[VHFcontesting] APRS for rovers - does it help or hurt ?

[jcplatt1 at mmm.com]

Hi Steve and all.

Good discussion.    As you may know, I am both an active rover and the
Dakota VUAC representative so I watch this discussion from both
perspectives.

While HamIM is allowed per the current rules, and while it may be a useful
tool in the more highly populated areas such as the left and right coasts,
here in the mid section of the county 2m FM simplex simply does not have
the range to cover the many miles that we rove.   HamIM, in its current
form, is not a valued rover tool for those of us who rove the wide open
spaces.   I do respect that it may work well for those rovers who live in
more highly populated areas.

In watching and listening to the rover-APRS discussions, my first thought
was "why not".   I agree with your comments that it constitutes
self-spotting is a weak argument for not allowing its use.   I was
initially warm to the idea.     Then there was more discussion.   That
discussion touched on the concern that if rovers were allowed to use APRS,
that fixed stations would be watching the Internet instead of searching &
making noise on the VHF bands and activity looking for that (elusive)
rover.   The concern is that allowing rovers to use APRS may actually hurt
activity, not help it.

So which model would actually generating more contest activity ..... one
model where stations may be prone to watching the Internet only to pounce
on the rover when they are in a new grid, or the model where stations have
to actively go in search of the rover by making some noise, perhaps calling
CQ, spinning the VFO, and turning the rotator ?

Does allowing rovers to use APRS help us or hurt us in terms of overall
activity ?     Would we entice more people to give roving a try if we
allowed the use of APRS (perhaps because it would be more fun) ?

Good discussion, lets keep it going.

73, Jon
W0ZQ/R