• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Geotag overlap and options

Status
Not open for further replies.

ST-Bob

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
528
Location
Worcester, MA, USA
#1
Since the advent of GPS-aware scanners geotag data has become important to RR and scanner users. The concept is brilliant but I question the execution.

For example, Massachusetts has a large multi-user Motorola SmartZone system for the Mass State Police and other subscribing entities. This system is, of course, intended to cover the whole state from multiple sites. It overlaps into adjacent CT, RI, NH, VT and even ME due to the radius of coverage needing to be so large that it covers the oddly-shaped state borders. Sites overlap each other too far causing scanning slowdowns as scanners like the HomePatrol fruitlessly search for control channels at ranges far in excess of the actual system's intended range. This seems to be because the range circle needed to cover both north and south borders of the state with a geotag centered on the site itself which is not centered in the state (north and south) is just too large.

What's to prevent the creation of 'dummy' sites within the system with smaller ranges to better shape the coverage areas? It's not like storage space is a real limitation these days; especially with the new servers Lindsay just had installed. I think we could get better, more consistent, faster-scanning GPS enabled scanners by expanding the geptagged sites to include dummy 'shaping' sites with duplicate LCNs/frequencies and shorter ranges. This could 'square-off' the coverage areas and reduce overlap into adjacent site's coverage areas and into adjacent states.

Comments welcome. We users are certainly affected by these limitations and you experts are the ones who know the advantages/disadvantages of this concept. Let's hear them.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
307
Location
Dover, NH
#2
I completely agree with you, and I made the same change on my 996XT. In many of the north east states, most are very oddly shaped, if I want to cover all of Mass, or NH for instance I had to create several identical sites with smaller circles, however even that causes scanner slow downs when you are at the border of both radius circles, where it will scan each system 2 or more times.

I wish the scanner could incorporate GPS maps so instead of using a mileage radius, it ties it to the town, county, or state you are currently in.
 

timkilbride

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,772
Location
Iowa County, Iowa
#3
I assign a QK to systems like you mention. Get close to the state line, enable the QK to the state your going to, cross the state line, disable the QK for the state you just left.

Tim K.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top