[A bit OT] NMEA, GGA and GGK

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[A bit OT] NMEA, GGA and GGK

Roger Oberholtzer
This is not really a proj question. But there is certainly relevant
experience on this list.

When computing locations from NMEA data, it is possible to have both GGA
and GGK records containing location information. Given the choice, is
one better to use than the other? I suspect this is very receiver
dependent. But I do not know this. Opinions?

--
Roger Oberholtzer

OPQ Systems AB
Ramböll Sverige AB
Kapellgränd 7
P.O. Box 4205
SE-102 65 Stockholm, Sweden

Tel: Int +46 8-615 60 20
Fax: Int +46 8-31 42 23

_______________________________________________
Proj mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [A bit OT] NMEA, GGA and GGK

HamishB
Roger Oberholtzer wrote:

> This is not really a proj question. But there is certainly relevant
> experience on this list.
>
> When computing locations from NMEA data, it is possible to have both GGA
> and GGK records containing location information. Given the choice, is
> one better to use than the other? I suspect this is very receiver
> dependent. But I do not know this. Opinions?


this question is perhaps better posed to the gpsd mailing list,
  http://gpsd.berlios.de

(which is worth checking out anyway if you are thinking of NMEA parsing)


GGA is definitely the more standard - I've never heard of GGK.
RMC,GLL are worth a look as well.


My guess is that ultimately it depends on your GPS.

do a web search for "nmeafaq.txt"  It might help.



Hamish
_______________________________________________
Proj mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj