Coverage Maps of Colorado DTRS sites (image heavy)

[soundchaser]

Ft. Lupton

The Ft. Lupton site is one of those 1000 foot towers (353 meters) you see out on the plains. It's a 700MHz site with only a 70 watt transmitter, and a lot of coax. But it still covers a large area due to its height above the ground.

 

[ecanderson]

Here is the Mead map replotted with -106 dBm cutoff (white or clear), and anything greater than -80 bDm as red (see legend). Using 3 dBi antenna gain.

Just made a couple more passes up and down I-25, and your Mead map in Post #22 appears to have nailed that area. There are a couple of additional 'good' spots south of 470, even as far south as 104th, but they come and go due to dips in the terrain. Just what your map predicts.

So while I haven't wandered in other directions just yet, at least along that corridor, it looks like you nailed it right properly!

I'll be wandering in some other directions this week, and will let you know how those look as well.

 

[ecanderson]

Interesting. I just skimmed through it, but I'll read the report later this evening.

Here is the Mead map replotted with -106 dBm cutoff (white or clear), and anything greater than -80 bDm as red (see legend). Using 3 dBi antenna gain. It looks pretty close to the 1uV plots earlier. Maybe any further plots should be in these units.

Update as promised. Tough to tell with the map detail, but I made a Greeley run yesterday that appears to continue to confirm the accuracy of your Mead map. I was getting spotty coverage out to the SW of Greeley that seems to align well with the map vs topology of the area. I'm getting pretty happy with your parameters, above. Will report more as I wander.

 

[soundchaser]

Thanks. I've been wanting to drive around the mountains a bit, maybe head towards Prospect along the peak to peak, then check when Thorodin and Dakota fall off and when Prospect starts decoding. Then see what the western reach of Mead is.

 

[Halfpint]

Dang! Those are some pretty nice, and very informative, plots you've been making! Sure explains a lot about some of the reception foibles I've been dealing with.

How about some `plots' for the Northern sites like Buckhorn, Horsetooth, Drake, Bald North, Greeley North, Greeley 35th, and Point of Rocks? I'd like to be able to do it myself but between lack of Horse Power, disk space, and still being on Dial Up I'm kinda limited here.

 

[MikeyB]

How about some `plots' for the Northern sites like Buckhorn, Horsetooth, Drake, Bald North, Greeley North, Greeley 35th, and Point of Rocks? I'd like to be able to do it myself but between lack of Horse Power, disk space, and still being on Dial Up I'm kinda limited here.

Soundchaser had already posted some of the northern ones like Horsetooth, Drake, etc in the thread called 'What site for Fort Collins/Loveland'

 

[soundchaser]

Dang! Those are some pretty nice, and very informative, plots you've been making! Sure explains a lot about some of the reception foibles I've been dealing with.

How about some `plots' for the Northern sites like Buckhorn, Horsetooth, Drake, Bald North, Greeley North, Greeley 35th, and Point of Rocks? I'd like to be able to do it myself but between lack of Horse Power, disk space, and still being on Dial Up I'm kinda limited here.

A few of those I've done before, but I've since settled on using different parameters. I will eventually re-plot those.

Drake is not worth posting, it has an approximate radius of 1.2 miles. I think it's somebody's experiment to see what happens when you put a 800 MHz site deep in a canyon. But more likely it was to pacify CDOT's ability to talk on their radios while at their shop (the antenna is mounted on their building).

Eventually I'll do more maps. I want to make sure the parameters I'm using in the program are reasonable so I don't have to re-do the maps again. I've already made many tweaks and I want to check how accurate they are in the mountains.

 

[Halfpint]

Drake is not worth posting, it has an approximate radius of 1.2 miles. I think it's somebody's experiment to see what happens when you put a 800 MHz site deep in a canyon. But more likely it was to pacify CDOT's ability to talk on their radios while at their shop (the antenna is mounted on their building).

As I mentioned earlier today to Chris the main reason I am interested in the Drake site was the fact that it seemed like a boondoggle. Given that the last time I was in the area it basically came-n-went whilst driving by the shop and wanted to see just how bad it really was.

Eventually I'll do more maps. I want to make sure the parameters I'm using in the program are reasonable so I don't have to re-do the maps again. I've already made many tweaks and I want to check how accurate they are in the mountains.

The Mead and the Ft. Lupton ones seem to be almost `nailing' what type of reception I get around our place and whilst out and about running errands. Hopefully you'll be getting replacements of some of the others that have been done up using the newer settings

 

[soundchaser]

Drake

As I mentioned earlier today to Chris the main reason I am interested in the Drake site was the fact that it seemed like a boondoggle. Given that the last time I was in the area it basically came-n-went whilst driving by the shop and wanted to see just how bad it really was.

Zoomed in:

 

[Halfpint]

Re: Drake

ROTFLHMSIP!

It *is* as bad as I'd thought!

*THANKS!*

 

[soundchaser]

Horsetooth

Here is an updated Horsetooth map:

 

[soundchaser]

Buckhorn and Bald North

Buckhorn:

Bald North:

 

[ecanderson]

Horsetooth (using 853.88750) is a strange duck for me here (for reasons Soundchaser and I have been discussing offline). Propagation maps indicate that it should be "iffy" but usable at worst. Although I obtain what the radio claims is a 99% decode rate (it doesn't go to 100) consistently, I either get no audio at all (although the TG number always decodes correctly), or distorted audio. Rarely is it clear enough to understand a full transmission. While receiving audio, the signal strength meter drops from 5 bars to 3. All the while, things never deviate from a 99% decode rate on "Analyze". Perhaps some weird multipath issues are involved. I do know there's a hill up just SSE of Walker Reservoir that may be getting in the way. But why the 99% decode all the time but garbage audio? Mystery to me.

Buckhorn comes booming in very nicely It's rare to have any audio issues. 5 bars, 99% solid.

Bald North also comes booming in. No complaints at all.

 

[Halfpint]

Where I am, N40 10 23.3 W104 53 29.3, Horsetooth has always been one of those questionable sites from pretty much day one. Your description of what you see matches mine pretty closely. I guess that is just one of those things about this `hobby?' that makes one go "Hmmmmm..."?

BTW, Soundchaser, thanks for those updates.

 

[ecanderson]

I guess that is just one of those things about this `hobby?' that makes one go "Hmmmmm..."?

Indeed it does. I've been fascinated with propagation issues ever since I first start playing around with HF radios as a kid. As the frequencies got higher, predictions got a bit more straightforward, but you still see some pretty peculiar things at times.

When I was living in Niwot some years ago, I had a buddy in an "RF hole" in the area west of 95th and Arapaho on the other end of a pair of 800MHz SMR Motorola 'bricks'. Directly between us was a substantial hill and a water tower (the one S of Niwot road, west of 83rd). While these were intended to be trunked units, they also allowed for direct peer to peer comms. Somehow, that water tower on the tall hill between us acted as some sort of knife edge refractor, and while we were clearly NOT line of site, we were able to push just enough signal back and forth to communicate. Strange stuff.

 

[soundchaser]

I checked the Radio Mobile program results in the mountains. More often than not, it underestimates coverage. But actual coverage is also really spotty. I could have 4 or 5 bars on a signal and a quarter mile down the road have only 1 bar. This matches my experience here at home. I'm in a shadow and just a few blocks north, 5 bars on 2 sites. I think I'll keep my program parameters as I have them now.

When looking at signal maps of the mountain areas, it's as I guessed, if the signal is on nearby high terrain (within a mile or two), then you'll likely have a usable signal if you're in a non-colored area.

In northwestern Boulder county there are definitely areas of no coverage from any site.

 

[ecanderson]

In northwestern Boulder county there are definitely areas of no coverage from any site.

Beginning to sound like the parameters as they are reflect (no pun intended) the signals we're getting pretty well. And your foray into NW Boulder shows why they're still on analog VHF. Not great, but certainly better than UHF digital. Terrain issues can be a bugger.

Your results of your field trips elsewhere are certainly disappointing. Means that the parameters may have to be tweaked on a site by site basis. I was hoping that the installations would be a lot more consistent than you found them to be. Bummer. Further to all of that, it now seems clear that not all channels on a site are handled equally from an equipment standpoint - hence the disparity in quality of decode on the CC vs. the actual audio channels. No doubt about it, a compromise is the best you'll be able to create for any given site. Still, the effort is greatly appreciated. Would have been sweet if all of this had turned out to be a bit more deterministic, though.

 

[soundchaser]

Your results of your field trips elsewhere are certainly disappointing. Means that the parameters may have to be tweaked on a site by site basis. I was hoping that the installations would be a lot more consistent than you found them to be. Bummer.

Last week I began assigning sites to different classes of equipment. I've basically been using 6 or 7 different classes: 800 MHz 100 Watt, 3, 6, or 9 dBi antennas, and 700 MHz, 70 Watt 3, 6, or 9 dBi antennas. All sites with a combiner loss of 4.5 dB. So far, all but one site fits these classes (I've only entered about 30 sites so far). The recent maps I've posted take these parameters into account. I'm not taking into account coax loss or length, and when the FCC DB doesn't list an antenna gain, I use 6 dBi as a default.

 

[seberry]

How difficult would it be to do a zoomed in Chevron site map? I've been having some WONDERFUL reception issues with Chevron, even though I'm fairly close.

 

[soundchaser]

How difficult would it be to do a zoomed in Chevron site map? I've been having some WONDERFUL reception issues with Chevron, even though I'm fairly close.

Thanks. I've been slowly adding sites to the wiki. Per your request, I've added Chevron.
Individual CO DTRS Sites/Chevron - The RadioReference Wiki

List of sites so far (in blue):
Individual CO DTRS Sites - The RadioReference Wiki

I've also been adding the denied affiliations. Guys, thanks for your help with those!