Forest Service Updates

[es93546]

Using a document I recently received I'm making database updates to the U.S. Forest Service in the agency's Southern (Region 8) and Eastern (Region 9) areas of the country. This is a recent document and contains some information on the latest frequency listings for the National Forests in these areas. There have been a number of National Forests that have completed or partially completed building digital systems.

The updates include narratives describing the National Forests, their dispatch centers and locations as well as general descriptions of the resources of each forest. Many of the southern National Forests have one Forest Supervisor's Office for all the National Forests in a state. The pace of doing all of these updates is slow. I'm completing them at a pace of 1-3 National Forests or states in one day, depending on the other chores I'm doing around the house. Please be patient with this pace. Please don't ask me to jump forward to the state you are interested in. I will get to your interest as the days pass. I started with Region 8 (Southern) and am working them in alphabetical order. I skipped the Arkansas/Oklahoma page as it's a hard one.

Also, I'm not sure of how fast the DB administrators will get around to making the updates. As the weather warms up where I live I will be working on this project less on each day. Summer's short and I have a lot to do outside.

 

[ecps92]

They should be put into a Wiki and then Once Actually heard migrated to the RRDB

RR Database Submission Guidelines - The RadioReference Wiki

wiki.radioreference.com

• Do not submit data drawn directly from the FCC database or other sources. You must first personally verify that it is in use and the type of use before submitting the information.

 

[es93546]

They should be put into a Wiki and then Once Actually heard migrated to the RRDB

RR Database Submission Guidelines - The RadioReference Wiki

wiki.radioreference.com

• Do not submit data drawn directly from the FCC database or other sources. You must first personally verify that it is in use and the type of use before submitting the information.

Thanks for your input Bill. I don't think the Wiki should be used. The majority of the users of this site don't check the Wiki for the latest information. A huge amount of the info on the Wiki is very out of date, going back 20-25 years without an update. For the dissemination of information I avoid the Wiki as much as I can because it is so hard to write anything given the esoteric hieroglyphics that must be used.

I think a better course of action would be to post what I have in this federal forum, with one thread per National Forest or state when all the National Forests in a state are overseen by one Forest Supervisor.

In the work I've done so far I've noticed information in the database that is 10-15 years old and inaccurate. The information I have is solid, I won't go any further than that. I think my work is and will be very helpful. I wish I could have done this work earlier in order to have it available for the peak of the eastern and southern fire season, but my information just became available a couple of weeks ago.

 

[RaleighGuy]

Thanks for your input Bill. I don't think the Wiki should be used. The majority of the users of this site don't check the Wiki for the latest information. A huge amount of the info on the Wiki is very out of date, going back 20-25 years without an update.

I think the wiki is a great way to organize the information before submission to the data base, a large number of members do use the wiki. In addition it gives a great source of information for those who do know about it to provide a link in forum posts. As for it being outdated, I agree some areas are, but that is because no one takes the time to learn how, or to make changes in it. Just like programming a scanner, people need to learn to do things.

I think a better course of action would be to post what I have in this federal forum, with one thread per National Forest or state when all the National Forests in a state are overseen by one Forest Supervisor.

This would clutter up the forum and force multiple notifications to people not near or concerned with national forests, if you chose to go this route I would recommend only one post, but this is not a good use of the forums and the reason the wiki was created. Additionally, in a few weeks it will be moved down the list of posts in the forums and forgotten about all together.

In the work I've done so far I've noticed information in the database that is 10-15 years old and inaccurate. The information I have is solid, I won't go any further than that. I think my work is and will be very helpful. I wish I could have done this work earlier in order to have it available for the peak of the eastern and southern fire season, but my information just became available a couple of weeks ago.

If the information is solid I'd consider submitting it, even anonymously, and explaining in your submission where the info came from and why it needs to be updated so people could easily find it.

 

[es93546]

I think the wiki is a great way to organize the information before submission to the data base, a large number of members do use the wiki. In addition it gives a great source of information for those who do know about it to provide a link in forum posts. As for it being outdated, I agree some areas are, but that is because no one takes the time to learn how, or to make changes in it. Just like programming a scanner, people need to learn to do things.


This would clutter up the forum and force multiple notifications to people not near or concerned with national forests, if you chose to go this route I would recommend only one post, but this is not a good use of the forums and the reason the wiki was created. Additionally, in a few weeks it will be moved down the list of posts in the forums and forgotten about all together.


If the information is solid I'd consider submitting it, even anonymously, and explaining in your submission where the info came from and why it needs to be updated so people could easily find it.

I've tried to learn how to write on the Wiki and I end up spending 10 hours doing something that should only take 1 hour or less. I've spent more time trying to learn the Wiki than you realize. I have written a Wiki for every National Forest in California. Given my age I don't think I could start from scratch again, but can update when information changes. There is no way I'm using the Wiki.

I'm still prepared to "clutter" the federal forum. I don't find what I propose to do any different that most of the threads on that forum, which is full of clutter, if I follow your logic. Occasionally someone posts a question about a small national monument and there is discussion that can go on for pages. The information I have allows people to listen during wildland fires. It is the type of information that people tend not pay attention to until a wildland fire burns near them, then they want the info right then and there.

As much as I have access to information on portions of the western U.S., information in the east is very hard to get. I consider my find to be fortuitous

I cannot reveal the source or type of information I have or I would lose access to it. I can only say it is solid info.

 

[RadioDitch]

Might I humbly suggest a middle ground solution? Perhaps the OP can place the information into an Office or PDF document formatted to adequately obscure the source. Members so inclined to the ways of Wikidom could then download that and collectively contribute it to the Wiki, or make first person observations in their area that would satisfy the Database Handbook guidelines.

Just a thought.

 

[es93546]

Disregard.

 

[ai8o]

• Do not submit data drawn directly from the FCC database or other sources. You must first personally verify that it is in use and the type of use before submitting the information.

Don't worry he won't submit data drawn from the FCC database!

USFS frequencies are assigned by NTIA, a separate agency.

 

[merlin]

They should be put into a Wiki and then Once Actually heard migrated to the RRDB

RR Database Submission Guidelines - The RadioReference Wiki

wiki.radioreference.com

• Do not submit data drawn directly from the FCC database or other sources. You must first personally verify that it is in use and the type of use before submitting the information.

And what if some can and some can't hear these frequencies.
What ever happened to "current status" ? Hey, I hear that one, it gets marked active.

 

[ecps92]

Don't worry he won't submit data drawn from the FCC database!

USFS frequencies are assigned by NTIA, a separate agency.

it also says other sources. - Guess you selectively decided to ignore that fact

But then hell, why has no one made the NTIA FOIA submission to the RRDB, its not from the FCC.
Because NO ONE has actually validated it is accurate, correct and monitorable.

We've made the offer years ago to help xSMOKEY now ec93546 with the Wiki and were rebuffed, even told (having seen 205's, IAP's etc) that my East Coast terminology or channel #'s were Wrong. My USFS uses channel #'s not Repeater Tones.

O well, go enjoy your happy data find and then all the fixes the RRDB needs because the PL, NAC etc are wrong and never get reported
Just look at the recent TN thread where we are told the NAC is NF7E but for a Scanner it's NO as F7E works on REAL two way radios and the repeaters use a different Tone...

 

[ecps92]

I've tried to learn how to write on the Wiki and I end up spending 10 hours doing something that should only take 1 hour or less. I've spent more time trying to learn the Wiki than you realize. I have written a Wiki for every National Forest in California. Given my age I don't think I could start from scratch again, but can update when information changes. There is no way I'm using the Wiki.

I'm still prepared to "clutter" the federal forum. I don't find what I propose to do any different that most of the threads on that forum, which is full of clutter, if I follow your logic. Occasionally someone posts a question about a small national monument and there is discussion that can go on for pages. The information I have allows people to listen during wildland fires. It is the type of information that people tend not pay attention to until a wildland fire burns near them, then they want the info right then and there.

As much as I have access to information on portions of the western U.S., information in the east is very hard to get. I consider my find to be fortuitous

I cannot reveal the source or type of information I have or I would lose access to it. I can only say it is solid info.

a good Wiki is like writing a good Story/report it takes time (look at N9JIG's stories) and can always be refined.

 

[ecps92]

Thanks for your input Bill. I don't think the Wiki should be used. The majority of the users of this site don't check the Wiki for the latest information. A huge amount of the info on the Wiki is very out of date, going back 20-25 years without an update. For the dissemination of information I avoid the Wiki as much as I can because it is so hard to write anything given the esoteric hieroglyphics that must be used.

I think a better course of action would be to post what I have in this federal forum, with one thread per National Forest or state when all the National Forests in a state are overseen by one Forest Supervisor.

In the work I've done so far I've noticed information in the database that is 10-15 years old and inaccurate. The information I have is solid, I won't go any further than that. I think my work is and will be very helpful. I wish I could have done this work earlier in order to have it available for the peak of the eastern and southern fire season, but my information just became available a couple of weeks ago.

Shame on them then for not using it. The Wiki is a wealth of easily searchable information

Shame on you for not updating something you wrote.
Yes, some old, but that is why SOME of us also put in a date for last actually HEARD over the air, no date, no one has shared

WE welcome your data dump in the forums (and pray not the RRDB) and hopefully many of us can build out the data into the Wiki to spur interest for a VALID DB Submission from actual monitoring

 

[spacellamaman]

Using a document I recently received I'm making database updates to the U.S. Forest Service in the agency's Southern (Region 8) and Eastern (Region 9) areas of the country. This is a recent document and contains some information on the latest frequency listings for the National Forests in these areas. There have been a number of National Forests that have completed or partially completed building digital systems.

The updates include narratives describing the National Forests, their dispatch centers and locations as well as general descriptions of the resources of each forest. Many of the southern National Forests have one Forest Supervisor's Office for all the National Forests in a state. The pace of doing all of these updates is slow. I'm completing them at a pace of 1-3 National Forests or states in one day, depending on the other chores I'm doing around the house. Please be patient with this pace. Please don't ask me to jump forward to the state you are interested in. I will get to your interest as the days pass. I started with Region 8 (Southern) and am working them in alphabetical order. I skipped the Arkansas/Oklahoma page as it's a hard one.

Also, I'm not sure of how fast the DB administrators will get around to making the updates. As the weather warms up where I live I will be working on this project less on each day. Summer's short and I have a lot to do outside.

I appreciate the efforts you are making here, I hope you don't become disenchanted with the whole process.


I won't complain if you feel inclined to just dump the data into this thread, raw or in some sort of formatted form.

Sometimes the frustration of everyone being in the weeds over details can make one less inclined to finish a project and I would hate to think that the data that you wish to kindly share with everyone might end up abandoned, as that would be a real shame for the hobby as a whole.

Thanks again.

 

[Wilrobnson]

I appreciate your contributions as well, especially for the Region 8 area, as the Forests here are changing over to P25 rapidly (those that aren't on also the MSWIN system).

As for data into the DB, I have my own feelings on that after bad experiences with admins...Demanding info from my agency and threatening to "fight me" when I refused, declining information drawn directly from a radio in daily use as "unverified", etc.

I say put it all in. I've seen plenty of inaccurate info over the years that no one has ever removed after being informed it was bad data.

 

[dave3825]

In the work I've done so far I've noticed information in the database that is 10-15 years old and inaccurate.

Will you be making a submission to have the inaccurate info corrected and or removed?

 

[es93546]

I appreciate the efforts you are making here, I hope you don't become disenchanted with the whole process.


I won't complain if you feel inclined to just dump the data into this thread, raw or in some sort of formatted form.

Sometimes the frustration of everyone being in the weeds over details can make one less inclined to finish a project and I would hate to think that the data that you wish to kindly share with everyone might end up abandoned, as that would be a real shame for the hobby as a whole.

Thanks again.

"Disenchanted" is a good word for it. I have some very good, solid information. Information used to program aviation radios. I will not say more. I can't possibly listen in on radio systems that cover all the states bordering the Mississippi and east of there. The information in the database can be from people who don't understand the agency they are contributing information for. The information I have is for new systems that replace the systems shown in the RR database right now.

Given my present state of "disenchantment" and summer arriving overnight here, I have higher priorities for my time. I'm planning on posting threads for each state if and when I get some time. I had planned on devoting full days to this effort, but given the negative feedback I've received, my plans have changed. This is too bad as I thought I had information that would help a lot of people during this summer, but . . . . .

 

[es93546]

it also says other sources. - Guess you selectively decided to ignore that fact

But then hell, why has no one made the NTIA FOIA submission to the RRDB, its not from the FCC.
Because NO ONE has actually validated it is accurate, correct and monitorable.

We've made the offer years ago to help xSMOKEY now ec93546 with the Wiki and were rebuffed, even told (having seen 205's, IAP's etc) that my East Coast terminology or channel #'s were Wrong. My USFS uses channel #'s not Repeater Tones.

O well, go enjoy your happy data find and then all the fixes the RRDB needs because the PL, NAC etc are wrong and never get reported
Just look at the recent TN thread where we are told the NAC is NF7E but for a Scanner it's NO as F7E works on REAL two way radios and the repeaters use a different Tone...

I guess I'm getting old as I don't understand most of what you say here. A few corrections, I was ExSmokey and now am es93546. I'm negative about the Wiki as it is hard to navigate through. I didn't know for years where the information was because you have to click on "collaboration" and I didn't think that would lead to the information I was looking for. I was told it was labeled that way because "collaboration" was how the information was gathered. Using that logic we should stop calling the Radio Reference Database by that name and call it "collaboration" as well. We could call the forums "collaboration" as well, since everyone is collaborating in posting information there to. But, we can't seem to suggest changes to make this entire website better, because everyone defends the status quo.

The Wiki needs an overhaul so we can use Word or some other very common writing tool. Using the hieroglyphics that exist in the Wiki now, is just unacceptable. There are very few people who understand it.

Lastly, I stated that I'm too old to have started the California National Forest Wiki articles, that is building them from the ground up. I stated also that I'm doing an annual update of them depending on need. I make my corrections and database submissions based on very solid information also. No one seems to have a problem with it. At least the western area database is easy to navigate and so far, doesn't bury federal information down at the county level.

 

[es93546]

I should acknowledge that some people have corresponded with me to help me through the maze that the Wiki is, I could not have written the California National Forest articles without this help.

 

[es93546]

Will you be making a submission to have the inaccurate info corrected and or removed?

I making submissions based on the information I have. It is up to the database editors to delete what they think should be deleted. I hope they do a lot of deleting as some of the information is decades old and is based on what someone heard in that timeframe. Lot's of time has passed and no one seems to be deleting this old information.

 

[Wilrobnson]

I was ExSmokey and now am es93546.

Help me out here as I cannot recall- didn't we meet up in Mammoth when I was with MCSD all those years ago?? Back when Paranick was my boss.