DOLOTG - Dusty old lists...

[wbloss]

I recently had found a TG not in the database, and posted it. It turned out that the use and region fit perfectly with one on a Dusty Old List Of Talk Groups or DOLOTG as I'll call them from a respected DOLOTG keeper, and another TG was added to the database. Great!

I broached the subject that perhaps it would be useful if others could see the DOLOTG's, but the idea did not fly for following reasons: they're old, dusty, out of date, and hard to post, and if someone ID's a new use of one they may bypass the group.

These are valid concerns, but let me offer another way of looking at things and propose an action.

Some of the Senior members who posses DOLOTG's are very good at jumping in when a new TG is proposed and verifying or modifying. There may be other DOLOTG holders, however, who do not take the time to scour the forum.

I have been a member of RR since 2002, helping update the 2 local areas I lived in with CONV and trunked info. This came out of a large dBase III database I had accumulated in scanning since crystal scanners were invented, eventually porting to Access, and posting much on my personal website www.WallyBloss.com.

However I only became active in this forum since UCAN came to Cache Valley with a vengeance. Watching and participating in the rebanding discussions has energized this forum significantly.

We are at a point where there could be another new re-energization of similar character.

If DOLOTG's were posted as files or lists or in some manner that does not place them in the formal database, we could hold a "Talkgroup Takedown" or perhaps a "Endangered TG Hunt" or some other fun sort of activity. Maybe a contest with a free PRO600 to the winner..yeah, right!

With the ability to program audible and visual alarms in some of the new scanners, we could each program the DOLOTG's and watch or listen for the alarms. It is very possible that some of the TG's on the DOLOTG's are being used and heard, but not noticed. Pouring over the output from Unitrunker looking for specific TG's also could find them.

Looking for a specific thing is more likely to find it than looking for anything that is not already found.

Waddya think?

Wally

 

[qlajlu]

wbloss, I think you have adequately described a problem that we have here now. After our members were introduced to UniTrunker, all, or at least most, of the "easy" TGs were identified and added to the Db very quickly. Then we went through a period of looking for "ghosts." Those TGs that appeared occasionally on UniTrunker that no one had any record of in any list, so different members would spend days locked on those ghosts hoping to hear some traffic and hoping that traffic would give a hint as to who was using it. We have passed that period and now UniTrunker users have turned their assets to finding "new" systems and [conventional] frequencies being used in the area. I also believe that most of the TGs in the Salt Lake and Davis County area are resolved on the UCAN system and the only important ones left are in the "outlying areas."

If DOLOTG's were posted as files or lists or in some manner that does not place them in the formal database, we could hold a "Talkgroup Takedown" or perhaps a "Endangered TG Hunt" or some other fun sort of activity.

This is a good idea. Maybe make a list showing all the TGs that could be used which do not have an ID. The UCAN system is capable of supporting a finite number of TGs and we know that they are spaced 16 numbers apart. A list of those not identified could be generated, but some of those may yet to be issued for use by UCAN.

Some of the Senior members who posses DOLOTG's are very good at jumping in when a new TG is proposed and verifying or modifying. There may be other DOLOTG holders, however, who do not take the time to scour the forum.

And this is the crux of the problem.

Every once in a while, one of our members who has a friend of a friend in public safety who uses a radio in his work will allow our member to "map" his radio. That always yields valuable information. We have members who are in public safety and use a radio who could provide a "map" but do not over fear of supervisor retaliation, but do not mind verifying a TG when a member makes an attempt at identification. Remember, UCAN touted "security" when they got the contract to install a statewide trunking system and some of these supervisors do not want that information in the general public's hands. To them, we are stealing.

The whole reason our protocol was developed was as a call for all members to check their lists. We in SL cannot verify TGs heard in the Cache valley by listening, for instance, but posting unknowns may develop an identification because someone not in the Cache valley may have it on a personal list as was the case recently. So the protocol does work.

I like your ideas, Wally, but I personally think the same reason stated above will not allow it to work. It would take the cooperation of all members and some are a little more than protective of their lists. They may be in possession of some infomation after having made a promise NOT to let it out.

 

[Utah_Viper]

Wally, I would have no problem with anyone posting their DOL on the www.utahradio.org wiki. We can even set a page for that. maybe your right that more eyes can find things quicker.

I was the one who worried that someone may just add something to the DB with no notice, or just add to the scanner and not let anyone else know. I think this can be solved by just adding a rule to our current procedure:

If a "Dusty Old List" is used to quickly identify a unknown TG that TG should still be posted to the forum, and made not of the DOL entry. After that the TG should be submitted to the DB"

 

[wbloss]

Thanks to both for the comments...now we need someone to come forward with the DOL to post!
Thanks

Wally

 

[qlajlu]

Thanks to both for the comments...now we need someone to come forward with the DOL to post!
Thanks

Wally

That may present a problem. My "DOL" is fifteen printed pages of an Excel spread sheet plus three or four additional Excel printed pages of odds and ends TGs, many of which are duplicates of the main list. I hate to be a killjoy, but I am not going to retype all the TGs that exist on those twenty +/- pages nor am I going to spend the time to "resolve" the list(s) against what has already been submitted to the Db. The lion's share of what I have already now exist in the Db anyway.

Others may have their lists in electronic form making it easier to comply, but I think this will be the prevailing attitude of those of us fortunate enough to have a "DOL" especially if it is in print form and, once again, the reason that the protocol, which works, was put in place.