Bureau of Land Management Nationwide Administrative Unit Map

[Paysonscanner]

Very helpful articles and postings. I am not entirely sure my source of information is indeed valid, as I get the impression that he thinks all federal land is BLM land and that is not the case, it seems. He made the comment to me a while ago, 'well, if it's federal land then you're dealing with the Bureau of Land Management'. I don't know at this point, but I do know that the real estate agent told us it was federally protected land and it would not be sold anytime soon, so that is good enough for me. Ten years from now I don't want to be looking at bulldozers and casinos and hotels.

I did relate to you not to trust real estate agent information. What I see on the map is normal BLM land without any special designation. As I related it could be conveyed to a public entity or exchanged to a developer or a well to do person that could buy private land somewhere else in order the get title to the land near the Elk Refuge and you. The BLM would not consider converying land to the state fish and game agency if the land had a special designation. I predicted that real estate people tend to give out lousy information and it looks like I might be right.

Is your friend who thinks all federal land is under the jurisdiction of the BLM from Ohio or Wyoming? People in the east are not to well informed about federal land as there isn't much of it located back there.

I'm not trying to burst your bubble. I'm trying to give you information as relayed from my dad. You conclusion that constructrion won't ever occur on the BLM land next to you does not seem to be supported given the data my dad looked at. Then again a land exchange or a conveyence is quite possible given the BLM has expressed an interest to give it away.

 

[TailGator911]

Hmmm, that is interesting. No, my friend is from Florida and has lived in Jackson Hole for about 20 yrs. He is not a real estate agent but knows several, and considers himself well-read when it comes to investing. He has never steered me wrong. You obviously know a lot about BLM policy and laws, I will let him read this post next time we talk. Good information, thanks!

 

[zerg901]

DaveNF2G wrote earlier in this thread -
As a matter of fact, the version of the RRDB that is downloaded by Uniden Sentinel has federal and statewide frequencies listed under every county.

----------------------------

That is interesting. Apparently the 'downloaded RRDB' is different than the 'online RRDB'. I assume that the state and federal channels are assigned to a 'county grouping' based on the longs/lats of the transmitter. If not, then someone did a heck of a lot of work to assign the federal and state channels to the appropriate 'county groupings'.

So what does that tell us about how the larger agencies should be listed? Lets think about that.

...........

Maybe the best way forward is -

1. Make sure that state and federal channels are accurately tied to the appropriate counties in the downloadable RRDB.

2. Add info in the Wiki that explains the various dispatch centers / districts / field offices / bureaus etc - and presents a more holistic view of various agencies.

 

[Paysonscanner]

DaveNF2G wrote earlier in this thread -
As a matter of fact, the version of the RRDB that is downloaded by Uniden Sentinel has federal and statewide frequencies listed under every county.

----------------------------

That is interesting. Apparently the 'downloaded RRDB' is different than the 'online RRDB'. I assume that the state and federal channels are assigned to a 'county grouping' based on the longs/lats of the transmitter. If not, then someone did a heck of a lot of work to assign the federal and state channels to the appropriate 'county groupings'.

So what does that tell us about how the larger agencies should be listed? Lets think about that.

...........

Maybe the best way forward is -

1. Make sure that state and federal channels are accurately tied to the appropriate counties in the downloadable RRDB.

2. Add info in the Wiki that explains the various dispatch centers / districts / field offices / bureaus etc - and presents a more holistic view of various agencies.

Often times my husband and I wanted to listen to federal agencies only while taking road trips in the west. Sometimes we would listen to fire departments along with that. IMHO I think we should be able to look for state agencies, federal agencies, county agencies in different places. Where I live, due to terrain and some great repeater locations I can hear things from more than just Gila County, AZ. I have a list for just federal and state agencies like the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, BLM, AZ Game & Fish - Forestry - State Parks along with local fire departments. At home Mom, Dad and I may listen to this only for days. We have another list (that's what GRE calls them-they used to be called "banks") that is just AZ DPS (highway patrol) and AZ DOT that we listen to when weather causes problems on highways or tourists cause heavy traffic. We have a couple of other lists for what we can hear from the Valley (greater Phoenix metro) and one for a county south of there. We also have lists for just the highways in the state, both DPS and DOT only, one each for Northern AZ and one for Southern AZ we use when traveling. I know in some places that we can hear federal and state agencies in several other counties, for example if we're in the Flagstaff, AZ area I know I will be able to hear the Coconino, Prescott, Kaibab National Forests and sometimes, parts of the Apache-Sitgreaves and Tonto National Forests, so I have a Northern Arizona file where all the land/natural resource management agencies (NPS-BLM-G&F) are loaded. Since the Prescott, Tonto and Apache-Stitgeaves National Forests are each in different sets of counties a county program would not include them. But, I would have freqs. for Grand Canyon NP, which can only be heard in the northern part of Coconino Co. and not hear everything I can in the southern part of this county. County lines can be very arbitrary and not follow topography and the coverage area of repeaters, etc.

Having everything listed county by county is like looking through binoculars, you can see something very well, but you miss the big picture. You might have a great view of a helicopter making a bucket drop on a fire, but fail to see that the fire is blowing up and crossed the ridge 90 degrees from your view of that helo. You miss what state agency district, region (subdivision of organization), dispatch area or similar you are in. We somtimes hear traffic on state agency freqs. from other places in that subdivision. I want to see how an agency is administered, the subdivisions of it and how that relates to the freqs. assigned to them. I then want to be able to load them based on that basis. The wiki seems nice for looking up callsigns or identifiers, maps, the mission and history of an agency, but you can't load frequencies from there.

Late hubby and I borrowed someone's scanner that used GPS to program it on a road trip through Southern Oregon/Northern CA once. We wanted to listen to the multiple national forests and parks, OR State Forestry, Cal Fire, but couldn't follow those because we had endless traffic of local/county PD's/SO's running plates/licenses, dog catchers, sewer plants and what have you. As well, based on previous experience, we knew we could hear the Klamath NF long before reaching Siskiyou County, while we were in Shasta County. We also knew that we could hear Oregon traffic quite a ways south of the stateline. We decided we didn't want the GPS feature. Not only that but the RR DB is full of hard to understand channel labels, such as NCnty SOAG or other specious information that causes confusion, not enlightenment. What gets me that even when you look SOAG on the DB or wiki page you may not find out what SOAG stands for.

The RR DB is already structured by government level, I can't think of a reason to change it.

Sorry this is long, I don't know how else to relate it. Besides,you know that gals are more verbal than guys!

 

[DaveNF2G]

One problem faced by anyone who wants to make a "universal" database about radio information is that almost none of the information is truly universal. Terminology can vary within a single state, let alone an entire country. Radio shops will configure local systems in various ways. Then there are the differences of opinion as to communication type classifications.

For example, I think that all channels related to aircraft operations should be labeled Aircraft. In the DB, the ramp frequencies at airports are labeled Business. I find this unhelpful when using Service Type to restrict reception. There is also the TAC vs Talk issue. And the naming of transmitter sites - local system users refer to geographical features and buildings, while the DB uses the town in the mailing address. Etc....

 

[Paysonscanner]

Just one more thing! The wiki is hard to navigate.

 

[Paysonscanner]

One problem faced by anyone who wants to make a "universal" database about radio information is that almost none of the information is truly universal. Terminology can vary within a single state, let alone an entire country. Radio shops will configure local systems in various ways. Then there are the differences of opinion as to communication type classifications.

For example, I think that all channels related to aircraft operations should be labeled Aircraft. In the DB, the ramp frequencies at airports are labeled Business. I find this unhelpful when using Service Type to restrict reception. There is also the TAC vs Talk issue. And the naming of transmitter sites - local system users refer to geographical features and buildings, while the DB uses the town in the mailing address. Etc....

Mentioning the aviation thing is great. I've lived in rural areas/small towns since college. Small airports have their CTAF, flight service stations (great listening there) and AWOS/ASOS if the field has enough traffic, but then there are licenses for Aviation Spectrum Resources (other similar companies too), Fed Ex, the fixed base operator and the puddle jumper airline (FM and AM) licensed at that same airport. Sometimes the flight service stations or companies like Aviation Spectrum that have remote bases on a high mountain in other counties that cover the airport closest to you. You really have to peck around to find everything you want for an airport.

 

[zerg901]

I just checked out the pdf and csv downloads for Middlesex County Mass that is located here - Middlesex County, Massachusetts (MA) CSV and PDF Downloads

Both the csv and pdf seem to have exactly the same info. Both had the VA Hospital in Bedford, the Hanscom AFB TRS, and 1 Lowell Natl Park freq. However - there were no listings for FBI, DEA, Army Corps of Engineers, Minuteman Natl Park, FEMA bunker in Stow,, DOT in Cambridge, Lincoln Lab in Lexington, nor any of the Hanscom AFB conventional VHF highband channels.

I am pretty sure that some of those federal channels can be found elsewhere in the RRDB.

I will repeat what I said earlier. Maybe the best way forward is -

1. Make sure that state and federal channels are accurately tied to the appropriate counties in the downloadable RRDB.

2. Add info in the Wiki that explains the various dispatch centers / districts / field offices / bureaus etc - and presents a more holistic view of various agencies.

PS - paysonscanner, I think that we are talking past each other. Or perhaps we are highlighting slightly different aspects of perceived problems with the RRDB.

PPS - DaveNF2G - when you do the Sentinel download, do you get any FBI or DEA channels? Do you get different federal channels than appear in the online RRDB for a particular county?

 

[Paysonscanner]

I just checked out the pdf and csv downloads for Middlesex County Mass that is located here - Middlesex County, Massachusetts (MA) CSV and PDF Downloads

Both the csv and pdf seem to have exactly the same info. Both had the VA Hospital in Bedford, the Hanscom AFB TRS, and 1 Lowell Natl Park freq. However - there were no listings for FBI, DEA, Army Corps of Engineers, Minuteman Natl Park, FEMA bunker in Stow,, DOT in Cambridge, Lincoln Lab in Lexington, nor any of the Hanscom AFB conventional VHF highband channels.

I am pretty sure that some of those federal channels can be found elsewhere in the RRDB.

I will repeat what I said earlier. Maybe the best way forward is -

1. Make sure that state and federal channels are accurately tied to the appropriate counties in the downloadable RRDB.

2. Add info in the Wiki that explains the various dispatch centers / districts / field offices / bureaus etc - and presents a more holistic view of various agencies.

PS - paysonscanner, I think that we are talking past each other. Or perhaps we are highlighting slightly different aspects of perceived problems with the RRDB.

PPS - DaveNF2G - when you do the Sentinel download, do you get any FBI or DEA channels? Do you get different federal channels than appear in the online RRDB for a particular county?

Maybe we are talking past each other. I just want to emphasize that frequencies in the database need to reflect the agency's organization, otherwise how does one know which frequencies to pick? If you are traveling in Northern Arizona, you likely want to hear DPS (the highway patrol) and you really don't care about what counties you are in when doing so. You care about what DPS district you are in. Here is a map of the DPS districts my dad found on a Google search many years ago. He can't remember where he got it. It's probably not current.



If someone can read the map and know what highway they're on they don't need to know the counties. The Kingman District covers most of northern Coconino County, why waste space and time listing the Kingman District in both Coconino County and Mohave County? Other districts like Yuma cover La Paz, Yuma and portions of Maricopa and Pima Counties. Are you saying that AZ DPS should be shown in each county and not have a statewide list? It would seem so as you seem to state that federal agencies should not have their own pages as they should be listed in the county, the county driving the entire database.

Take a look at the California Highway Patrol database page. It is listed first by Division, then by dispatch center then by area office. This is the way the agency is organized. It's important to show how the agency's radio system is organized as Divisions have a set of common frequencies for tacs, division wide coverage for pursuits crossing multiple area office boundaries (district blue channel) and for extenders used by officers while working inside offices as well as the agency's UHF frequencies. UHF is used by the dignitary protection and state facilites security entities of the CHP. If the agency's organization was disregarded and put in the wiki pages, if the dispatch center's were not listed except in wiki, then how would you list the agency? Close the state agency pages and put the frequencies in each county?



It would be very confusing if the CHP was buried in each county page. A big picture of the agency is lost because a user would have to go to the wiki pages to get that holistic view of the agency. The existing CHP page gives us the holistic view of the agency-division-field office-dispatch center relationship that drives how frequencies are assigned. Should users be forced to look at individual county DB listings and have a browser tab open showing that wiki page "holistic view" of the agency and be forced to switch between tabs? Should they hunt and peck through the county pages one at a time trying to figure out the communications system for the entire agency? How will a person know the counties in a division, region, district, area office, platoon or however an agency is subdivided unless they see the whole agecny first, then the various subdivisions of the agency? Are they supposed to figure that out from the bottom up (the county) instead of the logical way of from the top down.

I don't know if I'm talking past you on this. I tried to show my understanding of what you have said and apply that same logic to existing listings. The database would change a lot if what I think you are saying is applied throughout.

Now a word from my dad, who wants to stick to the origninal topic of this thread, the BLM organization. Remember that topic? National Forests and BLM districts don't always follow county lines. Individual ranger districts can be located in many counties, let alone an entire national forest. The database page lists national forest in a state and if each ranger district or a group of ranger districts on a forest have a different forest net, the listing shows that. A BLM district is similar to a national forest and a field office is similar to a ranger district in the administrative organization of the BLM. The ranger districts aren't listed by themselves without grouping them under a national forest, so why leave out the district when listing field offices of the BLM. Sometimes the multiple BLM field offiices in a district have one district net to share, sometimes each has a net and sometimes 2 or 3 nets are used for a district having more than 2 or 3 field offices, just like national forests and ranger districts. Here is the comparison of the two agencies

U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bureau of Land Management

Chief - Washington Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .Director - Washington Office
Regional Foresters - 9 Regional Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Directors - 12 State Offices
Forest Supervisors - about 110-120 Forest Supervisor's Offices* . . . . . . . .District Managers - 49 Districts**
District Rangers - about 500 of these . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Field Office Managers - 134***
Work Stations/Fire Stations - Lots of these . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Field Stations - just a few/Fire Stations -a few dozen

* There are 155 National Forests, but many have been combined administratively to save money. There are 20 "National Grasslands," which can be administered by a ranger district, be a ranger district by itself or as in the case of the Dakota Prairie National Grasslands, is grouped under a grassland supervisor instead of a forest supervisor.
** 48 are districts, one national monument (Grand Staircase-Escalante) is at the district manager level, reporting to the State Director
** This number includes national monuments (4 different fed agencies manage these not just NPS) and national conservation areas, which are headed by a manager that reports directly to the district manager. Some of these are smaller and are managed by field offices.

If the database used the same logic for both of these agencies, the Forest Service would have 500 ranger districts listed with no reference to the national forest they belong to. This would be inaccurate as national forest nets and dispatching are designed to cover a national forest or national forests combined under one Forest Supervisor. The same applies to the BLM whose nets and dispatching are designed to cover a district. But the RR DB doesn't use the same logic for the BLM, it leaves out the districts like they don't exist. Sometimes 3 field offices will have the same net frequency and repeaters can be shared between field offices, but frequencies and repeaters are duplicated by showing them under each of the field offices.

Wew! Dad worked on his part all day using Word, like he usually does. I'm up super early this a.m. cause I can't sleep so I posted all of this.

 

[Paysonscanner]

I'm not going to work on a post in the middle of the night again, I made a number of mistakes. First, the third note with asterisks should have had 3 of them, I only show two twice Second, at the lower end of the Forest Service level I should have typed "Work Centers" instead of "Work Stations." Third, I don't know if there are 500 ranger districts anymore. Lots of national forests now have only 2 or 3 ranger districts where they might have had 4-6 districts just 10-15 years ago.. I would say that the number is likely 350-450. Someday I'm going to count the number of Forest Supervisors and ranger districts. Another term is used by both agencies, "Guard Station." Long ago, when ranger districts were small, about the size where a person could ride a horse across it in a single day, the district ranger was often the only employee on a district. Sometimes his wife would be a paid clerk and a person to greet the public at the station. If a district was a little bit bigger or had a higher workload in some resource like grazing or timber a "guard station" would be built some distance from the ranger station. A lot of districts had one of more lookouts. Some had fire workloads that required several firefighters for 5-6 months of the year. Rangers had to have forestry degrees, but forest guards were forestry technicians who had less formal education. Some of the guard stations evolved into fire stations, but are still called guard stations. Some evolved into visitor centers or public contact stations. The BLM uses the term in some locations, notably in eastern Oregon (Vale and Burns Districts). I don't think the BLM had people with a job title of "guard" so why they use it is unknown.

For many years the Forest Service employed mostly foresters ,those who have an accredited Bachelor of Forestry degree (4 years). The BLM employed a lot of range conservationists given that grazing dominated the agency. Range conservationists have a 4 year degree in range management. The BLM was created in 1946 when the General Land Office and the Grazing Service were merged, so there were a lot of range conservationists in that agency. The GLO was in charge of managing many things in the fed govt including having the ultimate authority over land surveys, no matter the federal agency involved. The BLM retains that old GLO authority. Dad became a seasonal surveyor's aid (USFS) right out of college in 1949. As a civil engineer for the USFS he eventually supervised FS surveyors, which included a fair amount of dealing with the BLM. Currently both agencies still employ a lot of foresters/range conservationists, but there are archaeologists, wildlife biologists, fish biologists, recreation managers, botanists, soil scientists, fire ecologists, etc. Fire management is far more professional now, with employees managing fire and fuels year round in the NPS, USFS, BLM, USFWS and BIA. Large military bases have similar fire and natural resource programs and personnel.

Thank you Dad! Maybe someone is actually interested in these facts, but a lot skip over long posts.

 

[zerg901]

Does anyone know how the listings in the RRDB are anchored? I assume each entry in the RRDB is linked to some long/lat. But how are the long/lats linked to zip codes and counties?

-----------------------------

Lets take a quick look at Los Angeles County and see which federal channels are listed.

At All Identified Frequencies in Los Angeles County, California (CA) - there are a bunch of federal channels listed but Angeles Natl Forest is not listed. Nor is Civil Air Patrol, FBI, or DEA.

172.337500

167.35000

Fire Tectical

Pasadena

Fire-Tac

2019:07:21

That must be for the Jet Propulsion Lab FD.

Thats odd. 172.3375 is not listed at Los Angeles County, California (CA) Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference (the Los Angeles County page of the RRDB).

Edit - I found it - Los Angeles County - Federal Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference - there is a different federal page for Los Angeles County. But it does not have the CAP freqs which are listed under the Statewide page (sorta) - I assume that the Santiago Peak repeater covers part of Los Angeles County.

----------------------------------

Bottom line - it seems that the RRDB will need lots more work if one expects to hear the closest local AND federal channels by just entering a zip code or county into a scanner. One would need to plot the lats and longs for each federal transmit site. In the rural areas, that can be quite the challenge I imagine. But the clues are out there. Many of the frequency guides include maps with repeater locations. But they dont typically list the lats/longs for each transmit site.

 

[Paysonscanner]

Does anyone know how the listings in the RRDB are anchored? I assume each entry in the RRDB is linked to some long/lat. But how are the long/lats linked to zip codes and counties?

-----------------------------

Lets take a quick look at Los Angeles County and see which federal channels are listed.

At All Identified Frequencies in Los Angeles County, California (CA) - there are a bunch of federal channels listed but Angeles Natl Forest is not listed. Nor is Civil Air Patrol, FBI, or DEA.

172.337500

167.35000

Fire Tectical

Pasadena

Fire-Tac

2019:07:21

That must be for the Jet Propulsion Lab FD.

Thats odd. 172.3375 is not listed at Los Angeles County, California (CA) Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference (the Los Angeles County page of the RRDB).

Edit - I found it - Los Angeles County - Federal Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference - there is a different federal page for Los Angeles County. But it does not have the CAP freqs which are listed under the Statewide page (sorta) - I assume that the Santiago Peak repeater covers part of Los Angeles County.

----------------------------------

Bottom line - it seems that the RRDB will need lots more work if one expects to hear the closest local AND federal channels by just entering a zip code or county into a scanner. One would need to plot the lats and longs for each federal transmit site. In the rural areas, that can be quite the challenge I imagine. But the clues are out there. Many of the frequency guides include maps with repeater locations. But they dont typically list the lats/longs for each transmit site.

Good observations zerg! My late husband would try to figure out where certain repeaters for the NPS, USFS, BLM, USFWS, CDF, CA State Parks and CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife were located. He would get on Google Earth to locate them and then tag them. It took a very long time for 8-10 licenses and took longer for federal agencies. Now when we did research on RR, we almost always brought the FCC license into view. Each location is identified with a lat and long on the FCC site, many of those being incorrect. I think the license listing on RR lists the locations and coordinates as well. That is probably where the GPS gets its info on what to put into the scanner. But, this being a big but, there isn't a listing of federal licenses.

By the way, the CA has excellent federal listings on the main DB page for the state. I'm sorry to see someone bury federal agency listings down deep on such a limited page, L.A. Metro area. If counties were the driving force, the Angeles NF would be here, the San Bernardino NF would be under San Bernardino County, with the Cleveland NF split between Riverside and San Diego Counties. This would make federal systems awfully hard to find. The Army Corps of Engineers manage some lands around reservoirs in CA, much less than it does in the east. They employee park rangers of their own at these reservoirs and are a land management agency of the federal government. While I lived in CA I heard BLM rangers and USFS LEO's providing assistance to COE since their park rangers have zero LE authority. They should be listed at the statewide level, like all the other fed land management agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation that built and now maintains more land in the west than COE. They should be on the statewide pages as well.

 

[Paysonscanner]

Here is an analogy from my college days getting a nursing degree. Maybe it will convey what I'm saying better than I have been. When we take on anatomy, we don't start with pages of text based on location. The body as a whole is broken down into systems, skeletal, muscular, nervous, vascular, and on and on, and on and on, at 2 am before and exam. We don't study a specific area of the body first. We don't study the hand first and then break it down into each system as found, lets say, in the right hand. We don't then study the forearm, then the humerus next, shoulder next, etc. We first study the whole body and each system separately. Later, as we learn about specialties, we study the specific locations such as hands, elbows, rotator cuffs as there are known experts for each of those locations. Hand specialists are very fascinating, how they can treat and do surgery on ligaments, tendons, tiny little bones and so on. Physicians that specialize on solely the spine are very talented people who can make huge differences in people's lives. Cardiologists, talk about being intelligent and skilled, wow! But, we need to know the whole systems first, the big picture and that was the order in which we started the study of human anatomy. To me that is the holistic way to study the body. Medical facilities are increasingly putting specialists on treatment teams, that is holistic treatment.

I see the various body systems being similar to the federal, state, county, associations of counties, cities. special districts, etc. First we look at the big picture, keeping those levels in mind, then we eventually get down to very limited areas covered by counties, cities and special districts. However, we have to know the big picture first and how that specific area relates to the whole.

 

[DaveNF2G]

USACE did have a set of frequencies allocated for the Mount Morris Dam in Livingston County, NY. When I lived in the area, I never heard anything on them even when visiting Letchworth State Park, where the dam is located. I don't think those channels are in the DB.

 

[kd7ckq]

Wiki is used edited, many of those pages were created based on ICS205 data was found in public access, now more restricted
None of it is official and much is left [as the RRDB] to the submittor/user [Alpha Tags, usage etc]

You are correct on this. I often go to Wiki and search first. Looking at Wiki it often looks like someone added info right off a 205.
Long time ago a database admin asked if I had actually heard and confirmed what I was submitting. That actually became my standard for submitting info. If I haven't, then it goes into wiki. Even if I am looking at a official regional frequency guide.
Blindly copying off of a guide without confirming it's correct. You will introduce errors into the database. Or worse, change good data into bad data. Remember, normal people make up these guides. Normal people will sometimes make mistakes. Who remembers Gila N.F. a couple of years ago. They had three or four corrected guides until june or july.

 

[Paysonscanner]

You are correct on this. I often go to Wiki and search first. Looking at Wiki it often looks like someone added info right off a 205.
Long time ago a database admin asked if I had actually heard and confirmed what I was submitting. That actually became my standard for submitting info. If I haven't, then it goes into wiki. Even if I am looking at a official regional frequency guide.
Blindly copying off of a guide without confirming it's correct. You will introduce errors into the database. Or worse, change good data into bad data. Remember, normal people make up these guides. Normal people will sometimes make mistakes. Who remembers Gila N.F. a couple of years ago. They had three or four corrected guides until june or july.

If the database is left the same until someone confirms it then freqs confirmed 5-10 years ago will still be listed. With the changing of frequency allocation in the fed VHF band there are many changes and the old freqs are obviously not being used. While there might be some errors in the directories, they will give us far better information than is in the existing database. The database might be 100% wrong with the directories being 98% correct. So which would you pick?

 

[ecps92]

Much of that can be equated to just doing an FCC Dump, many frequencies are licensed, never used and without a mode, PL, DPL, NAC are useless. Hence the difference between actual OTA Confirmed use [RRDB] and works in progress [Wiki]

If the database is left the same until someone confirms it then freqs confirmed 5-10 years ago will still be listed. With the changing of frequency allocation in the fed VHF band there are many changes and the old freqs are obviously not being used. While there might be some errors in the directories, they will give us far better information than is in the existing database. The database might be 100% wrong with the directories being 98% correct. So which would you pick?

 

[kd7ckq]

Here is the danger of doing a straight copy from a document. Kaibab N.F. repeaters have a 114.8(N) and 107.2(S) repeater output tone on all their repeaters. When they don't list a tone for the repeater. They want who ever is reading the document to use Carrier Squelch (cs) aka no tone.
When you copy from a document. And it does not list a repeater output tone. The repeater input tone is used as a substitute to identify a specific repeater. If you followed the depreciated data listed in the database. You will never hear anything. That is why it is important to confirm what is in those documents before you put them in the database.
The correct info for Kaibab is to use no tone or use a tone of 114.8(N) or 107.2(S) in case your getting interference.

 

[Paysonscanner]

Here is the danger of doing a straight copy from a document. Kaibab N.F. repeaters have a 114.8(N) and 107.2(S) repeater output tone on all their repeaters. When they don't list a tone for the repeater. They want who ever is reading the document to use Carrier Squelch (cs) aka no tone.
When you copy from a document. And it does not list a repeater output tone. The repeater input tone is used as a substitute to identify a specific repeater. If you followed the depreciated data listed in the database. You will never hear anything. That is why it is important to confirm what is in those documents before you put them in the database.
The correct info for Kaibab is to use no tone or use a tone of 114.8(N) or 107.2(S) in case your getting interference.
View attachment 75737

My computer was down in Phoenix for several days getting a hardware update, I just got it hooked back up yesterday. I see what you are saying. Do we know that this was just a "directory dump?" Do we know why it was entered this way?

I think official agency directories are nearly as good of a source as on the air confirmation. I've been told these directories are used by other units in an agency and other agencies to program radios for the year. When we traveled we used them to update our scanners and had good experiences nearly 100% of the time. Some stuff submitted after field confirmation has more errors than the directories. I won't elaborate as I don't want to sound too negative.

Here is this years listings for the Kaibab N.F.



If we wait until those freqs are verified we won't have any info for the Kaibab NF. The existing listings support your perspective and mine at the same time. Perhaps we don't list individual repeaters at all unless they each transmit the input tone on the output frequency. One DB admin for Montana says that it is RR policy not to list rptr access tones. Yet, I see listings in many states that do that.

I'm discouraged. I've got a lot of current info to share, but the many opinions and discussions about how it should be set up are not productive. With my life situation now allowing me more time than late hubby had, I'm doing more research and finding more than he had. There is no way to share it if everything has to be field verified first. The bottom line of that requirement is that the federal agencies, especially those of widespread and remote agencies of the land management agencies will rarely show current information. I have no interest in that convoluted wiki thing so I won't be able to share it there. Some of my submissions haven't been posted after a couple of months so I guess they won't be used. I was naive as to how my hubby's notebooks and my additional research could be used here. I'm a newbie on this site, a little over 7 months, so I'm learning by experience and in the meantime please forgive. When I submit again I will keep all this in mind.

Meanwhile, the updated and expanded notebooks I have are awesome! I know I will have fun when I get to travel again in a few years.

 

[kd7ckq]

Did you know there are two errors on that page? You wouldn't know this if you just copied what was there. The page was correct on the 2017 guide. I never got to look at a 2018 guide. But, the 2019 guide has two line errors on that page. I don't think you would even notice the errors even you spent a week camping in Kaibab NF.
Don't get discouraged. Share, but lets verify. That's what the forums are here for. They are here so we can share that info, discuss it, OTA verify it, and then submit it.