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.
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.