• 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

Proposed Changes to CDOT section re: "Highway" channels

Status
Not open for further replies.

natedawg1604

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
1,952
Location
Denver-Metro
After extensive scanning I have identified an apparent error in the layout of the "CDOT" section of DTRS, and I am planning to submit an appropriate update request in the next few days. However, before submitting the official request I wanted to mention it in the forum first to make sure I'm on the right track. If people do not speak up within the next 48 hours I will submit the update described below:

Virtually every TG in the CDOT section is prefaced with the word "Highway". However, I've heard numerous CDOT trucks and dispatchers refer to "the Highway channel" in the singular, and I'm now quite confident that CDOT organizes their radios with one (1) "Highway" channel per maintenance section. As such, I wish to propose an update to the CDOT section which removes the word "Highway" from every TG which ends with a phonetic prefix. To illustrate, here is how Maintenance Section 7 would look with my new proposed format:

8033 CDOT Highway 7 (Alamosa)
8034 CDOT 7 - John
8035 CDOT 7 - Lincoln
8036 CDOT 7 - Paul
8037 CDOT 7 - Tom

My understanding is that Radio Labels are supposed to track the format used by the agency, and in the "CDOT" world it seems fairly clear that they have one (1) "Highway" channel for each of the 9 Maintenance Sections. Does this all sound correct, or am I missing something?
 

greenthumb

Colorado DB Administrator
Database Admin
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
1,933
Good observations and it's good to know someone is actually listening to CDOT! :)

Just so I am clear, what would you propose to change in both the Alpha Tag and Description? Let's continue to use the Alamosa maintenance section you're working with:

For the highway channel, we currently use this combination:
Alpha Tag said:
CDOT Hwy 7
Description said:
Highway 7 (Alamosa)
And for the phonetic channels, we use this combination:
Alpha Tag said:
CDOT Hwy 7 J
Description said:
Highway 7 - John
I've got 12 characters to work with in the Alpha Tag and a lot more in the Description. Let me know what you're thinking...
 

natedawg1604

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
1,952
Location
Denver-Metro
....
Just so I am clear, what would you propose to change in both the Alpha Tag and Description?
We would definitely need to change the Alpha Tag's as well. After reviewing this further it appears we will technically have 10 Highway Channels, because the Pueblo Area has separate East and West Highway Channels. Regardless, my thought was to remove all the references to "Highway" from the Alpha Tag's (except for the 10 Highway Channels), and then add in more characters to properly match the new descriptions. My thought was to leave everything 100% as-is, except for deletion of "Highway" where appropriate in both the Alpha Tags and descriptions. Here's what the new Alpha tag's would look like for Section 7:

8033, CDOT Hwy 7
8034, CDOT 7 John
8035, CDOT 7 L
8036, CDOT 7 Paul
8037, CDOT 7 Tom

-Nate
 

greenthumb

Colorado DB Administrator
Database Admin
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
1,933
I have edited all of the alpha tags to go with this, but I feel like I need something in front of the number in the description, otherwise it feels like it's hanging out there all on it's own. Would it be accurate to go from this:

Highway 1 - John

to this:

Section 1 - John

Or would that screw up the highway channels then at the top of the hierarchy? Would it then make more sense to do:

Section 1 (Greeley) - Highway
Section 1 - John
...and so on...
 

natedawg1604

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
1,952
Location
Denver-Metro
I have edited all of the alpha tags to go with this, but I feel like I need something in front of the number in the description, otherwise it feels like it's hanging out there all on it's own. Would it be accurate to go from this:

Highway 1 - John

to this:

Section 1 - John

Or would that screw up the highway channels then at the top of the hierarchy? Would it then make more sense to do:

Section 1 (Greeley) - Highway
Section 1 - John
...and so on...
Yes, I think that would work great. Thanks for all the hard work!
 

greenthumb

Colorado DB Administrator
Database Admin
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
1,933
:) Thanks! And thank you for the updates and suggestions!

Just to confirm, is this the way that makes sense:

Section 1 (Greeley) - Highway
Section 1 - John

I'll wait for a few days to see if anyone else has input before making the changes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top