California Radio Interoperable System (CRIS)

norcalscan

Interoperating Spurious Emissions
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
404
Location
The real northern california
Regarding Site 8, I'm just barely able to get a signal enough to decode from Elk Grove, using an outdoor antenna. I'm going to guess this *might* be Bald Mountain, Yolo County.
Site 8 is most certainly Bald Mtn. This was known way in the beginning but not sure why the Database says Butte County. It follows their logical site numbering as well for the north valley circuit.

Also, I'd like to propose Site 13 is St. Helena Mtn. Not confirmed, but I have strong suspicions.
It would be 770.20625, 770.94375, 773.54375, 773.81875, 774.28125, 774.79375
I have no NAC for it though.
 

mcjones2013

Radio Communications Enthusiast
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
510
Site 8 is most certainly Bald Mtn. This was known way in the beginning but not sure why the Database says Butte County. It follows their logical site numbering as well for the north valley circuit.

Also, I'd like to propose Site 13 is St. Helena Mtn. Not confirmed, but I have strong suspicions.
It would be 770.20625, 770.94375, 773.54375, 773.81875, 774.28125, 774.79375
I have no NAC for it though.
I'm planning to take a drive soon on the Bay Area circuit and map those out.

Based on the new mapping docs on the CRIS website, it sounds like these new circuits will have their sites linked/showing neighbors (aka wide area trunking turned on) sometime this spring.

Today I'm monitoring Site 7 from the office, and am seeing a lot of key ups on various talk groups, but no one is talking. I don't believe it's encryption, I think someone is just keying up and not saying anything. Maybe they're watching some sort of program for testing.
 

LAflyer

Global DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
1,663
Location
SoCal
Received a submission for Tejon Peak, but without Site number. We cant update Db without site info.

1 - 769.20625
2 - 770.90625
3 - 773.31875
4 - 774.06875
5 - 774.54375
6 - 774.84375

If anyone can confirm the site number along with NAC and control/alt channel info that would be appreciated.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,734
Just for a visual reference, here are all the "known" sites that should be online now.
We also "know" they have a total of 9 sites planned in the Bay Area Region but it appears they only have 5 sites online.

Site NameSite (Dec)Site (Hex)Possible (Dec)
PHASE 1 CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
Pine Hilll11
Oso Mountain22
Bullion Mountain33
Joaquin Ridge55
Blue Ridge Lookout44
Round Mountain66
PHASE 2 NORTH VALLEY REGION
Bald Mountain08 ?
Bloomer Mountain99
Tuscan Butte10A
South Fork Mountain11B
Sac Resources Building77
PHASE 2 TRI-COUNTY REGION
Tejon Peak0
Rincon Peak2418
South Mountain0
Oat Mountain271B
Hauser Mountain0
Lukens Mountain291D
Santiago Peak301E
PHASE 2 BAY AREA REGION
Seigler Mountain0
Mount Saint Helena013 ?
Vaca Mountain15F
Diablo Mountain0
Loma Prieta Peak0
PHASE 3 I-80 EAST REGION
Howell Mountain0
Wolf Mountain0
Banner Mountain0
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,734
From the old maps that were on the website the additional sites for the Bay Area Region will likely be,
English Hill
Sonoma Mountain
Mt. Tamalpais
Sunol Ridge

Cobb Mountain was also on the older map but given it's proximity to Seigler Mountain I would guess they removed that making 9 sites in total.
 

mcjones2013

Radio Communications Enthusiast
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
510
There was radio testing on a few different talkgroups on Site 7 (SacResourcesBldg) yesterday. One of the talkgroups was referred to as "Gold".
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
16,130
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Did they take out Monterery county from PHASE 2 Bay Area? I remember seeing the doc it was part of the PHASE 2
Loma Prieta is about as close as you'll get. Will be interesting to see if they put something down at Williams Hill.

We're kind of keeping an eye on this at work as it may be a good solution for our wide area coverage.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,595
Location
Soledad, CA
Loma Prieta is about as close as you'll get. Will be interesting to see if they put something down at Williams Hill.

We're kind of keeping an eye on this at work as it may be a good solution for our wide area coverage.
I remember they had Fremont peak on one of those maps with the bay area. I guess they will wait till PHASE 3 now. They should just use Monterey County's site on Williams Hill no one using it besides SO and the park rangers on the weekends.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
16,130
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
I remember they had Fremont peak on one of those maps with the bay area. I guess they will wait till PHASE 3 now. They should just use Monterey County's site on Williams Hill no one using it besides SO and the park rangers on the weekends.
Fremont would make sense.

Would be interesting to see if they did a CSSI interface between the CRIS and Mo-Co system and go the system of systems route. Seems like a better idea than building out new. Or maybe just highway 101 coverage.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,734
Would be interesting to see if they did a CSSI interface between the CRIS and Mo-Co system and go the system of systems route. Seems like a better idea than building out new. Or maybe just highway 101 coverage.
I would think more of an ISSI, or just absorb the entire system into the 9D2 system.

I would actually be very interested in knowing if any of these talks are already taking place. The best way to rapidly expand coverage would be to absorb systems already in place into the 9D2 system. This is what Ohio MARCS did over the past few years with a number of local systems throughout the state.


Ohio MARCS-IP / Local Partnership Program
Ohio MARCS has implemented a Local Partnership program which allows counties around the state to enter into partnership agreements with the State of Ohio for the use of the system. There are five partnership Tiers, each offering different levels of sharing and use. The Tier levels are:

Tier 1 - Basic Subscriber
County uses MARCS towers and pays MARCS subscriber fees.

Tier 2 - Enhanced Local Infrastructure
County which builds their own tower sites and asks MARCS to handle tower maintenance and subscriber management. County gets a credit that goes towards subscriber fees.

Tier 3 - Connecting P25 Systems
County with separate standalone system connected to MARCS via ISSI. County can determine which talkgroups and agencies may roam to their system.

Tier 4 - Sharing Core Resources
County which builds, maintains and manages their own tower sites and subscribers but shares the appropriate MARCS zone controller. County can determine which talkgroups and agencies may roam to their tower sites.

Tier 5 - Shared Zone Controllers
County with separate zone controller connected to and part of the MARCS network.



Having the ability to take a Cincinnati (southwest corner of the state) radio to Cleveland (northeast corner of the state) and talk back to Cincinnati as well as talk directly to Cleveland (and all places in-between) is great.
 
Last edited:

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,734
Would be interesting to see if they did a CSSI interface between the CRIS and Mo-Co system and go the system of systems route. Seems like a better idea than building out new. Or maybe just highway 101 coverage.
The other thing to think about is they have a limited number of interfaces and a lot of coordinating (what RID's can roam, what TG on system A goes to what TG on system B, etc.) with that.

Several companies (including Motorola) have IP based solutions to "ISSI" connections but those also require a lot of coordinating as well as someone to push a few buttons when you need to connect things together.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,734
As an example, in my current home town of Cincinnati (I lived in Sacramento for 30 years before moving here 10 years ago) the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County had a stand-alone P25 radio system consisting of two sites, one for the county and one for the city. Most, but not all, of the talk groups would roam between both sites providing radio coverage within the entire county.

Back then Butler County to the north was on a stand-alone P25 system, Warren County to the northeast was on a stand-alone analog system and Clermont County to the east was on a stand-alone analog system.

When Ohio MARCS started the Local Partnership Program Butler County connected its P25 controller to the MARCS core as a tier 5 partner and became the MARCS Zone 4 controller. Butler County doesn't pay subscriber fees because they maintain the county owned infrastructure themselves and allow other MARCS subscribers to roam to the site.

As time went on Warren County upgraded to P25 and connected its site to MACRS as a tier 4 partner. Warren County doesn't pay subscriber fees because they maintain the county owned infrastructure themselves and allow other MARCS subscribers to roam to the site.

Hamilton County and Cincinnati separately became tier 4 partners and connected both sites to the "Butler County" zone 4 controller. Both Hamilton County and Cincinnati don't pay subscriber fees because they maintain the county/city owned infrastructure themselves and allow other MARCS subscribers to roam to the sites.

Clermont County upgraded to P25 and became a tier 2 partner. Because the county paid for the upgrades to the infrastructure and then handed it over to MARCS they received a credit that was applied towards subscriber fees, when the credit runs out they will then begin paying subscriber fees.

Several of the other counties in the region are tier 1 partners and they pay subscriber fees and use sites installed and maintained by MARCS.
 

monitor142

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
239
Location
California
We're kind of keeping an eye on this at work as it may be a good solution for our wide area coverage.
I've been thinking the same thing too. Something to backup or in addition to the UC Iridium network. We would only have Santiago Peak to cover our area. It must be running low PO because the signal isn't that great around here. The Caltrans 800 P25 system on Santiago has a higher RSSI.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,734
After reading through the CRIS documents it appears they will require all users of the system to have at least one "interoperability" talk group in the radio. Does anyone happen to know if CRIS has developed an interoperability template?

As an example this is the Ohio MARCS interoperability template that is required to be programmed into every radio operating on the system.

This website has a good description of what each talk group is used for Ohio MARCS-IP – BRICS
 

Attachments

ECPD279

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Messages
801
Location
Bay Area, CA
Submitted to DB

Site 20 is now online.

Site: 1.20 NAC=9D0

Channel 1-1184: 769.40625 CC
Channel 1-1384: 770.65625 SCC
Channel 1-1808: 773.30625 SCC
Channel 1-1854: 773.59375 SCC

Possibly Loma Prieta based on reception from various east bay locations.
 
Top