Years ago I was interested in scanning and had a conventional scanner. When most of the agencies moved to trunked systems, I put the hobby aside. Recently, my interest has been renewed and I bought a trunking scanner (Uniden BC346XT) and have enjoyed rediscovering what is available.
The signals I pick up the most clearly from home are from the Motorola Type II Smartnet site at BYU (system ID 062B
), so it seems an obvious place to focus some of my attention. I understand from the RR database, as well as from listening, that this system has talkgroups for several agencies in Utah County as well as BYU, although from my listening so far it seems that by far the greatest amount of traffic on the system is from BYU and most of the other agencies that have a presence on the system also use (and probably primarily use) UCAN.
I have been using ProScan to monitor the traffic at the BYU site and have found several talkgroups that are not in the RR database. The last update to the RR database for this system was about a year and a half ago, so I think I could assist with some updates.
Being new to this, I'm not sure the best way to go about it. I thought I'd monitor the communication on the unknown talkgroups for two or three weeks, making sure to note the primary use of the talkgroup, whether the use changes from day to night or on the weekend, and making sure that the volume of traffic on the talkgroup is high enough and consistent enough over those two or three weeks to warrant an entry in the database. Does that sound like a good approach? After that, maybe I could spend some time monitoring the talkgroups that are already in the database to make sure they are still active and their primary use has not changed.
When I have collected my findings, I assume that best practice would be to present my findings to this forum for review before making a submission to RR. I've read the sticky called Posting Unknown Talkgroups
which suggests posting each talkgroup in its own thread for discussion and review. I wasn't sure whether that would apply to any trunked system in Utah, or just to UCAN, but I'd be happy to either do it that way, or consolidate my findings into a single thread--whichever the group thinks would be more manageable.
Please let me know if it would be useful or not to pursue this, and give me feedback about my suggested approach. Thanks in advance.