Observation 300466: ITUPSAT 1 (35935)

Regarding Observation 300466
Please, refer to the vetting guide, there are signs of the satellite signal with correct doppler, so it should marked as “good” despite signal is not distinct:
https://wiki.satnogs.org/Operation#Rating_observations

1 Like

@motionlab :slight_smile:

To update your vetting of this observation, please visit
http://network.satnogs.org/observation_vet/300466/good/

Permission denied.

Is the station at Motionlab Berlin changing gs operators frequently that are not instructed on vetting?

@bob , only the observer (@motionlab in this case), station owner (@sputnix in this case), network moderators and network admins are able to perform the vetting currently (thus you get the “Permission denied” response when following the given link).
Using the given link only those entities are able to update the vetting (even if an observation was vetted previously).

Documentation: https://wiki.satnogs.org/Operation#Network_permissions_matrix
Implementation: https://gitlab.com/librespacefoundation/satnogs/satnogs-network/blob/dev/network/base/perms.py#L55

I hope that the current vetting discipline can be maintained as the network&diversity of users grows, otherwise we would have to question the permission model & find other solutions…

edit: Added links and last paragraph.

Thanks kerel.

In my opinion, the gs ops need a convienent way of changing the vetting, if wrong, by other stations.

Also, each gs should have a convienent way of banning other gs that habitually vet wrongly. I think this option would save everyone some grief.

Hi,

I am very sorry for the trouble. Please see my comment at

Again, I am very sorry for the trouble.

Greetings
Ansgar