OneVoice MotoTRBO Connect Plus Net 171

Status
Not open for further replies.

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,422
Location
BEE00
While I appreciate the spirited debate and varied opinions, here is the bottom line per the official RRDB policy which was recently clarified by the lead admin:

"Location unknown" sites are not to be listed unless the location can be confirmed down at least to the county level. They can be added to the wiki page for the system, but not the database, until the location is confirmed by monitoring at least to the county level.
 

dave3825

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
7,442
Location
Suffolk County NY
While I appreciate the spirited debate and varied opinions, here is the bottom line per the official RRDB policy which was recently clarified by the lead admin:

"Location unknown" sites are not to be listed unless the location can be confirmed down at least to the county level. They can be added to the wiki page for the system, but not the database, until the location is confirmed by monitoring at least to the county level.

Thanks for that. If I may ask, how long has it been official RRDB policy to not list location unknown sites?

Just curious.

Thanks
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,422
Location
BEE00
The honest answer is I don't exactly know. We used to list 'location unknown' sites all the time, as long as we were reasonably sure that they were legitimate, but hadn't been located yet. The Database Administrator Handbook is silent on the issue. When some in this thread took issue with us adding unidentified sites to the OneVoice system, I emailed the lead admin for clarification. His word for word reply was what I quoted in bold above.
 

mtindor

OH/WV DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
10,370
Location
Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
Thanks for that. If I may ask, how long has it been official RRDB policy to not list location unknown sites?

Just curious.

Thanks

I was asked to remove any sites that I couldn't identify down to, at least, the county level in 4th quarter 2016. So my guess is that it was sometime around there that the decision was made.

I don't recall the reasons, nor do I really want to know them, but I think a big part of the reason may have been complainers who would complain about site changes to "unidentified" sites on various systems turning their area green in the DB. They just couldn't handle it and whined.

Mike
 

dave3825

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
7,442
Location
Suffolk County NY
I was asked to remove any sites that I couldn't identify down to, at least, the county level in 4th quarter 2016. So my guess is that it was sometime around there that the decision was made.

I don't recall the reasons, nor do I really want to know them, but I think a big part of the reason may have been complainers who would complain about site changes to "unidentified" sites on various systems turning their area green in the DB. They just couldn't handle it and whined.

Mike


I had questioned it around the first quarter of 2016 and was told basically the only way it would change would be when someone id'd the sites. Like I mentioned earlier, I did not really mind except for the fact that they all had a large range set. That was definitely affecting the zip code users, users that add channels on range and anyone using gps with a small range set.

As far as the green, for some it is a let down when you log in and see your area is green, only to see the new changes were a multisite/state system that was changed many miles away.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
That is going to happen regardless of the inclusion of "unidentified" sites. I'd like to see a genuine, valid, logical reason for excluding sites whose operator and system identification are in fact known. Not some admin's off-the-cuff proclamation. If the manual is silent, then somebody is making up rules. In this case, the made-up rule creates problems for some users without solving any for anyone.
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,422
Location
BEE00
That is going to happen regardless of the inclusion of "unidentified" sites. I'd like to see a genuine, valid, logical reason for excluding sites whose operator and system identification are in fact known. Not some admin's off-the-cuff proclamation. If the manual is silent, then somebody is making up rules. In this case, the made-up rule creates problems for some users without solving any for anyone.

I very specifically noted that it was the LEAD ADMIN who clarified the policy. You know, the person in charge of the RRDB who actually does make the rules. :roll:

If you have an issue with this policy, take it up with Lead Database Administrator Tom Swisher (username wa8pyr)
 

RadioDitch

Signals Identification Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
3,074
Location
All over the map.
If I could make a minor suggestion? For the much less advanced, average user, it may be useful to put a note on the system's database page noting that there are several "location unknown" site listed in the Wiki. Many of them don't even know there is one.
 

RadioDitch

Signals Identification Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
3,074
Location
All over the map.
Listening in tomorrow between 04:00-17:00 should yield information for the New York Roadrunner's/NYC Triathalon. The rental radios should be using this system again.
 

skip39

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
260
Location
Milford, PA
i am hearing an unidentified tg of 230010 on this is system. sounds like some sort of cycling event in the sparrowbush area of orange county ny
 

CqDx

Member
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
1,220
Location
US
Picking up a new site in NYC, Site 37, 471.5875 is the control channel. It has color code 2 and is showing neighboring site 4, 5, 6, 12 and 13, all NYC area sites. It was signal strength 7/10 in Central Brooklyn area.

No traffic has been heard yet.
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,422
Location
BEE00
Yep, that site used to be in the database, but since no one ever identified it, it was removed.

Here are other sites that may exist but haven't been found yet. Only the frequencies that are flagged as control channels are listed, along with the probable Color Code (CC) for each frequency.

Site 1
454.16875 CC 6
454.23125 CC 6
454.44375 CC 4
454.63125 CC 4

Site 36
472.28750 CC 1
454.48125 CC 1

Site 39
454.40000 CC 1
454.60000 CC 1
454.30625 CC 1

Site 47
454.20625 CC 8
454.21875 CC 8

Site 48
454.18125 CC 5
454.64375 CC 5

Site 53
454.30625 CC 5
454.03125 CC 5
454.05625 CC 5

Site 54
454.03125 CC 8
454.05625 CC 8

Site 55
454.04375 CC 8
454.16875 CC 8

Site 71
454.52500 CC 1
454.65000 CC 1

Site 74
454.15000 CC 1
454.57500 CC 1

Site 91
454.36875 CC 5
454.49375 CC 5

Site 93
454.13125 CC 5
454.54375 CC 5
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
I believe the 90s are supposed to be in Maine.

This is another example of why I think the RRDB "unidentified" policy is counterproductive.

If the UNID sites, while known to be on the air, are excluded from the RRDB, then nobody will be downloading them into scanners and they will never get to be identified by any routine user.

Obviously, some of us can and will add the sites to Favorite lists, but if we are not in these sites' coverage areas, that will do no good.
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,422
Location
BEE00
It was the 80s sites that were allegedly in Maine (the 90s are NH/VT as the database indicates). They were removed due to a local verifying that none of those sites were actually broadcasting the 171 NetID.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
That seems logical (removal due to contrary verification). (Dis-verification?) :)

I see a Site 37 was added as "NYC area". The logic of the site numbering makes "northern New Jersey" a more likely location. Further data needed, obviously.
 

pro92b

Mutated Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
1,908
A search of FCC records for frequencies listed for site 37 yielded the following results:

The frequencies 471.5875, 472.8375, 471.7125, and 472.8625 are all licensed at 1 Fairchild Ave., Plainview, NY, Nassau County. 472.625, 478.2875, 471.9125, and 472.2125 are not licensed in Plainview and no location pattern was noted for these frequencies. 462.5375, previously listed for site 37 but removed for lack of confirmed activity, is licensed at Plainview.

I have used a very inefficient antenna (like a paper clip) on a scanner to help locate very close transmitters. Sometimes using no antenna at all works as well. Maybe someone in or near Plainview can try this to confirm the site 37 location.
 

mtindor

OH/WV DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
10,370
Location
Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
I believe the 90s are supposed to be in Maine.

This is another example of why I think the RRDB "unidentified" policy is counterproductive.

If the UNID sites, while known to be on the air, are excluded from the RRDB, then nobody will be downloading them into scanners and they will never get to be identified by any routine user.

Obviously, some of us can and will add the sites to Favorite lists, but if we are not in these sites' coverage areas, that will do no good.

If there are/were UNID sites listed with all of their confirmed frequencies / LCN order, that's a loss. If it was simply a single control channel or one or two freqs on a site, the site would likely never scan properly - especially if somebody didn't figure out LCN order. And somebody using software to program their scanner is much less likely to ever know how to / take the time to figure out all of the details so it could be listed anyway. Sure, the Whistler scanners will take all freqs without LCN info and "trunk" it, but Uniden scanners will not. So unless the site displays accurate information (which includes proper LCN order) then it shouldn't be in the DB.

Instead though [and there is nothing wrong with this], a note should be made on the system's DB page directing people to check the wiki (assuming there is a Wiki page set up). And, then somebody (user or admin) needs to update the wiki with any information that may be useful but which does not fit the criteria for listing in the DB.

Sure, it is a pain in the neck for anyone to program their scanners manually vs using Sentinel / EZ-Scan / etc, but those people who won't take the steps to manually program UNID sites or sites with unconfirmed data from the wiki (again, assuming the data is in the wiki) are likely the same people who wouldn't bother to report factual details about active channels / LCN order if the site was listed in the DB and they could program the site in easily.

Mike
 

u2brent

OAMPT
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
3,070
Location
KRWDPAXKRS1
I apologize ahead of time for my stupidity.

These sites are Not listed in the wiki. (At least I couldn't find them)

36, 39, 48, 71, 74, 91, 92, 93

Is that the extent of what is missing?

What was the System ID found on the now deleted ME sites?
After reading 178 posts, I'm still in the dark.
Were they found to be a new unidentified system, or are they just gone or what?

(80) Portland/Cumberland ME
454.031250 1 Color Code 5
454.343750 2 Color Code 5
454.468750 3 Color Code 5
454.593750 4 Color Code 5

(81) Lewiston/Androscoggin ME
452.775000 1 Color Code Search
451.887500 2 Color Code Search

(82) Falmouth/Cumberland ME
462.150000 1 Color Code Search
464.225000 2 Color Code Search

(83) Lyman/York ME
464.025000 1 Color Code Search
461.725000 2 Color Code Search

(84) Saco/York ME
451.487500 1 Color Code Search
452.287500 2 Color Code Search

(85) Bath/Sagadahoc ME
464.287500 1 Color Code Search
464.012500 2 Color Code Search

Thanks,
:confused:
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,422
Location
BEE00
The Maine sites are part of NetID 149 and already exist in the RRDB under that system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top