RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > U.S. Regional Radio Discussion Forums > Multi-State Communications Networks


Multi-State Communications Networks - The purpose of this forum is for discussion of trunked or conventional communications networks that span more than one state. They are local government or commercial in nature. For Federal or Military use the appropriate Topic Specific forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2017, 7:39 PM
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 739
Default

While I appreciate the spirited debate and varied opinions, here is the bottom line per the official RRDB policy which was recently clarified by the lead admin:

"Location unknown" sites are not to be listed unless the location can be confirmed down at least to the county level. They can be added to the wiki page for the system, but not the database, until the location is confirmed by monitoring at least to the county level.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #162 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2017, 10:13 PM
dave3825's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1,956
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR8000 View Post
While I appreciate the spirited debate and varied opinions, here is the bottom line per the official RRDB policy which was recently clarified by the lead admin:

"Location unknown" sites are not to be listed unless the location can be confirmed down at least to the county level. They can be added to the wiki page for the system, but not the database, until the location is confirmed by monitoring at least to the county level.
Thanks for that. If I may ask, how long has it been official RRDB policy to not list location unknown sites?

Just curious.

Thanks
__________________
DMR436HP Br330T Pro 93 Pro 95
Arc330Pro ProScan Freescan BCDX36HP Easy Manual Id Tracker
Reply With Quote
  #163 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2017, 11:29 PM
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 739
Default

The honest answer is I don't exactly know. We used to list 'location unknown' sites all the time, as long as we were reasonably sure that they were legitimate, but hadn't been located yet. The Database Administrator Handbook is silent on the issue. When some in this thread took issue with us adding unidentified sites to the OneVoice system, I emailed the lead admin for clarification. His word for word reply was what I quoted in bold above.
Reply With Quote
  #164 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2017, 8:18 AM
mtindor's Avatar
OH/WV DB Admin
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
Posts: 6,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave3825 View Post
Thanks for that. If I may ask, how long has it been official RRDB policy to not list location unknown sites?

Just curious.

Thanks
I was asked to remove any sites that I couldn't identify down to, at least, the county level in 4th quarter 2016. So my guess is that it was sometime around there that the decision was made.

I don't recall the reasons, nor do I really want to know them, but I think a big part of the reason may have been complainers who would complain about site changes to "unidentified" sites on various systems turning their area green in the DB. They just couldn't handle it and whined.

Mike
__________________
Mike / AA8IA
PSR800/PRO197/BCD436HP/BCD536HP

If I PM you about a submission, please reply promptly or your submission may be rejected.
Reply With Quote
  #165 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2017, 10:58 AM
dave3825's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1,956
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtindor View Post
I was asked to remove any sites that I couldn't identify down to, at least, the county level in 4th quarter 2016. So my guess is that it was sometime around there that the decision was made.

I don't recall the reasons, nor do I really want to know them, but I think a big part of the reason may have been complainers who would complain about site changes to "unidentified" sites on various systems turning their area green in the DB. They just couldn't handle it and whined.

Mike

I had questioned it around the first quarter of 2016 and was told basically the only way it would change would be when someone id'd the sites. Like I mentioned earlier, I did not really mind except for the fact that they all had a large range set. That was definitely affecting the zip code users, users that add channels on range and anyone using gps with a small range set.

As far as the green, for some it is a let down when you log in and see your area is green, only to see the new changes were a multisite/state system that was changed many miles away.
__________________
DMR436HP Br330T Pro 93 Pro 95
Arc330Pro ProScan Freescan BCDX36HP Easy Manual Id Tracker
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #166 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2017, 5:58 PM
DaveNF2G's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rensselaer, NY
Posts: 8,556
Default

That is going to happen regardless of the inclusion of "unidentified" sites. I'd like to see a genuine, valid, logical reason for excluding sites whose operator and system identification are in fact known. Not some admin's off-the-cuff proclamation. If the manual is silent, then somebody is making up rules. In this case, the made-up rule creates problems for some users without solving any for anyone.
__________________
David T. Stark
NF2G WQMY980 KYR7128
ARRL VE & Registered Licensing Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #167 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2017, 6:10 PM
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNF2G View Post
That is going to happen regardless of the inclusion of "unidentified" sites. I'd like to see a genuine, valid, logical reason for excluding sites whose operator and system identification are in fact known. Not some admin's off-the-cuff proclamation. If the manual is silent, then somebody is making up rules. In this case, the made-up rule creates problems for some users without solving any for anyone.
I very specifically noted that it was the LEAD ADMIN who clarified the policy. You know, the person in charge of the RRDB who actually does make the rules.

If you have an issue with this policy, take it up with Lead Database Administrator Tom Swisher (username wa8pyr)
Reply With Quote
  #168 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2017, 10:42 PM
RadioDitch's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On The Road...
Posts: 1,495
Default

If I could make a minor suggestion? For the much less advanced, average user, it may be useful to put a note on the system's database page noting that there are several "location unknown" site listed in the Wiki. Many of them don't even know there is one.
__________________
QTH: America.
Gratuitous Radio Ownership Listing Here.
Be a man. Drill it! Support Hams Against Magnetic Mounts.
Hard Truth: Live Streams Are A Threat To Scanning
Reply With Quote
  #169 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2017, 5:46 PM
RadioDitch's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On The Road...
Posts: 1,495
Default

Listening in tomorrow between 04:00-17:00 should yield information for the New York Roadrunner's/NYC Triathalon. The rental radios should be using this system again.
__________________
QTH: America.
Gratuitous Radio Ownership Listing Here.
Be a man. Drill it! Support Hams Against Magnetic Mounts.
Hard Truth: Live Streams Are A Threat To Scanning
Reply With Quote
  #170 (permalink)  
Old 07-19-2017, 11:54 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Milford, PA
Posts: 217
Default

i am hearing an unidentified tg of 230010 on this is system. sounds like some sort of cycling event in the sparrowbush area of orange county ny
Reply With Quote
  #171 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2017, 9:40 AM
CqDx's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: May 2003
Location: US
Posts: 1,246
Default

Picking up a new site in NYC, Site 37, 471.5875 is the control channel. It has color code 2 and is showing neighboring site 4, 5, 6, 12 and 13, all NYC area sites. It was signal strength 7/10 in Central Brooklyn area.

No traffic has been heard yet.
Reply With Quote
  #172 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2017, 10:27 AM
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 739
Default

Yep, that site used to be in the database, but since no one ever identified it, it was removed.

Here are other sites that may exist but haven't been found yet. Only the frequencies that are flagged as control channels are listed, along with the probable Color Code (CC) for each frequency.

Site 1
454.16875 CC 6
454.23125 CC 6
454.44375 CC 4
454.63125 CC 4

Site 36
472.28750 CC 1
454.48125 CC 1

Site 39
454.40000 CC 1
454.60000 CC 1
454.30625 CC 1

Site 47
454.20625 CC 8
454.21875 CC 8

Site 48
454.18125 CC 5
454.64375 CC 5

Site 53
454.30625 CC 5
454.03125 CC 5
454.05625 CC 5

Site 54
454.03125 CC 8
454.05625 CC 8

Site 55
454.04375 CC 8
454.16875 CC 8

Site 71
454.52500 CC 1
454.65000 CC 1

Site 74
454.15000 CC 1
454.57500 CC 1

Site 91
454.36875 CC 5
454.49375 CC 5

Site 93
454.13125 CC 5
454.54375 CC 5
Reply With Quote
  #173 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2017, 9:37 AM
DaveNF2G's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rensselaer, NY
Posts: 8,556
Default

I believe the 90s are supposed to be in Maine.

This is another example of why I think the RRDB "unidentified" policy is counterproductive.

If the UNID sites, while known to be on the air, are excluded from the RRDB, then nobody will be downloading them into scanners and they will never get to be identified by any routine user.

Obviously, some of us can and will add the sites to Favorite lists, but if we are not in these sites' coverage areas, that will do no good.
__________________
David T. Stark
NF2G WQMY980 KYR7128
ARRL VE & Registered Licensing Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #174 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2017, 9:49 AM
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 739
Default

It was the 80s sites that were allegedly in Maine (the 90s are NH/VT as the database indicates). They were removed due to a local verifying that none of those sites were actually broadcasting the 171 NetID.
Reply With Quote
  #175 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2017, 6:57 PM
DaveNF2G's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rensselaer, NY
Posts: 8,556
Default

That seems logical (removal due to contrary verification). (Dis-verification?)

I see a Site 37 was added as "NYC area". The logic of the site numbering makes "northern New Jersey" a more likely location. Further data needed, obviously.
__________________
David T. Stark
NF2G WQMY980 KYR7128
ARRL VE & Registered Licensing Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #176 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2017, 10:23 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,621
Default

A search of FCC records for frequencies listed for site 37 yielded the following results:

The frequencies 471.5875, 472.8375, 471.7125, and 472.8625 are all licensed at 1 Fairchild Ave., Plainview, NY, Nassau County. 472.625, 478.2875, 471.9125, and 472.2125 are not licensed in Plainview and no location pattern was noted for these frequencies. 462.5375, previously listed for site 37 but removed for lack of confirmed activity, is licensed at Plainview.

I have used a very inefficient antenna (like a paper clip) on a scanner to help locate very close transmitters. Sometimes using no antenna at all works as well. Maybe someone in or near Plainview can try this to confirm the site 37 location.
Reply With Quote
  #177 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2017, 11:07 AM
DaveNF2G's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rensselaer, NY
Posts: 8,556
Default

Well, not all sites follow the "logic" anyway. LOL.
__________________
David T. Stark
NF2G WQMY980 KYR7128
ARRL VE & Registered Licensing Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #178 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2017, 12:07 PM
mtindor's Avatar
OH/WV DB Admin
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
Posts: 6,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNF2G View Post
I believe the 90s are supposed to be in Maine.

This is another example of why I think the RRDB "unidentified" policy is counterproductive.

If the UNID sites, while known to be on the air, are excluded from the RRDB, then nobody will be downloading them into scanners and they will never get to be identified by any routine user.

Obviously, some of us can and will add the sites to Favorite lists, but if we are not in these sites' coverage areas, that will do no good.
If there are/were UNID sites listed with all of their confirmed frequencies / LCN order, that's a loss. If it was simply a single control channel or one or two freqs on a site, the site would likely never scan properly - especially if somebody didn't figure out LCN order. And somebody using software to program their scanner is much less likely to ever know how to / take the time to figure out all of the details so it could be listed anyway. Sure, the Whistler scanners will take all freqs without LCN info and "trunk" it, but Uniden scanners will not. So unless the site displays accurate information (which includes proper LCN order) then it shouldn't be in the DB.

Instead though [and there is nothing wrong with this], a note should be made on the system's DB page directing people to check the wiki (assuming there is a Wiki page set up). And, then somebody (user or admin) needs to update the wiki with any information that may be useful but which does not fit the criteria for listing in the DB.

Sure, it is a pain in the neck for anyone to program their scanners manually vs using Sentinel / EZ-Scan / etc, but those people who won't take the steps to manually program UNID sites or sites with unconfirmed data from the wiki (again, assuming the data is in the wiki) are likely the same people who wouldn't bother to report factual details about active channels / LCN order if the site was listed in the DB and they could program the site in easily.

Mike
__________________
Mike / AA8IA
PSR800/PRO197/BCD436HP/BCD536HP

If I PM you about a submission, please reply promptly or your submission may be rejected.
Reply With Quote
  #179 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 1:15 PM
u2brent's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: KRWDPAXKRS1
Posts: 503
Exclamation I apologize ahead of time for my stupidity.

These sites are Not listed in the wiki. (At least I couldn't find them)

36, 39, 48, 71, 74, 91, 92, 93

Is that the extent of what is missing?

What was the System ID found on the now deleted ME sites?
After reading 178 posts, I'm still in the dark.
Were they found to be a new unidentified system, or are they just gone or what?

(80) Portland/Cumberland ME
454.031250 1 Color Code 5
454.343750 2 Color Code 5
454.468750 3 Color Code 5
454.593750 4 Color Code 5

(81) Lewiston/Androscoggin ME
452.775000 1 Color Code Search
451.887500 2 Color Code Search

(82) Falmouth/Cumberland ME
462.150000 1 Color Code Search
464.225000 2 Color Code Search

(83) Lyman/York ME
464.025000 1 Color Code Search
461.725000 2 Color Code Search

(84) Saco/York ME
451.487500 1 Color Code Search
452.287500 2 Color Code Search

(85) Bath/Sagadahoc ME
464.287500 1 Color Code Search
464.012500 2 Color Code Search

Thanks,
__________________
Uniden (2) BCD436HP/ BC450A/ ICOM IC-7600/ IC-R20/ IC-R3/ Sony ICF-2010
Radio Shack (2) PRO-651/ (2) PRO-164/ PRO-97/ PRO-404/ PRO-2026
SDR: NooElec NESDR Mini 2+/ NESDR XTR+/ RTL-SDR Blog
Reply With Quote
  #180 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 2:53 PM
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 739
Default

The Maine sites are part of NetID 149 and already exist in the RRDB under that system.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions