Suggestion: Put these in the Amateur Radio section

[ka3jjz]

Why are we listing entities like the one below in the trunked radio systems area of the database?

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9912
.
These really aren't trunked in the normal sense - they're networked repeaters and that's not the same thing. And while we do perform public service duties when needed, that's not what these repeaters are often used for

I think they should be in the amateur radio database under their own section; i.e. DMR Networked Repeaters. The same should be done for P25 amateur radio repeaters for precisely the same reason.

How about it, fellow hams who are DBAs? Mike

 

[troymail]

Why are we listing entities like the one below in the trunked radio systems area of the database?

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9912
.
These really aren't trunked in the normal sense - they're networked repeaters and that's not the same thing. And while we do perform public service duties when needed, that's not what these repeaters are often used for

I think they should be in the amateur radio database under their own section; i.e. DMR Networked Repeaters. The same should be done for P25 amateur radio repeaters for precisely the same reason.

How about it, fellow hams who are DBAs? Mike

Would this not not mess up libraries like for Whistler and Uniden?

And then there are systems like this:
https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9779

See: https://forums.radioreference.com/d...378-curious-about-new-trunk-system-types.html

Same, same?

 

[kma371]

Well when you click on the amateur tab for NY, it is listed correctly at the bottom under "all amateur trunked systems" so looks right to me.

Also shows as "System Type: DMR Conventional Networked" not as a "trunked" system.

I think Tom had a post about this as well to display network systems like this.

 

[ka3jjz]

There's a couple of problems with your assertion; first, the example you give is not a ham related system. Next, many, though not all, of the systems in the thread you mention are ham systems that are linked from the county page where they reside - that's fine, but what about having them on a page like this one (see the bottom);

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?stid=36&tab=ham

I see the systems linked at the very bottom of the page as 'trunked' - they really aren't (and they are labeled correctly as 'DMR Conventional Networked'). They're networked and yes, I agree that networking is a part of trunking, but there's more to it than that. That's an obvious conflict of terminology here. To me, it's far and away more accurate to say (for the above example) 'Amateur Radio DMR Networks in New York'

One concern is that we have such systems linked on both pages - both in the regular public safety trunk systems listing, See the Brandmeister system listed here...

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?stid=36&tab=trs

You could be right that if this isn't done, then the downloads for Whistler and Uniden would be incomplete. I have no scanner that requires that right now, so I don't know this for sure. I just don't think it's accurate to think of them as 'trunked'.

While it's a different mode, what about P25 conventional frequencies? They too can have 'talkgroups' but aren't considered 'trunked'. Or is DMR being considered as 'trunking' within this description (ham radio)?

Mike

 

[DaveNF2G]

I agree with Mike. DMR-MARC, Brandmeister, et al, are not trunked systems and each participating linked ("networked") repeater is standalone conventional.

 

[ka3jjz]

I have a feeling that Troy and kma are likely right; they've been 'shoe horned' into the trunked areas to make sure the Uniden and Whistler downloads have them. If they don't include the amateur radio tab for each state in the downloads, they won't. That's a pretty ugly design oversight in my book

Mike

 

[UPMan]

Also, that one system mentioned in the OP would translate into 260 individual conventional entries. Pretty inefficient both for the dB and for scanners that utilize the dB.

 

[wa8pyr]

I have a feeling that Troy and kma are likely right; they've been 'shoe horned' into the trunked areas to make sure the Uniden and Whistler downloads have them. If they don't include the amateur radio tab for each state in the downloads, they won't. That's a pretty ugly design oversight in my book.

No design oversight; the scanners pull the frequencies whether they're listed as Ham or not.

Where these things show up is dependent upon the System and Function tags. If it's Amateur Radio or Ham, a conventional frequency or trunked system shows up in the Amateur Radio section; if not, it's in the normal section. If the ham DMR frequencies are listed as conventional, their function tag still gets set to "Ham" and would still show up on the Ham Radio frequency page for a given county.

Also, that one system mentioned in the OP would translate into 260 individual conventional entries. Pretty inefficient both for the dB and for scanners that utilize the dB.

This is the primary reason we have them listed as "trunked." Scanning several dozen individual channels (all identical except for the talkgroup code) slows down scanning dramatically.

The secondary reason is for neatness and readability in the database; a listing of several dozen entries, all identical except for the talkgroup, is very wasteful of space in the database and pretty hard to read, too.

If the Single Frequency P25 setting in scanners works the same way as DMR Conventional Networked, we should certainly change those entries as well.

I suppose we could tinker around to figure out a way to describe these without using the word "trunked" but this was the easiest way to do it within the existing structure of the database, without making serious changes to the back end.

My biggest gripe about the ham DMR systems is the rather lackadaisical coordination between the various networks. DMR-MARC hates Brandmeister, the feeling is reciprocated, K4USD seems to be stuck in the middle somewhere, no one really cooperates for the greater good, and in the end you have the World Wide English talkgroup using Talkgroup 2 and Slot 1 on some repeaters, Talkgroup 2 and Slot 2 on others, and some other talkgroup/slot combination on still other repeaters. Throw in the fact that a dozen repeaters in the same city can all be broadcasting the same talkgroup at the same time (astonishing waste of spectrum especially in an emergency), and you've got a recipe for confusion. Dang things ought to coordinated by the state coordinating bodies just like frequencies; sure would make keeping the database neat and clean easier. . .

 

[AK9R]

Dang things ought to coordinated by the state coordinating bodies just like frequencies; sure would make keeping the database neat and clean easier. . .

Speaking as a amateur radio repeater coordinator, my answer is "no". Our role is to make recommendations for repeater coordinations that will result in minimal interference between coordinated systems. I do not believe that our role includes determining which talkgroups are carried on which repeaters using which timeslots.

 

[ka3jjz]

Tom, I think both you and Paul are talking about db entries like this one...

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=9912

Yes I can agree that having to maintain 200+ entries for this one page would be a logistical nightmare.

However my questions have to do with this - why are amateur radio networks (which are not trunked) listed on the state's trunked system page..i.e.

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?stid=36&tab=trs

when they (properly) have a home on the amateur radio page - and why are they listed as 'Trunked' when the individual entries are listed as 'DMR Conventional Networked'? See the bottom of...

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?stid=36&tab=ham

It's both a bit misleading and not accurate (how can you describe a conventional repeater like this as trunked??). Surely the title of that section on the amateur radio page could be made more precise without a whole lot of hassle? And having conventional networks (which as I understand it, these systems really are) mixed in with the (truly) trunked radio listings is equally misleading.

??? Mike

 

[DaveNF2G]

Why not continue to list amateur repeaters as conventional, which they all are, and analog or digital by whichever protocol is in use, then put the talkgroups for the various networks on a prominently linked Wiki page?

 

[ka3jjz]

One issue with that, Dave, is that the wiki isn't the RRDB- it can't be downloaded from like the database can. You could use the 'paste special' function found in BuTel programs and a utility in FreeScan that can also grab data from a page, but not every program has that capability (I'm pretty sure - I could be wrong - that neither EZ Scan nor Sentinel has such a function)

And not having the tgs in the database means that the Uniden and Whistler downloads for those scanners that use SD cards won't have them, either Mike

 

[ka3jjz]

Thinking about the title in the Amateur Radio page for a bit made me realize that my suggestion was too narrow; DMR is not the only networked mode ham repeaters have available to them. Although there aren't nearly as many, you could have D-Star, Fusion, P25 - all of which can be networked. So in the case of my home state (Maryland), instead of saying 'All Amateur Radio Trunked Radio Systems in Maryland' if you had 'All Amateur Radio Networked Systems in Maryland', and move all the impacted systems here, you now have this title and its usage fixed. And it allows for future growth as more newer types of networked ham repeaters come on line

Mike

 

[wa8pyr]

Thinking about the title in the Amateur Radio page for a bit made me realize that my suggestion was too narrow; DMR is not the only networked mode ham repeaters have available to them. Although there aren't nearly as many, you could have D-Star, Fusion, P25 - all of which can be networked. So in the case of my home state (Maryland), instead of saying 'All Amateur Radio Trunked Radio Systems in Maryland' if you had 'All Amateur Radio Networked Systems in Maryland', and move all the impacted systems here, you now have this title and its usage fixed. And it allows for future growth as more newer types of networked ham repeaters come on line

What you're asking for requires work at the back end of the database, not just a display change, and since the scanners (from both manufacturers) look at these as trunked systems, there can be no changes in system type.

In addition, when you say "networked systems" things like IRLP and Allstar come to mind; there are several systems around the country which have various conventional repeaters networked using ROIP methods or RF links, but they are networks and call themselves such; the "Ham Radio Networked Systems" tab would seem a logical place to look for those.

I'll bring this to Lindsay's attention, but don't be too surprised if nothing comes of it.

 

[ka3jjz]

OK Thanks. I assume that having the amateur radio repeaters mixed in with the trunk systems on the Trunked Systems Tab is for the same reason; Uniden and Whistler both consider these as 'trunked' systems even though they clearly aren't. It surprises me that this is the way they think...but that's how they do it, I guess...Mike

 

[wa8pyr]

OK Thanks. I assume that having the amateur radio repeaters mixed in with the trunk systems on the Trunked Systems Tab is for the same reason; Uniden and Whistler both consider these as 'trunked' systems even though they clearly aren't. It surprises me that this is the way they think...but that's how they do it, I guess...Mike

Kind of a gray area, actually. The use of talkgroups on these systems (and depending on the manufacturer, ability for talkgroups to hop time slots) puts them right on the edge. They're not completely conventional, but they're not completely trunked, either.

 

[DaveNF2G]

These repeaters are not trunked at all. They do not fit the definition of trunking regardless of talk paths on a frequency or networking at the back end. The individual user is on one repeater at all times, unless they choose to switch to another one.

Ham repeaters should be listed as what they are - conventional analog or digital repeaters, using various protocols and, in some case, having multiple talkgroups available. In terms of scanning, the networking is irrelevant. It's like P25IP - the P25 matters to the scanner, the IP does not, so we don't list them as separate types.

 

[ecps92]

After reading the different comments/thoughts....

Just ...to muddle this a little more, if you go the Talk-Group route, that it fits the TRS then as folks begin to submit TG's for Federal Agencies, we would have to do this too, yet the Freq's are Conventional just supporting different TG's not a TRS

Kind of a gray area, actually. The use of talkgroups on these systems (and depending on the manufacturer, ability for talkgroups to hop time slots) puts them right on the edge. They're not completely conventional, but they're not completely trunked, either.

 

[wa8pyr]

These repeaters are not trunked at all. They do not fit the definition of trunking regardless of talk paths on a frequency or networking at the back end. The individual user is on one repeater at all times, unless they choose to switch to another one.

Ham repeaters should be listed as what they are - conventional analog or digital repeaters, using various protocols and, in some case, having multiple talkgroups available. In terms of scanning, the networking is irrelevant. It's like P25IP - the P25 matters to the scanner, the IP does not, so we don't list them as separate types.

We're not really concerned with the literal definition. What we're concerned with is how the scanners use these frequencies, and if the scanners consider DMR Conventional Networked to be a flavor of trunking, so do we.

If you choose to enter several dozen separate conventional frequencies in your scanner (each identical to the others except for the talkgroup code) that's up to you, but unless something changes as far as the scanners are concerned, it's a flavor of trunking and that's all there is to it.

 

[DaveNF2G]

There are not "several dozen" ham repeaters on the same networks in the same geographical vicinity anywhere (except maybe NYC and SoCal).