DCSO,ECSO- Lone Tree, Parker

Status
Not open for further replies.

04Z1V6

Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
778
Location
Castle Rock, Co.
I think I may have posted this in the past but. I think the listing for Douglas, Elbert County Combined Dispatch TG-1033 and the listings for Lone Tree, Parker Combined Dispatch TG-2103 along with the associated TG's for DC TG's 1035,1037,1039 should be changed in the DB descriptions to reflect the joint use of both SO's and both PD's for there perspective talk groups. Along with this TG-2105 should also show the joint use of LTPD&PPD.(Should be Dispatch 2) used when emergent traffic ties up 1
I have listened before and after the combination of the dispatch centers and have never heard or logged the use of the TG that is shown in the DB as Elbert County Channel-1/Law Dispatch TG-512 I have heard it used as a C to C from time to time for SO and Simla or Kiowa cars.
I also hear Castle Rock Ch-2 used as Dispatch-2 when Ch-1 is in use as emergent traffic only. (Semantics I know)
What do you think?
 

dw2872

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
1,050
Location
Colorado
I agree, I hear EC call signs on Douglas County SO TG-1033 all the time but not on their talk group listed for Elbert County.

If I didn't already know that, and I wanted to listen to Elbert County SO using RR info, I wouldn't hear them.

This happened a few months ago when I listened on their TG to hear comms trying to catch a cop with warrants. Didn't hear anything on their talk group, but did hear them on a couple others.


Dan

Sent from my T-Mobile Smartphone using Tapatalk2
 

Steve2003

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
778
Location
Colorado
Arapahoe County also dispatches Sheridan, Cherry Hills, and Columbine Valley. Try combining all of that into an alpha tag... My vote is to keep things as-is.
 

04Z1V6

Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
778
Location
Castle Rock, Co.
Arapahoe County Comm Center or ACCC. This is not for or about alpha tagging its about making it easy for people programming to recognize what the TG is used for, if the TG's listed are not in use at all by there agency as currently listed. If the city TG's that you have talked about in your post (say TG Sheridan Police Department Channel-1 2151 listed as Dispatch) is not used as a dispatch channel it should not be listed as such. You have said that Sheridan is dispatched by Arapahoe County on what TG, maybe 3001? If this is how it is then 3001 should be listed as Arapahoe County Law not Arapahoe County Sheriff Dispatch because this leads you to think that they dispatch only the SO.
If anyone is not happy with how the DB "Alpha Tags" there scanner it is easy to change this and most often most do. Look at TG-8 North Washington Fire Dispatch this is hard to "Alpha Tag" but it is and is dispatched by ADCOM yet the TG is used exclusively by NWFD but is not misleading at all in the DB.

1033 DCSO/ECLAW A Douglas Elbert County Combined Dispatch(Channel-A) Law Dispatch
3001 Arap Co Law Arapahoe County Law Dispatch Law Dispatch
 
Last edited:

Spitfire8520

I might be completely clueless! =)
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,969
Location
Colorado
It might help to use the description under each county and talkgroups and be a little more proactive in submitting changes to the database. Perhaps make a note under Elbert County that departments are primarily dispatched on DCSO-A (1033) or DCFire (1053) would help alleviate some confusion.

What I have noticed when dispatch situations changes anywhere is the astounding lack of update and information sharing that it brings to the database. Anytime there is a change, everyone seems to make a little mental note, or make a note on some text document on their computer noting what has changed for themselves. They may go as far as posting on the forums that something has changed, but never almost nothing gets actually submitted to the database for update. I often notice that the database updates are solely updated because Greenthumb happened to come across a forum post stating that dispatching situations have changed and taking liberty to update the database himself.

An example of what I'm trying to point out is when West Douglas Fire ended up switching to MetCom. The switch happened February 2009. Some people actually had a personal list with the updated talkgroups and mentioned it in some long ago forum post that went unnoticed and was not submitted to the database. Come 2012, I was hearing West Douglas being dispatched on the live feed but not on my end. I ended up plugging in talkgroups that the online feed was using to try to hunt down the talkgroup. Turns out, West Douglas was being dispatched on (former) DC MAC-11 (1791). I submitted the change to the database June 2012. The dispatch change along with the talkgroup reassignments took place over 3 years before they were finally reported to the database so that it was properly updated.

I know when Elbert County switched over to DC dispatch, nothing in the database changed. After a few months, I ended up I spent a few weeks figuring out what happened to Elbert Fire-1 and Fire-2. It wasn't long before I figured out that they became Ops-3 and Ops-4 respectively and quickly submitted changes to the database, which was prompted updated from there. I didn't make it a habit to routinely follow DCSO/ECSO so I didn't really follow what happened with ECSO Channel-1 and Channel-2, but there's probably someone out there who actively does and just has a little personal note telling themselves what has changed.

My point is, there's often a lot of talk about stuff changing all the time. It's just that no one seems to want to proactively try and submit information to the database anymore.
 
Last edited:

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,877
Location
AOA
Folks, if you would like to see something different, or updated in the database, it is up to YOU to submit the information. Just because information is shared in the forums, doesn't mean it automatically ends up in the database. There shouldn't be just one person submitting information; it needs to be a collaborative effort.

Many times, Greenthumb and I will start a thread in the forum asking for members to discuss a submission if we aren't certain on how the database should be updated.
 

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,877
Location
AOA
Take a look at DB for Arapahoe & Douglas and provide us with feedback.
 

dw2872

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
1,050
Location
Colorado
Erik -

It may help new Elbert County S.O. listeners to see a note on the Elbert County listing similar to your notes just added for Douglas County. You won't hear Elbert County SO dispatched on the TGs listed under Elbert County.

Thanks!
 

Spitfire8520

I might be completely clueless! =)
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,969
Location
Colorado
I'd say it's a good improvement, though the changing font just seems a little weird to me.

As for the West Douglas County Fire stuff, there are very tiny technical details there. West Douglas County Fire Protection District is actually in Douglas County. Also, while technically there is a page for them on METCOM-1, they are actually dispatched on 1791 (also listed under Douglas County) which is patched to a VHF system that I was going to submit jointly with a few FCC unknowns that I was investigating on UHF/VHF. In fact, I'll make those submissions now.

Overall, you've done terrific work today Erik!
 

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,877
Location
AOA
Does the page for West Douglas FD come across on Metcom-1 and West Douglas County Fire Protection District TG???
 

Spitfire8520

I might be completely clueless! =)
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,969
Location
Colorado
MetCom will automatically dispatch it on their channel due to how their CAD is set up (I haven't heard a name for him yet), but an actual dispatcher will manually activate the tones over VHF and air verbal information the 1791/VHF patch. West Douglas will also report responding on their TG and any aiding agencies will typically switch to their channel. Occasionally MetCom will assign one of their ops channels if the incident is large enough or if other aiding agencies (Littleton or Castle Rock) lacks the West Douglas TG. Also, seems like you accidentally spelled availability wrong, and have 1791 listed as Elbert County in the Douglas County description, but I appreciate the quick responses!
 
Last edited:

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,877
Location
AOA
ohhhhh..... that is what the red line means under most of my words lol

How is everything looking now?
 

Spitfire8520

I might be completely clueless! =)
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,969
Location
Colorado
Almost got it all, you still have this under Douglas County in DTRS.

The following agencies are dispatched on talk group 1791 / West Douglas County Fire Protection District : Elbert County Fire Department
 

Spitfire8520

I might be completely clueless! =)
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,969
Location
Colorado
No where, I was pointing out the end part of the description.

The following agencies are dispatched on talk group 1791 / West Douglas County Fire Protection District : Elbert County Fire Department

It looks like a mistake when you were copying this line.

The following agencies are dispatched on talk group 1053 / Douglas County Fire Dispatch Channel-1 (Main) : Elbert County Fire Department

I'd be interested if MetCom were suddenly dispatching for Elbert County!
 

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,877
Location
AOA
OK, should I change the 1791 to a dispatch tag vs fire tac?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top