Location mapping for towers

[gesucks]

First to make a few things clear so that this does not get locked. I understand the basic concepts, I am civil and have been a member of RR for over 10 years.

Yes there very much is a need for overall maps of tower sites for the Trunked systems.

Example, I don't live in Fort Collins CO, let alone any part of CO, but I am going there to visit. Listing every tower and telling me the town and county it is in does not help me at all to set up my scanner or radio. I now have to click every county, try and figure out where it is, then hunt and find every town where a site is to see if it is close to where I will be.

The OPs post was a great idea. There could be 2 maps you could click on. First, one showing based on FCC data and a second one showing based on RR data. To be able to break it down by county would be even better.

Anyone who has had to program a radio or scanner on a large multisite system from a area other than their home area knows the value of a graphical map representation of the site.

Let try and keep this civil, open and ongoing so that we can improve RR, that applies to users and mods.

Thanks,

Scott

 

[troymail]

Scott - I think that's a great suggestion. I agree that sometimes figuring out which site(s) to load is difficult - particularly when going to an area you are not familiar with.

 

[GTR8000]

I'm not sure why we need to duplicate a thread that was already locked, when everything was already explained clearly. :roll:

Yes there very much is a need for overall maps of tower sites for the Trunked systems

There already is an overall map of trunked systems.

The OPs post was a great idea. There could be 2 maps you could click on. First, one showing based on FCC data and a second one showing based on RR data.

This already exists. Did you read my post here which clearly explains this concept?

http://forums.radioreference.com/da...1040-location-mapping-towers.html#post2008784

To be able to break it down by county would be even better.

As I stated in another post in that locked thread, the structure of the database does not currently allow for the breakdown of statewide/wide-area, multi-county trunked systems by county.

http://forums.radioreference.com/da...1040-location-mapping-towers.html#post2010775

That doesn't mean the idea hasn't already been discussed. It has, I've mentioned the idea to Lindsay a few times going back a few years. What the OP asked about in that locked thread was not a new idea that was never thought of before. It's just not possible at this time due to fundamental limitations of the structure of the database, so there is no point in continuing to ask for it to be implemented.

Let try and keep this civil, open and ongoing so that we can improve RR, that applies to users and mods.

The database administrators are constantly working to improve this site and how the data is cataloged and presented. User feedback and suggestions are certainly appreciated, however please keep in mind that you guys are not privy to the offline discussions we have or the ideas we discuss in our private forum. Just because you're not aware of an idea that has been talked about among us, doesn't mean it has never been thought of before.

 

[troymail]

I think the point of user input is to help determine the kinds of features that users are interested in seeing. Users don't always know what other things have been discussed over various forums (public or private) and time (months or years). If many users are asking for one thing over others, I'd think that would be something that would be considered more strongly than other features getting less requests.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to stir things up -- just offering thoughts and opinion.

Keeping it positive and assuming noble intent, I think we're all just trying to make RadioReference better - either via the information we all collectively provide for the use of others or in feature suggestions that make it easier to find what you are trying to get out of the information as a user.

 

[gesucks]

While we all understood what you posted, it has become clear that the Mods do not understand what the users are saying and looking for.

While the database may not be able to do this now, the purpose of feedback and recommendations is so that when Lindsay invests in improvements for the site, he has a good idea of what users (far more paying users than paying mods) are looking for and can evaluate what would be worth investing in to improve return on both the site and improvements to the community.

1. We do not want a map of trunked systems, we want a map of sites for a system
2. There is no simple way to be on the listing for a system and then click a link and see a graphical map of all site locations in that system. We saw your explanation and it does not meet the needs of the users.
3. We understand it is not currently supported. This thread is the place for users to state that this is a needed function so that Lindsay can evaluate if it is worth making changes. Locking the thread because you do not understand the need or can not do it now does not help that.

Let keep some quality discussion on this so that we can have a free flow of ideas for improvement and get a true reading of what the users say they need.

Scott

 

[GTR8000]

While we all understood what you posted

No, I don't think you do understand what I posted.

it has become clear that the Mods do not understand what the users are saying and looking for.

We understand perfectly well, and you don't need to explain it to us, nor do you need to remind us to be "civil" in a thread. You're starting to come across as trying to antagonize the staff here, so I suggest you tone that down a bit.

While the database may not be able to do this now, the purpose of feedback and recommendations is so that when Lindsay invests in improvements for the site, he has a good idea of what users (far more paying users than paying mods) are looking for and can evaluate what would be worth investing in to improve return on both the site and improvements to the community.

And I will state again: User feedback is always appreciated, but don't for a minute think the mods or admins are not users of this site also. We give Lindsay feedback constantly, not just from an admin standpoint, but from a USER standpoint.

As I've already stated, the idea to present a map of trunked system sites within a county has already been suggested to Lindsay.

1. We do not want a map of trunked systems, we want a map of sites for a system

I'm not sure how many times I need to state the same thing: THIS IS ALREADY IN PLACE.

2. There is no simple way to be on the listing for a system and then click a link and see a graphical map of all site locations in that system. We saw your explanation and it does not meet the needs of the users.

Once again...yes there is. Click on either the FCC Callsigns or RR Locations links in the System Frequencies box at the top of the trunked system page.

3. We understand it is not currently supported. This thread is the place for users to state that this is a needed function so that Lindsay can evaluate if it is worth making changes. Locking the thread because you do not understand the need or can not do it now does not help that.

Again, the idea has already been presented to Lindsay. Stop assuming that we're morons and don't understand what you're asking for. I understand full well what you and the other poster were asking for, and I've explained exactly what is available currently, and what ideas have already been suggested for future implementation.

Let keep some quality discussion on this so that we can have a free flow of ideas for improvement and get a true reading of what the users say they need.

Having a "quality discussion" depends on the users first comprehending the information that is being provided by the admins. That does not seem to be the case here, or with the other thread that was locked.

 

[loumaag]

Okay, so maybe this horse is not dead yet, but it is close.

gesucks:
Assuming you are not falsely stating your location, and I believe you are where you say you are, there are no counties in DC, it being the size of small county by itself I will use your location for examples.

I think that everyone here should realize that trunking systems and conventional systems are different, not only in there makeup but in how they use the spectrum. That said, there is no way (at least no way that has been shown) to adequately allow trunking systems and conventional, or even more than one trunking system, to be described as a single entity in a database. Note I said entity, not data point. This is true even in the scanners that we use today or in the past. A trunking system cannot be successfully combined with another trunking system in the same bank in a "banks & lists" type scanner and it cannot be placed in the same system within a DMA type scanner.

Taking that analogy to our database, within each typical county there are conventional systems and trunking systems, although, we list the trunking systems in each county on the page we cannot adequately describe the TRS on the county page, but we do provide links to all of them; scroll to the bottom of the county page.

Within each TRS, described on the county page (indeed all of them in the DB) there are two links mentioned by me and Chauffeur6 a number of times that show maps of the locations of all the sites by FCC license and RR Location. Those location ones by RR are shown, on large systems, by county lines. Taking one of the largest in your area, the Joint National Capital Region TRS, click on the RR Location link shows that it is spread over a vast area. However, notice the upper left of that map has both navigation and zoom controls. It doesn't take long to zoom into your specific area and depending on where you are you can click on the bubble closest to you to identify the site closest to you. Since I don't know where you live exactly I will just randomly choose the Joint Base Anacostia site for an example. Moving back to the TRS page you look for that site in the line-up and can program it, if you want to make sure it will cover your area, click on the name of the site and look at the map again.

Given the constraints that we have to live with in the structure and what the purpose of the site is, this seems to be the best solution available at the time. We don't dismiss ideas from the membership; however, when someone with a history of forum misbehavior asks a question that is answered, properly I might add, and then cops an attitude, we are not likely to entertain further attempts at disruption or tolerate an attitude. Your past is always your past, and although you can change your future, you must at least show a willingness to do so. I can assure you, your idea and indeed the other topic (now closed) was not ignored nor dismissed, it has been considered in the past and given this explanation I hope you understand that there was more taking place in the other topic than what might be shown on the surface.

 

[gesucks]

@Loumaag. I do live in the DC area but this has more to do with where I do not live. As myself and many others travel to places like IL,CO,NC,SC, VA, OH, WY etc. we run in to issues with the current mapping capabilites of RR.

It would be say to safe that my self and others who are user are RR are well aware of what it currently can do and why it is limited to what it can do now.

Further more, this has nothing to do with what scanners can do now. There are many types of users RR from scanner users, to radio user, to Gov. users.

What this is about is the current abilities are not meeting our needs. We understand why it is what it is now and that this has been mentioned before. What were are staying is we still want something different.

I think this is worth while to leave open to get a gauge of how many people think that way and why.

There is no need to go in to what RR supports now or why it only support that. Nor is there is need to go in to the process mods and admins interface with Lindsay and others to make decsions.

This is just about giving feedback for what we want in the future and why.

No flaming, no issues, just constructive feedback. If there are issues with either my attitude (not trying to put any in the posts) or my understanding of RR ( been here since the Trunkedradio.net days), please bring them to me in private PM, that is where they belong, not in the thread.

 

[SCPD]

I dunno...I travel a lot. It's not difficult to read a map or do a wee bit of research to figure out how to program my radios for a particular site or system. Besides, if one is traveling to a new place, a look at the lay of the land can certainly be helpful for other reasons.

What this is about is the current abilities are not meeting our needs.

Speak for yourself, not the entire user base. What you have is a pet idea that has previously been discussed by the admins. You're coming off as upset that your pet idea isn't being well received.

A more appropriate response from you might be something like "hey, thanks for reading my idea... I realize there are technical limitations...hopefully you guys make something like that happen in the future"

RR admins and mods are a lot of things... dumb isn't one of them.

 

[gesucks]

@triptolemus. That is why i want this to remain open. I do not speak for everyone and the best way to get a true reading of the user base is for feedback like yours.

 

[loumaag]

gesucks:

As you can plainly see, it is still open.

As to what you want, it would appear that everything you mentioned in your OP and the three specific points in Post #5 are already there. So, based on that, what exactly are you looking for that is not already here? Please, be specific with an example so that we may understand what we apparently "not getting".

 

[ecps92]

As a Govt user RR does fine, and I have access to other mapping software and can create my own using Google Earth as needed.

Trunked Systems are complex and one call sign may involve more than one zone, so it's not that simple.

 

[W5BFF]

I know this is an old thread, and somewhat of a sensitive issue (from the "discussions" I've read). I want to apologize, up front, for bringing this up, but I'm hoping I can maybe add a new approach to the subject.

First, let me give a little background. I'm a ham radio operator, volunteer firefighter, and elected official in my county (constable). My hobby in communications bleeds over into my experiences and job descriptions.

I was recently researching some tower sites, and one thing I've found is it's easy to find a frequency for this area, and limited tower information on the net (mostly that there is a tower at a specific location, and who owns it). What I've *NOT* found, easily, is *WHAT* is on any given tower.

The RR frequency database is quit an impressive collection. The RR Wiki is a powerful tool that seems to be WAY underutilized.

Here's my idea: how about creating a Wiki page for each tower? We can discuss tower identification conventions and standardized tower information. Then, each repeater frequency (or other fixed-site) frequency can simply be referenced to the appropriate tower wiki page.

I realize this is a "pet" project. If the idea gets shot down by TPTB, I'm perfectly fine with that... I just wanted to throw out a new angle of looking at this particular issue.

Thanks.

-=Jerry A. Goodson=- W5BFF

 

[mikewazowski]

I was recently researching some tower sites, and one thing I've found is it's easy to find a frequency for this area, and limited tower information on the net (mostly that there is a tower at a specific location, and who owns it). What I've *NOT* found, easily, is *WHAT* is on any given tower.

The RR frequency database is quit an impressive collection. The RR Wiki is a powerful tool that seems to be WAY underutilized.

Here's my idea: how about creating a Wiki page for each tower? We can discuss tower identification conventions and standardized tower information. Then, each repeater frequency (or other fixed-site) frequency can simply be referenced to the appropriate tower wiki page.

-=Jerry A. Goodson=- W5BFF

Jerry, the Wiki is a user editable entity so if you feel that mapping out what exists on a tower is worthwhile, go for it. You don't need the blessing of the Admin staff to start.

If others find it worthwhile, then I'm sure they'll create their own entries.

Perhaps at some point the information in the Wiki can be linked to the main database although I'm not sure how that will benefit the users.

 

[Voyager]

The FCC database includes Tower ID info. So if you know the Tower ID for a tower, you can see what is licensed on it (if it is a site-specific license. Many licenses are not site-specific).

 

[mmckenna]

Might want to give this a try:
NextGen Maps

 

[W5BFF]

Might want to give this a try:
NextGen Maps

AWESOME site!!!! In my searching, I've never come across this one.... but THIS IS IT!

Of course, I have still found NO INFO on these two structures:

33.17147,-94.45764 Cusseta Mountain (abandoned)

33.01584,-94.33696 Linden Sheriff's Office Training Center (active)

I've been told the active tower I posted has Cass County Sheriff and Champion EMS (leased) operating off that tower, but I can't find anything anywhere to confirm that.

 

[QDP2012]

Here's my idea: how about creating a Wiki page for each tower? We can discuss tower identification conventions and standardized tower information. Then, each repeater frequency (or other fixed-site) frequency can simply be referenced to the appropriate tower wiki page.

• I might be misunderstanding your intent, but just to clarify, the Wiki is not where discussions occur; it is where the Wiki community maintains information that does not " fit " into the current database structure. All discussions occur here in the Forums.
  
  If you have a known mountain/building, etc. where a tower or collection of towers is located, and would like to discuss what you know to be true about that tower-site, or would like to ask questions to learn about that tower-site, those discussions would happen here in the Forums. As the discussion here develops into useful knowledge which would be reasonable to put into a Wiki-page, then that certainly could be done. If there is a lot of speculation and not a lot of facts in the discussion, it seems to me that a Wiki page would not (yet) be appropriate.
  
  
• Of course, as a Wiki community member, you can certainly create a page right now about towers, but maybe the easiest first step would be for you to start accumulating your set of information and build the first such page in your "User:W5BFF" area of the Wiki. This way, you can take the time you want to collect data, organize the data, determine what should and should not be included, etc. before putting the data into a "public" Wiki page.
  
  
• Now, on a separate note, if "Travel" information is what you really want, i.e. "what can I monitor along I-95 or US 1, etc.?", then you might want to consider using, or possibly making, Wiki articles in the "Travel Scanning" category, which was created for just this purpose.
  
  
• If you are wanting to be able to search/navigate to a list that would answer a question like "What can I monitor from the intersection of I-64 and I-95?", then I'm not sure that type of search granularity is available right now without using a GPS-coordinates related search of the FCC records. I don't think the RRDB can be searched in that manner.
  
  
• And Thanks for thinking about using and possibly helping to maintain the Wiki. It is community-maintained, and is therefore what we make it, and make of it.

Just my "two cents",

 

[W5BFF]

• I might be misunderstanding your intent, but just to clarify, the Wiki is not where discussions occur; it is where the Wiki community maintains information that does not " fit " into the current database structure. All discussions occur here in the Forums.

ABSOLUTELY! I didn't mean to allude to anything else. Let me expand on the original thought I posted:

Why don't we discuss paradigms and naming conventions HERE for tower information on the Wiki? It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to create a Wiki template for basic standard tower information. For example, what would be the best way to uniquely identify each tower? We can't use FCC IDs because not all towers are assigned one. Lat/Lon is too obscure when searching, and probably shouldn't be in Wiki page titles anyhow. These are the things that probably need to be hammered out before creating the first tower Wiki page... or risk having to go back and do a LOT of re-working to maintain standardization of information.

• If you have a known mountain/building, etc. where a tower or collection of towers is located, and would like to discuss what you know to be true about that tower-site, or would like to ask questions to learn about that tower-site, those discussions would happen here in the Forums. As the discussion here develops into useful knowledge which would be reasonable to put into a Wiki-page, then that certainly could be done. If there is a lot of speculation and not a lot of facts in the discussion, it seems to me that a Wiki page would not (yet) be appropriate.

I agree, whole-heartedly. I have identified a couple of towers in my county that I can't find information on in the FCC database.

• Of course, as a Wiki community member, you can certainly create a page right now about towers, but maybe the easiest first step would be for you to start accumulating your set of information and build the first such page in your "User:W5BFF" area of the Wiki. This way, you can take the time you want to collect data, organize the data, determine what should and should not be included, etc. before putting the data into a "public" Wiki page.

Well, I'm not an "expert" by any stretch, but I do know a LITTLE about Wikis. I have a Wiki sandbox running on a VM on my laptop (WinXP, IIS-PWS, PHP, and SQL5) that runs horribly slow, but works for testing templates and such I've stolen from other Wikis. I had a production Wiki running, at one time, on my co-located webserver, but took it down because I got tired of managing the SPAM (I didn't have user registration/authorization piped through another CMS/Forum like RR).

I created content in the User:W5bff page before I redirected it to Jerry A. Goodson, but the Wiki gods didn't like it and reverted it all back to my user page. :/ I've updated some other wiki pages, as well.

...but thanks for the pointers.

I pulled a random page to see what else was out there, and the page included names. I started putting some names to numbers, and the Wiki gods reverted that, too. That's when I started becoming familiar with the forums. After the names were removed, I found the reason why... then painstakingly went back through my internet history to find the random page I based my information on, and took the names off it. (see: Scurry County (TX) history... and at least I put a comment on *WHY* I made the changes)

• Now, on a separate note, if "Travel" information is what you really want...

Nope! Not that it couldn't be expanded for that purpose, but I'm more of an information junkie. I want to know who's using a frequency, where the repeater is located, what kind of equipment it's running, and what kind of tower it's on... as well as who's in charge of it.

• And Thanks for thinking about using and possibly helping to maintain the Wiki. It is community-maintained, and is therefore what we make it, and make of it.

You're absolutely welcome! I *LOVE* well-maintained wikis!

Thanks for your reply!

 

[QDP2012]

Why don't we discuss paradigms and naming conventions HERE for tower information on the Wiki? It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to create a Wiki template for basic standard tower information. For example, what would be the best way to uniquely identify each tower? We can't use FCC IDs because not all towers are assigned one. Lat/Lon is too obscure when searching, and probably shouldn't be in Wiki page titles anyhow. These are the things that probably need to be hammered out before creating the first tower Wiki page... or risk having to go back and do a LOT of re-working to maintain standardization of information.
...
I want to know who's using a frequency, where the repeater is located, what kind of equipment it's running, and what kind of tower it's on... as well as who's in charge of it.

• Before deciding on a template, maybe the first step would be simply listing all of the "fields" or "names" or "descriptions" of what you want to know, (e.g. Tower Address, Tower Height, Tower GPS Coordinates, Tower Users (agencies/clubs/organizations), Tower Owner, etc.) This can later lead to a more formalized structure/layout that could be used to build a template.
  
  
• From what I've seen so far, templates usually are not created until actual data is known and ready to be loaded into the Wiki. This way, templates are not created "in hopes" of collecting data, and then later actually abandoned for some reason, thus leaving unused/outdated templates for the Wiki-Admin to identify, evaluate, and clean-up, likely by deleting them.
  
  
• In your own "User-page" area, you can create templates "under" your User-name, so that they are not in the regular Template-space, and can work through the process of identifying what template-design works best. You can also have more than one page in your "User-space". I have several in my "User-space" because someone else let me help them with a multi-page project earlier this year. You can keep your "About me"-style page as your primary "User-page" and create a link to a "Tower page" in your user space by adding this link to your primary "User-page":
  

  [[:User:W5bff/TowerProject]]

  Then saving the change, and clicking on the link will let you create the new "TowerProject" page in your user-area, so that you can use it as "page 2" of your sandbox.

I created content in the User:W5bff page before I redirected it to Jerry A. Goodson, but the Wiki gods didn't like it and reverted it all back to my user page. :/ ... I pulled a random page to see what else was out there, and the page included names. I started putting some names to numbers, and the Wiki gods reverted that, too. That's when I started becoming familiar with the forums. After the names were removed, I found the reason why... then painstakingly went back through my internet history to find the random page I based my information on, and took the names off it.

• Yeah, personally identifiable information (P.I.I.) has been a "no-no" here for quite-a-while. Some older Wiki-pages might still have such data in them, but when discovered and reported, the Wiki Admin(s) will clean-up the article, if someone else doesn't clean it up first. Newly-created articles containing P.I.I. tend to get noticed, reported, and adjusted quickly. Thanks for taking the time to go back and review the related policies.
  
  
• Going through your browser's-history to find your Wiki-contributions sounds tedious. An easier way is to check your "Contributions" here by clicking this link: Special:Contributions/W5bff. This way, the list is only about your account's actions in the Wiki, and avoids having to look through all of your other browser-history.

Hope this helps,