Cache #11 ?TG: 29216 - Site 14/53 - UCAN

[wbloss]

This is the next in a series of changes proposed to the database for Cache County. (yada yada deleted)

#11 29216 Rich Co Ops 10*

Hearing no objections by Wed night we will recommend this addition.
W
______
*NOTE - These have been programmed into the CACHE radios, for eventual use one would suppose in the adjoining county. Likely the Database should reflect their use in THAT county.

 

[SCPD]

Is this necessary?

I'm not trying to start something here, but wow, after seeing 23 of these messages, I have to ask myself, is this necessary?

Couldn't this have gone into just *one* message, instead of 23 separate messages?

It's days like this, I wish I could lock out forums that I don't care to see.

 

[wbloss]

I'm not trying to start something here, but wow, after seeing 23 of these messages, I have to ask myself, is this necessary?

Couldn't this have gone into just *one* message, instead of 23 separate messages?

It's days like this, I wish I could lock out forums that I don't care to see.

You know I agree - I really didn't enjoy typing for an hour.
Feel free to get the powers that be to change the sticky above!
I'm just followin' the dang rules established by the forum

 

[Rolfman]

Wally when we agreed on those rules in the sticky we never really figured we would be mapping out an entire new system. I don’t think anyone will care if you do them in one post, matter of fact I would suspect they would appreciate it.

Thanks for the work you guys are doing up there, sounds like you are having some fun and finding all kinds of new stuff.

 

[Junior1970]

Wally i'm in your corner on this one.

Rolfman has a point about mapping an entire system.

Dak48 before you sound off about something in a specific forum for a state please be sure that you understand the protocols of how that state has chosen to read and itentify talkgroups. I for one would sure as hell not enter the NE forum and spew forth with a comment such as yours without having all the facts. I do believe an apology to Wally is in order! This is not an easy task and I, for one, applaud him and the rest of the Cache bunch for their work deciphering these talkgroups. Wait until someone deciphers Washington and Iron Counties in the near future. More agencies, more people and more talkgroups to be sure.

Keep up the good work. I'll be up in Cache/Box Elder this weekend enroute to another car show. This time in Malad, ID.

 

[bneilson]

Background

Since I have the stickey talking about these postings I probably better chime in...

The idea behind the posting unknown talkgroups in a special format was so they would each have their own thread for discussion. Previously when we were chasing several in the Salt Lake area they were just being lumped into one thread. It became quickly apparent that this was not working as it was nearly impossible to follow and track down an individual talkgroup within the large thread.

In the situation of Cache valley, it seems like the people doing the research are communication off the board and determining what the talkgroups are. If this is the case I would say to just post a single thread for each batch indicating what has been found. The idea of the unknown talkgroup posting was to allow for and organized collaboration on the board.

Again the concept of the unknown Talk Group posting was to be able to easily track what a specific talk group is doing. Take a look at the thread on Talkgroup 2880 as an example. If it would have been lumped with a bunch of other Talkgroups the thread would be cluttered and hard to follow. As it stands it is easy to understand and read.

Oh and thank you to the Cache team for doing the foot work in getting the system mapped out. It is a lot of fun to do but it is a great deal of work. Thanks for all of your hard work!

 

[qlajlu]

Fantastic Job in Cache!

I also took part in deciding the protocol for handling Unknown TGs that was made into a sticky at the head of this forum. At the time we did that we were chasing "unknown" TGs in several sites and they were scattered all over. The biggest problem we had at the time was that many of those TGs were already established in the UCAN system and we were sniffing them out of thin air using programs like UniTrunker. So the TGs we were finding were new to us, but old. On some TGs we ended up taking turns locking our scanners on a TG and listening to it for days at a time in order to catch a phrase that would identify its use and/or user or even to hear any traffic at all.

If you wanted to search the archives of this forum, you would find many TGs we "discovered" that are still not resolved. Our Db Admin, theaton, was totally in agreement with the way we approached these unknowns at the time. In fact, some of our investigation was the Utah County area where many TGs that had been in the Db simply went missing just before theaton took over as our Db Admin. Something nefarious about that.

We also had many comments from visitors such as the one from Dak48 above.

The situation in Cache is much different than what we were dealing with around the Salt Lake and Davis County areas because of the rapport with the local officials in Cache and the fact that these TGs are coming online in a relatively orderly way. They are also already technically solidly identified before even being reported to the forum and don't need to be investigated further. I'm certainly not opposed to suspending the protocol in a situation like this, and my hat is off to you guys in the Cache area! You are doing one bang up job of getting these posted as soon as possible. I also appreciate you notifying the Utah Forum of your findings rather than simply loading up the Db and surprising us.

HOWEVER, I do suggest that we revert to the protocol for those unknown TGs that just "pop up" in an established site that appear to be new like this one reported by tbogs a short time ago.

 

[SCPD]

Dak48 before you sound off about something in a specific forum for a state please be sure that you understand the protocols of how that state has chosen to read and itentify talkgroups. I for one would sure as hell not enter the NE forum and spew forth with a comment such as yours without having all the facts. I do believe an apology to Wally is in order! This is not an easy task and I, for one, applaud him and the rest of the Cache bunch for their work deciphering these talkgroups. Wait until someone deciphers Washington and Iron Counties in the near future. More agencies, more people and more talkgroups to be sure.

A little snippy, aren't we? As I said, I wasn't trying to start anything, it just seemed like a poor idea to introduce 23 messages on a new UCAN system map, when one would have done quite nicely. And if you took the time to notice, the OP even agreed with me.

I appreciate that you guys are organized here, but you know, you aren't the only users of this system. I puruse all the forums, because I'm curious what is happening in other parts of the country. I think now however, I will just avoid the Utah forum all together, because a lot of you seem to be a pretty unfriendly bunch, that can't take suggestions or critcisms because by God, you guys have your own forum rules and policies, and make outsiders feel rather unwelcome. Want proof of this? Scan your forum, you'll soon see what I mean. I thought some of the Colorado forum users were a bit flaky, gut wow, Utah has them beat in being flaky, for sure!

So no worries Junior, I won't sound off in your forum ever again.

 

[Junior1970]

A little snippy, aren't we? As I said, I wasn't trying to start anything, it just seemed like a poor idea to introduce 23 messages on a new UCAN system map, when one would have done quite nicely. And if you took the time to notice, the OP even agreed with me.

I appreciate that you guys are organized here, but you know, you aren't the only users of this system. I puruse all the forums, because I'm curious what is happening in other parts of the country. I think now however, I will just avoid the Utah forum all together, because a lot of you seem to be a pretty unfriendly bunch, that can't take suggestions or critcisms because by God, you guys have your own forum rules and policies, and make outsiders feel rather unwelcome. Want proof of this? Scan your forum, you'll soon see what I mean. I thought some of the Colorado forum users were a bit flaky, gut wow, Utah has them beat in being flaky, for sure!

So no worries Junior, I won't sound off in your forum ever again.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Really. I'm not trying to start anything on here I was defending the hard work our group in Cache is doing to find and identify talkgroups in the UCAN system. Your comments offended an individual that is working hard on this project and I felt offended as well. Mapping this system hasn't been easy and many of us have been following the UCAN system since the beginning. There has been some clarifications on multiple posts that, i'm sure, we'll follow when posting multiple talkgroup changes in the future. You are entitled to your opinion as is anyone else on here but I am not the first one on the Utah forum to set to sound off when something like this occurs. Therefore it is not MY forum, it is the Utah RadioReference Forum. I have personally helped out many "outsiders" on this forum and will continue to in the future as I travel as well and know how if feels to not be familiar with some of the other radio systems, terrain, etc.
Again I'm sorry you feel this way and if you never visit the Utah forum again that is your perogative. We are a good bunch of folks in here and I personally have always received help when I have needed it. Also I have been criticised as well. It's a two way street and we all have our opinions. I wish you good luck in your endeavours Dak48.