/002589.html
On 30-Jan-19 07:34 AM, Lou Estey wrote:
> dear Grégory,
>> Yes we track IRNSS SV also
> Then teqc's message of:
> .dat 27/0x57-6: unknown SV type= 9
> might be referring to the IRNSS constellation. The last documentation I received
> from Trimble on .dat/.tgd record 27 (or streaming 0x57-6) does not have a type = 9
> defined, so this is something new that Trimble has added (for at least the Alloy).
> I have an email in to our contact at Trimble to get some clarification on this (and
> two other questions).
>> You saying "it's due to limited information", does it mean that the problem coming from receiver ?
> No, the receiver is almost certainly fine.
> This is one of those cases where the RINEX specification is asking for something
> that's not available in the input "data" (the decoded Galileo navigation message
> in the Trimble .tgd format, record 28) or not clearly evident (at least to me) from
> the documentation on that "data" (the Trimble documentation on record 28).
> Where you're seeing a value of 1 for the "data sources", it's very clear from
> Trimble's documentation that the source of that particular Galileo navigation message
> is E1-B. That much is 100% certain. But, from what I understand, that's all that
> can be known about this situation from the documentation.
> Then for RINEX, bit 8 or 9 of the "data sources" value could also be set, i.e.
> from the RINEX spec:
> bit 8 set: af0-af2, ToC, SISA are for E5a,E1
> bit 9 set: af0-af2, ToC, SISA are for E5b,E1
> bits 8-9; exclusive (only one bit can be set)
> So in this case does one set bit 8 or bit 9? I have no idea. Both bits cannot be set
> (that much is 100% clear from the RINEX spec), so I didn't set either one. And,
> technically, not setting either bit 8 or bit 9 is totally valid given the current
> RINEX spec for the Galileo data sources.
More information about the teqc