• 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

I messed up

Status
Not open for further replies.

specialist

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
28
Location
Northwood, NH
Hello forum members.
I did a blunder. It has been over a year since I programmed my Uniden BCD996T scanner and I have just lost all of my frequencies.
I Deleted everything thinking I was only deleting one freq when I deleted my one and only group.
Does anyone know of a good source where I can copy all of the NHSP frequencies and the N.H. Sheriff depts?
I have googled all morning and come up with little if nothing. A few pages come up that are close to ten years old but that’s about it.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance.
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Too many errors

ddemers8678 said:
While the goal of seacoast scanning is admirable, just a quick review of both Strafford & Rockingham Counties reveal a tremendous amount of errors, missing data and fictitous communities.

I would advise any enthusiast to avoid this site until it gets its legs underneath it, and peruse the other established and trusted sites for your scanning questions & information.
 

loumaag

Silent Key - Aug 2014
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Messages
12,911
Location
Katy, TX
plxnbury said:
While the goal of seacoast scanning is admirable, just a quick review of both Strafford & Rockingham Counties reveal a tremendous amount of errors, missing data and fictitous communities.

I would advise any enthusiast to avoid this site until it gets its legs underneath it, and peruse the other established and trusted sites for your scanning questions & information.
Hmm, I just reviewed those two counties on the site and with the exception of Salmon Falls Village being listed as Salmon Falls, I saw no "fictitous" (sic) (or fictitious) communities listed. I will grant that there are several listings with the notation "No Data" but, then again, we here (at RR) don't list places until we get the data. As to errors, well, I don't live in NH, but you do. Instead of blowing off here about errors in data, why don't you do what the intent of the site is, supply the correct data? I am sure any serious "enthusiast" in NH would welcome a little more "local" information, as opposed to attempting to obfuscate information with inaccurate statements such as the above quote.
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Errors

loumaag said:
Hmm, I just reviewed those two counties on the site and with the exception of Salmon Falls Village being listed as Salmon Falls, I saw no "fictitous" (sic) (or fictitious) communities listed. I will grant that there are several listings with the notation "No Data" but, then again, we here (at RR) don't list places until we get the data. As to errors, well, I don't live in NH, but you do. Instead of blowing off here about errors in data, why don't you do what the intent of the site is, supply the correct data? I am sure any serious "enthusiast" in NH would welcome a little more "local" information, as opposed to attempting to obfuscate information with inaccurate statements such as the above quote.
There is no Salmon Falls or Salmon Falls Village in Strafford County. In addition, there is no Davis, Cocheco (Cocheco is a river) and Gonic and Milton Mills are neighborhoods with post offices but are politically the jurisdictions of the City of Rocheseter and the Town of Milton respectively.

We have several well established and reputable sites that already, through years of experience and the volunteerism of many local listeners, have functional frequency databases. Even still, it takes the eyes and ears of the dwindling hobbyists out here much due dilligence to help maintain these sites. Too add yet another site with redundant information that is being maintained by an entity that has no familiarity with the area is simply too much to ask for.

To be blunt, the site is simply not needed and only makes it much more difficult to ensure accurate and timely frequency data is available to those needing such information. But if the originator wishes to continue with said site, it should not be recommended as a legitimate source of data until it gets its data in a much more accurate form.
 
Last edited:

loumaag

Silent Key - Aug 2014
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Messages
12,911
Location
Katy, TX
plxnbury said:
There is no Salmon Falls or Salmon Falls Village in Strafford County. In addition, there is no Davis, Cocheco (Cocheco is a river) and Gonic and Milton Mills are neighborhoods with post offices but are politically the jurisdictions of the City of Rocheseter and the Town of Milton respectively.
Actually individual communities can indeed have communication needs, they may be dispatched by (and covered by) other entities, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. There are plenty of examples of neighborhoods having a VFD that service them yet dispatched by other entities. BTW, I live in Texas and know that Salmon Falls Village is an area within Rollinsford, please check your facts before stating inaccurate information. Davis is on Hwy 11 between New Durham and Farmington; Cocheco (not the river) is between Pickering and Dover, about 2 miles SW of the Spaulding Turnpike. Enough of the geography of your state.

plxnbury said:
We have several well established and reputable sites that already, through years of experience and the volunteerism of many local listeners, have functional frequency databases. Even still, it takes the eyes and ears of the dwindling hobbyists out here much due dilligence to help maintain these sites. Too add yet another site with redundant information that is being maintained by an entity that has no familiarity with the area is simply too much to ask for.
The solution here is simple, don't go to the site and then you will not have to negatively comment with falsehoods and inaccurate information. Remember, it was your inaccurate first post in this thread that drew the report on your post causing my comment, and that led to yet another false and inaccurate post on your part. Since the Seacoast Scanning site administrator does in fact live in Newmarket, I am guessing he has as much right to start a NH based site as anyone else in the area.

plxnbury said:
To be blunt, your site is simply not needed and only makes it much more difficult to ensure accurate and timely frequency data is available to those needing such information.
I am assuming you are not referring to RadioReference when you say "your site". I have nothing to do with the site in question, but I do have a vested interest in this site, and your attacking the Seacoast Scanning site on these forums is just not appreciated. Your posts on this subject are inaccurate, your intentions are unclear, but your words are plain. I am not sure if you have some private or personal problem with the site administrator of Seacoast Scanning, but in any case you will not be allowed to continue the attack here. And that sir, will be the last word on the subject allowed in these forums.

I am not sure what the problem is as these posts seem to be out of character from your previous posts here; I suggest that you unsubscribe from this thread and if you have a problem with Seacoast Scanning or the person running the site, take it there or to email.
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Let me correct you again....

loumaag said:
BTW, I live in Texas and know that Salmon Falls Village is an area within Rollinsford, please check your facts before stating inaccurate information. Davis is on Hwy 11 between New Durham and Farmington; Cocheco (not the river) is between Pickering and Dover, about 2 miles SW of the Spaulding Turnpike. Enough of the geography of your state.
Wow....I am a New Hampshire native and grew up five miles from Rollinsford, 15 miles from Farmington and live along the Cocheco River. I am not sure what source you are using but Salmon Falls was the colonial name of the village that became the Town of Rollinsford. There is no Salmon Falls in New Hampshire. Additionally there is not and never has been a "Davis" nor a "Pickering" New Hampshire and never a community or neifghborhood known as "Cocheco", only the Cocheco River (which I grew up on). All these areas that are labeled as geographical are in reality nicknames for no longer existent neighborhoods or simply errors, as in Cocheco.

And therein lies my problem, how can anyone offer up as accurate a database that contains these many significant geographical errors in just one small corner of New Hampshire?

Out of curiosity I would love to see the reference source where you obtained your geographical data about my hometown area...could you please PM me that source, it is dire need of correction.

Finally, if the author of the aforementioned site is indeed a resident of Newmarket perhaps he can also PM me with his address, I'll be glad to forward him a correct map of his immediate neighborhood.

In closing, I have no idea who the administrator of the other site is so obviously have no personal or other issues with said individual, I was just taken aback that the site was being referred to as a legitimate resource when it contains the errors within.
 
Last edited:

KB1KBD

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
33
Location
Newmarket, NH
plxnbury,

Some of the town data I derived from the state website others from wikipedia. I am indeed from Newmarket but did not personally drive to each town to check the valididty of each listing. My goal for seacoastscanning is to allow users, like yourself, that live within scanner distance of a local to provide timely frequency information. The quality of the website relies on input from the users. I put in as much as I can based on my own listening and FCC research.

So you found some errors in my town listings. I would have greatly appreciated a post or PM stating the errors. I would have corrected them as soon as possible. It was not necessary to come here and bash my site. If you would like to correct frequency information or add to towns with no data I would welcome that too. That is why I created the site to begin with.

If it bothers you that my site exists please avoid it. I can't for the life of me figure out why it would. Please PM me here or at my site if you'd like to fill me in. I am not trying to put anyone out of the scanner frequency bussiness. I derive no income from this. It's just an expansion of a life long hobby.

BTW, by the list of the radios you have on your sig it looks like we may have something in common.

Regards,

Joel
 

jerk

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
2,446
Location
jerkville
plxnbury said:
While the goal of seacoast scanning is admirable, just a quick review of both Strafford & Rockingham Counties reveal a tremendous amount of errors, missing data and fictitous communities.

I would advise any enthusiast to avoid this site until it gets its legs underneath it, and peruse the other established and trusted sites for your scanning questions & information.
Google maps shows a Cocheco, near Dover near the NH and Maine line.
And it could very well be somebody used that as a reference point in filing papers with the FCC.
Best bet is to help and not criticize. Most people can't or won't even post information here, but they know it is wrong, kind of defeats the point. If you know different, post the frequencies.
My 2 cents worth.
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Cities/Towns in Strafford County

No problem....here's a quick start, these are the only towns & cities in Strafford County. Be very careful of Wikipedia and some of the real estate related websites, they tend to list old neighborhoods and nicknames as actual locations.

As you may be aware from some of my postings, I have complete access to all public safety frequencies in this State and most private entities that would co-exist with police, fire or ems. I also have complete familiarity with the seacoast region (Rockingham & Strafford counties) as I helped map out the P25 system that now exists in both counties.

I'll contact you by PM when I get a chance with further info....

Barrington (town)
Durham (town)
Dover (city)
Farmington (town)
Lee (town)
Madbury (town)
Middleton (town)
Milton (town)
New Durham (town)
Rochester (city)
Rollinsford (town)
Somersworth (city)
Strafford (town)
 

KC1UA

Scan New England Guru
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,586
Location
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
This is why my data for NH and all other New England states is contained in a Wiki. It allows immediate access by registered users ot make changes and corrections. I've found it to be the best, and most accurate, approach to maintaining a regional "database" of frequency information. There are certainly inaccuracies in the data at my site, and likely at any, but I think the Wiki approach minimizes them due to confirmed user input and the volume of people that contribute to the project. To minimize nonsense, I closely monitor the Wiki and approve each registration request manually. It's made for good results for quite some time.
 

ecps92

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
10,373
Location
Taxachusetts
Amazing how those from New England are being taught Geography as well as the "Incorporated Cities and Towns" of our own region, by folks not in New England

Massachusetts = 351 Incorporated Cities and Towns, altho villages and Railroad Stations and Post Offices might exist for other regions, the recognized entities are typically the "Incorporated" list.

New Hampshire = 254 Incorporated Cities and Towns.
http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/communpro.htm

Ahhh..google is my friend.
Again, villages, Post Offices and other trivial names.


newsalan said:
Google maps shows a Cocheco, near Dover near the NH and Maine line.
And it could very well be somebody used that as a reference point in filing papers with the FCC.
Best bet is to help and not criticize. Most people can't or won't even post information here, but they know it is wrong, kind of defeats the point. If you know different, post the frequencies.
My 2 cents worth.
 
Last edited:

jerk

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
2,446
Location
jerkville
ecps92 said:
Amazing how those from New England are being taught Geography as well as the "Incorporated Cities and Towns" of our own region, by folks not in New England

Massachusetts = 351 Incorporated Cities and Towns, altho villages and Railroad Stations and Post Offices might exist for other regions, the recognized entities are typically the "Incorporated" list.

New Hampshire = 254 Incorporated Cities and Towns.
http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/communpro.htm

Ahhh..google is my friend.
Again, villages, Post Offices and other trivial names.
Typical unhelpful remarks; grew up in New England. And don’t really want to live there anymore, too many know-it alls. So your point is... Mine was there is a location by that name, actually a County. But that was not the reason I responded. And I could care less about Cocheco or where it is located, but at least the guy is trying, and people are criticizing him.

My POINT was people who complain about other's information, saying it's wrong, but never bother or try to update RR or other miscellaneous web sites. Or they are the ones who have "secret" information, and again never post it to a database or correct it or update information. But they always have stones to throw to someone who is at least trying...
 

garys

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
4,603
Location
Eastern MA

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Cocheco County?

newsalan said:
...So your point is... Mine was there is a location by that name, actually a County...
OK, let me check my list of counties in New Hampshire:

Belknap
Coos
Merrimack
Sullivan
Carroll
Grafton
Rockingham
Cheshire
Hillsborough
Strafford

Nope, no "Cocheco" County in the State of New Hampshire.

As a sidenote, there is no "Cocheco" County anywhere in the United States.

Reference sources available upon request.
 

kd1sq

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
20
Location
Lille, Maine
Phantom places...

...you have to be careful of just about any map names you see, whether the source is USGS, Mapquest, Delorme, etc.

Old town names do tend to be kept in place for the longest time when, really, they've since become more like area names and have long ago been incorporated into somewhere close by.

Kellyville, Puckershire and Quaker City are some examples that come to mind as examples of that kind of thing that are within minutes of where I live. None of them have any real existence any more other than in the history books.

Lee
 

jmarcel66

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
262
Location
Concord, NH
seacoastscanning.com

Where do I start. Guess at the beginning

-151.3400 is the Repeater for NH Fish & Game (we don't have a Fish & Wildlife). 159.3450 is not the Statewide repeater (maybe Input, but never the repeater).

-155.6550 is not P25 at any State Prison in NH. Concord is 141.3 Analog. Laconia was using 155.8050 PL 141.3 and not sure what Berlin will/is doing. It was also licensed at one time for NHSP, but I don't think that ever materialized.

-453.2250 may be a link repeater for the coast. But isn't widely used by NH HSEM (according to HSEM people I've asked).

-The NHDOT system has changed extesively. Many new frequencies and repeaters all over the state.

-Belknap County. Missing one bigger village known to Marine Patrol listeners, "Glendale". Of course as has been exhausted many of these villages are in towns and are former "Whistle Stops" for long gone Railroads.

-Belknap County. Laconia PD has been P25 for a couple years now. Not sure if they kept 114.8 on the repeater or not.

-Carroll County. Tuftonboro 154.1750/136.5 - Ossipee Valley/Carroll Co Dispatch

-Carroll County. Tamworth - See Tuftonboro

-Carroll County. Sandwich 159.9000/D331 Lakes Region

-Carroll County. Madison 154.1750/136.5 Ossipee Valley/Carrol Co Disp

-Carroll County. Jackson 154.1450/173.8 Mt Washington Valley/Carroll Co Disp

-Cheshire County. I didn't look. But all Fire is dispatched by Southwestern 154.4300/136.5

-Coos County. Another missed big village "Groveton" which is basically Northumberland but only known as Groveton. But admittedly the info up there I have is sketchy

-Merrimack County. Allenstown 159.0900 is all town agencies and Road Agt Primary
Allenstown PD is dispatched on 155.7600 P25, Bow Police Dispatch

-Merrimack County. Andover 159.9000/D331 Lakes Region

-Merrimack County. Boscawen Police 154.7850 P25 Franklin PD Dispatch

-Merrimack County. Bow Police 155.7600 P25 (Bow Police Regional Dispatch)

-Merrimack County. Bradford Police is dispatched by New London PD Regional Dispatch. But not positive which frequency they use.

-Merrimack County. Canterbury Fire 154.3550/136.5 Concord Fire Alarm
Canterbury Police 155.6850/155.7000 P25 Merrimack Co S/O
Canterbury Road Agent 151.0100

-Merrimack County. Chichester Fire 154.3550/136.5 Concord Fire Alarm
Chichester PD 155.6850/155.7000 P25 MCSO Disp
Chichester "Town" & Road Agent 151.0100 (Canterbury and Chichester sare this freq. One has 136.5 and the other I think 141.3 or 151.4)
Chichester Emergency Mgmt Interop 150.9950 (PL to be determined)

-Merrimack County. Concord Fire "UHF" 453.4750/114.8 Admin/Command Ops
Concord General Svcs DPW 159.1200/136.5
Concord General Svcs Water/Citywide Div's 158.8050/136.5

-Merrimack County. Danbury Fire 159.9000/D331 - Lakes Region

-Merrimack County. Dunbarton Fire 154.3550/136.5 - Concord
Dunbarton Police 155.7600 P25 Bow PD Disp

-Merrimack County. Epsom Fire and EMS 154.3550/136.5 - Concord.
(They only use 154.190 when they go Mutual Aid)

-Merrimack County. Franklin PD 154.7850 P25

-Merrimack County. Henniker PD 155.6850/155.7000 P25 Merrimack Co S/O Dispatch

-Merrimack County. Hopkinton Fire 154.3550/136.5 - Concord Fire
Hopkinton PD 155.6850/155.7000 P25 MCSO Disp

-Merrimack County. Loudon PD 155.6850/155.7000 P25 MCSO Disp

-Merrimack County. New London Regional Fire/Police Dispatch Center
154.9950/136.5 - Fire/EMS
155.9625/(note->) - Police Dispatch (PL is 94.8 or 97.4 I forget which)

-Merrimack County. Newbury - See New London

-Merrimack County. Pembroke PD 155.7600 P25 Bow PD Disp

-Merrimack County. Pittsfield Fire 154.3550/136.5 Concord FD
Pittsfield Police 155.6850/155.7000 P25 MCSO Disp

-Merrimack County. Sutton - See New London

-Merrimack County. Warner Fire 154.3550/136.5 Concord Fire
Warner PD 155.6850/155.7000 P25 MCSO Disp

-Merrimack County. Webster - See Warner

-Merrimack County. Wilmot - See New London

Now I know the info posted on the internet is more/less free for copy/pasting. I admit and realize that. But I know exactly where this came from....
Pats Peak, Henniker - Operations/Ski Patrol 152.2850 85.4
Pats Peak, Henniker - Ski Races 151.6250 136.5
Pats Peak, Henniker - Technical Support 151.9250 136.5
Pats Peak, Henniker - Ski School 154.5400 136.5
Pats Peak, Henniker - Parking 154.6000 179.9

Now to my point. There are many websites devoted to frequencies in NH of varying accuracy. Before the internet there "TWO" books dedicated to NH frequencies. You'll see on my website that's quoted previously that I'm recommending TWO sites for specific reasons. One is radio reference site because it's nationwide w/good references. The other is ScanCC where many folks associated w/NH Public Safety agencies and years and years of scanning have concentrated their efforts. I will eventually phase mine out to help reduce the unnecessary number of sites. All the info above is free for the adding as needed. But my bigger question is "Do we need a dozen semi-accurate websites, or a few REALLY ACCURATE websites?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top