Message-Id: <200510180953.j9I9rdp15571@cnes.fr>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:53:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: jean-michel lemoine -grgs-61332 <Jean-Michel.Lemoine@cnes.fr>
Reply-To: jean-michel lemoine -grgs-61332 <Jean-Michel.Lemoine@cnes.fr>
Subject: Re: [ids.analysis.forum] new DOMES number for HBLB
To: ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr
Cc: lemoine@calc-gen3-ci.cst.cnes.fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-MD5: yY1jTHQcOxQb3iieHRjVKw==

Hi everyone,

No problem on the GRGS side for the new name of HBKB. HBLB will keep the same 
domes ID as HBKB, the same eccentricity and different occupation dates, that's 
all.

Best regards to all,

Jean-Michel Lemoine

> X-Authentication-Warning: hermes.cls.fr: sympa set sender to 
ids.analysis.forum-owner@cls.fr using -f
> X-Sympa-To: ids.analysis.forum
> Delivered-To: ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr
> X-Sender: lsoudarin@atouf.cls.cnes.fr
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:30:14 +0200
> To: ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr
> From: Laurent soudarin <laurent.soudarin@cls.fr>
> Subject: Re: [ids.analysis.forum] new DOMES number for HBLB
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Loop-Check: 
> X-Mailcontrol-Inbound: DJCAEaTMxvBuMdaY9TbUIwpHfdsMjUpSWNkuoo60Zso=
> X-Scanned-By: MailControl A-05-40-01 (www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.68.0.111
> X-Validation-by: feissel@ensg.ign.fr
> X-Loop: ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr
> X-no-archive: yes
> List-Id: <ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr>
> List-Help: <mailto:sympa@cls.fr?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa@cls.fr?subject=subscribe%20ids.analysis.forum>
> List-Unsubscribe: 
<mailto:sympa@cls.fr?subject=unsubscribe%20ids.analysis.forum>
> List-Post: <mailto:ids.analysis.forum@cls.fr>
> List-Owner: <mailto:ids.analysis.forum-request@cls.fr>
> List-Archive: <http://listes.cls.fr/wws/arc/ids.analysis.forum>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on bart.cnes.fr
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 bayes=0.0000  
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> What is a bit confusing is that HBLB is 4 Char. ID of the REF point, while 
> only the beacon was changed.
> But, I think that the case of HBLB is similar to TLIA and KRVB, the back-up 
> beacons of the two others Master Beacons.
> In the sitelogs (http://ids.cls.fr/html/doris/stations/TLHA.shtml ; 
> http://ids.cls.fr/html/doris/stations/KRUB.shtml )
> you can see that TLIA and TLHA (as well as KRUB and KRVB) have the same 
> DOMES ID, the antenna reference point
> being unchanged. So it's not the first time that "two different station 
> 'names' got the same DOMES ID".
> 
> Moreover, for the MBs, because the identifier given in the CDDIS data files 
> is the antenna 4-char ID,
> the users know the equipment related to the measurements.
> 
> So, I don't think a new DOMES ID is needed for HBLB.
> 
> Best regards,
> Laurent
> 
> 
> At 15:57 17/10/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >Hi Everyone,
> >
> >I understand now that HBKB will have to be renamed HBLB. While the antenna 
> >is unchanged and thus does not require a new DOMES ID, I don't recall a 
> >previous situation where two different station 'names' got the same DOMES 
> >ID. It seems like it could cause confusion. But perhaps not.
> >
> >So we can continue to treat data with the HBLB identifier as if it was 
> >still HBKB in our processing. In that case, I would continue to give it 
> >the same internal ID number I use for HBKB as well as the same DOMES ID. 
> >If no one sees any problem with that, it seems the simplest solution.
> >
> >Alternatively, the station could get a new ID and be treated like a new 
> >site, with an eccentricity or survey tie of exactly 0,0,0. This keeps 
> >track of the equipment and name change but would seem to unnecessarily 
> >complicate the analysis.
> >
> >I don't see any other practical choices.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >JR
> >
> 
> 
> 
>