Ohio MARCS - IP (Project 25 System) - Page 30

LZ56 · #**581** (**permalink**) 10-21-2012, 7:10 PM

Unknown Lake County P25 (800 mhz) TG 27626. Only heard a few times, no clues from contents.

kc8rak · #**582** (**permalink**) 10-21-2012, 7:15 PM

I heard surveilance type traffic on 27626 earlyer in the week but it ended when the subject got ont route 2 in Mentor.

universalwc · #**583** (**permalink**) 10-22-2012, 5:08 PM

I understand what everyone is talking about. Maybe I should just look into getting a new scanner either way. I was up at Radioshack checking out the pro106, what would you recommend buying if I went with something new?

a388sig2 · #**584** (**permalink**) 10-22-2012, 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radioscan

In the coming months we will start discovering more activity with the MARCS-IP P-25 system throughout Ohio as a whole.
I have merged the MARCS-IP Southwest/Central Ohio thread with the main thread. This thread will now cover the entirety
of the state and not exclusively NE Ohio.

The database should then be updated to show the IP system as statewide? Currently it's not listed as statewide, and you can only find it within the county pages in the database.

wa8pyr · #**585** (**permalink**) 10-22-2012, 9:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radioscan

In the coming months we will start discovering more activity with the MARCS-IP P-25 system throughout Ohio as a whole.
I have merged the MARCS-IP Southwest/Central Ohio thread with the main thread. This thread will now cover the entirety of the state and not exclusively NE Ohio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a388sig2

The database should then be updated to show the IP system as statewide? Currently it's not listed as statewide, and you can only find it within the county pages in the database.

The original message should have made mention that we will start discovering more activity with MARCS-IP as it expands to cover the entire state. However, MARCS-IP only covers a few counties at this time (Franklin, Cuyahoga and Lake), with Fayette, Clark and Morrow to come on line pretty soon, and further buildout to continue next year. Thus, it's not a statewide system right now.

We can discuss the fact that it will end up as a statewide system here, and what we find as it expands; once there is coverage of a truly significant percentage of the state it will be upgraded to statewide in the database.

a388sig2 · #**586** (**permalink**) 10-22-2012, 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wa8pyr

The original message should have made mention that we will start discovering more activity with MARCS-IP as it expands to cover the entire state. However, MARCS-IP only covers a few counties at this time (Franklin, Cuyahoga and Lake), with Fayette, Clark and Morrow to come on line pretty soon, and further buildout to continue next year. Thus, it's not a statewide system right now.

We can discuss the fact that it will end up as a statewide system here, and what we find as it expands; once there is coverage of a truly significant percentage of the state it will be upgraded to statewide in the database.

Excellent, makes sense.

budevans · #**587** (**permalink**) 10-22-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a388sig2

I had to add them for my PSR-800 to work.

I found the following thread regarding tables not being automatically downloaded.

P25 Phase 2 Firmware update for PSR 800

scroll down the page to permalink #18 dated 10-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinC
For some reason the tables didn't auto-fill, once I manually edited them it seems to work well on Phase 2 TDMA.

I set the "Site Options" to "Auto Fill" and the tables automagically load, when set to "Standard" they don't seem to load. I'm pretty sure I had to do the same thing to get X2 to work also. I may load a test system for X2 and leave it at "Standard" and see what happens.
__________________
BC-210XLT

a388sig2 · #**588** (**permalink**) 10-23-2012, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budevans

I found the following thread regarding tables not being automatically downloaded.

P25 Phase 2 Firmware update for PSR 800

scroll down the page to permalink #18 dated 10-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinC
For some reason the tables didn't auto-fill, once I manually edited them it seems to work well on Phase 2 TDMA.

I set the "Site Options" to "Auto Fill" and the tables automagically load, when set to "Standard" they don't seem to load. I'm pretty sure I had to do the same thing to get X2 to work also. I may load a test system for X2 and leave it at "Standard" and see what happens.
__________________
BC-210XLT

Wow, thanks so much, I will try! Appreciate your efforts to search this out.

rr1965 · #**589** (**permalink**) 10-25-2012, 10:06 PM

I heard Madison Village PD 1A on 27602. I can't confirm the Twp yet, but definitely heard the Village on it tonight.

GHF · #**590** (**permalink**) 10-26-2012, 10:04 AM

Is anyone else hearing So. Russell PD on TG 14492 and TG14498?

This is the Cuyahoga TG's for the Chagrin Area.

Unit ID' start with 28xxxxxxx.

Thinking that Chagrin is dispatching for them.

Any help on this?

kf8yk · #**591** (**permalink**) 10-26-2012, 12:04 PM

Chagrin Falls has dispatched South Russell PD for at least two decades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHF

Is anyone else hearing So. Russell PD on TG 14492 and TG14498?

This is the Cuyahoga TG's for the Chagrin Area.

Unit ID' start with 28xxxxxxx.

Thinking that Chagrin is dispatching for them.

Any help on this?

GHF · #**592** (**permalink**) 10-26-2012, 12:15 PM

Re: So. Russell PD

If we know this information why not submit?

GHF · #**593** (**permalink**) 10-26-2012, 12:22 PM

These TG's are for PD Metro Parks 1

Note that TG27566 is a Lake County TG.

TG 27566 is not Lake County Parks but PD Metro Parks 1 but used on the Lake Co. System.

Unit ID's are the same for either TG starting with 18xxxxx.

TG 27566 must be a link or a TG that units in Lake County would use to TG 54638.

mtindor · #**594** (**permalink**) 10-26-2012, 4:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHF

These TG's are for PD Metro Parks 1

Note that TG27566 is a Lake County TG.

TG 27566 is not Lake County Parks but PD Metro Parks 1 but used on the Lake Co. System.

Unit ID's are the same for either TG starting with 18xxxxx.

TG 27566 must be a link or a TG that units in Lake County would use to TG 54638.

Gary,

Are you saying that you hear the same traffic on both TG 54638 and TG 27566 of MARCS IP?

And, if so, I guess you're saying that you're hearing Cleveland Metroparks PD on both of those talkgroups?

Interesting.

mike

GHF · #**595** (**permalink**) 10-26-2012, 4:43 PM

TG raidio IDs are the same for both the Lake Couty and Cuyahoga System.

There is a Metro Park located in Willoughby Hills, Mayfield Hts. and this may be the reason for the two TG's.

The TG's are not related to the Lake County Parks vs. Metro Parks System as I know.

I cannot tell you if you can hear both at the same time just never checked.

Lake County Parks vs Metro Parks not the same.......

eorange · #**596** (**permalink**) 10-29-2012, 6:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eorange

The reception of the Cuyahoga system on a PSR-500, with the RS 800 MHz whip, seems to be greatly improved by changing Multi-Site to Stat, and Check All CC to No.

I came to the conclusion that no one factor is improving reception. It varies based on location of the scanner, the above settings, seemingly time of day, and even particular TGs.

Swipesy · #**597** (**permalink**) 10-29-2012, 9:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eorange

I came to the conclusion that no one factor is improving reception. It varies based on location of the scanner, the above settings, seemingly time of day, and even particular TGs.

Unfortunately the Cuyahoga P25 bad reception is not limited to the 500. For the most part reception on the PSR800 is also horrible on the Cuyahoga County MARCS P25 system. Sitting 1 mile from a tower and the transmissions are unintelligible. Encryption is not needed on this system, you can't understand in the clear tranmissions for the most part. Based upon a side by side tests I have done with a Motorola XTS 5000 and PSR 800, the reception issue is scanner related. The 5000 is consistently clear while the 800 is consistently garbled.

eorange · #**598** (**permalink**) 10-29-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swipesy

Encryption is not needed on this system, you can't understand in the clear tranmissions for the most part.

Now that's funny!!

For the Lake Co. listening you've been doing...how has that been sounding overall on the 800? Better than the Cuyahoga P25?

Swipesy · #**599** (**permalink**) 10-29-2012, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eorange

Now that's funny!!

For the Lake Co. listening you've been doing...how has that been sounding overall on the 800? Better than the Cuyahoga P25?

From my house Lake and Cuyahoga are mostly garbled. If I drive up to Lake County, the Lake System is very clear. If I drive to the West Side of Cleveland, Cuyahoga is much better but never as good as Lake is when in Lake.

I have now split the MARCS P-25 System on my 800 to be able to just listen to the Lake Control Channels or just the Cuyahoga Control channels. Strangely, Cuyahoga is a tiny bit better at my house this way.

Today I am messing with the Advanced DSP, ADC and DAC settings. So far I am not noticing much difference.

As you know from my XTS 5000 tests the real issue with the Cuyahoga MARCS P-25 portion are the scanner's problems decoding the system. Why the 700 Mhz is so much worse than the Lake 800 Mhz is a mystery to me.

Ed_Azalea · #**600** (**permalink**) 10-29-2012, 1:45 PM

New TG logged/heard 13500. Heard words "Cleveland Heights" and "1800 to 61" otherwise pretty much garble.