I realize that.  I am hoping that by using the same receivers, and the same
antennas, I will stand a better chance of doing so.  I will be less than a mile
from my vehicle, so I should be seeing the same satellites.

Alternately, maybe the receiver can tell me the raw data it is receiving from
the satellites.  If so, I could record that for each satellite, then make a
program to pick the right satellites for any given point, and calculate that.
But I don't know if it's worth that amount of trouble, and I doubt the receiver
puts that data out... but I haven't researched it.  Maybe that's what tsip can
put out?

-Adam

Reginald Neale wrote:
>
>   Adam said:
>
> >Better resolution would be nice for other uses, but not necesary.  So I'm
> >planning on having one sit at my car (fixed location) with a data logger, and
> >another on my bike.  I'll run the two sets of data through the computer later
> >and normalize the bike data according to the car data.  That should eliminate
> >most of the problem with SA.  Relative mapping is all that's necessary, I don
't
> >need to know the absolute locations of the trails.
> >
> >I live in the great lakes region, so I could use the dgps signals sent around
> >300kHz, but the receivers (both do it yourself and ready made) are more
> >expensive than the surplus gps receivers, and only gives about 5M resolution.
> >
>
>   Adam:
>
>   Be aware that this system only works well when both receivers have
>   acquired the same set of satellites. Even if they are right next to
>   each other this is not guaranteed.
>
>   Reg Neale