• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Cuyahoga Co PDs unit numbering system...

Status
Not open for further replies.

2112

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
340
Location
OK
Anyone have any history on the numbering system used by Cuyahoga Co PDs? I think that the system is a great example of interdepartment cooperation.
 

Bill28227

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
196
Location
Indian Land, SC
2112 said:
Anyone have any history on the numbering system used by Cuyahoga Co PDs? I think that the system is a great example of interdepartment cooperation.
I am Bill from Charlotte, NC but I use to live in the Berea, North Olmsted and Fairview area until 1999. I began listening to the police radio with a tunable Hallicrafter S-95 back in the mid-1950s. As for the western suburbs North Olmsted use to have cars in the 60s such as car 64. Fairview was in the 30s, Rocky River was in the 100 series. Olmsted Falls and Twp were in the 50 I believe and Bay Village was in the teens. I recall Westlake was in the 70s but the background sound of the Westlake station was so unique that with even an open carrier you knew it was them.

As I recall in the late 1960s or the early 1970s the first two numbers were made the city identification number and it was in alphabetical order with some skiping. The last two numbers were unique to the city. There were some holdouts that did not change such as Lakewood that stayed in the 200 series.

Miss you guys up there, Bill
 

JerryNone

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
843
Location
Ohio
2112 said:
Anyone have any history on the numbering system used by Cuyahoga Co PDs? I think that the system is a great example of interdepartment cooperation.
Well a history, no. But if you want the Unit Numbers here ya go: http://neohioscan.com/county/unit_IDs.htm#cuyahoga

Like Bill said, Lakewood does use the 200 Series.

Also some other oddities are:

Brooklyn: Uses BADGE numbers

Brookpark: ????

Cleveland: They, for the most part, use a DISTRICT numbering scheme:
1XX, 2XX, 3XX, 4XX, 5XX, 6XX . I heard on the news tha tthe FIFTH district may be closed. The work load would be picked up by the 4TH and 5TH Districts.
Read this article about the FIFTH District:
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/9358974/detail.html?taf=nn5

Cleveland Heights: 27XX but may NOT use it.

G.C.R.T.A.: 9XX

Linndale: I do NOT recall the last time I heard them use their number.

Parma: Uses BADGE numbers

University Circle: They used to be 83XX when I listened to them when living in Cleveland.

Westlake: Will identify as 77XX or as '7XX

Also thier may be other municipalities; that do NOT conform to this plan.

You will NOTE that when clicking on this link: http://neohioscan.com/county/unit_IDs.htm#cuyahoga that the lower the UNIT number the closer to the begining of the ALPAHBET, the higher the UNIT number, the more towards the nd of the ALPHABET.
 

2112

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
340
Location
OK
Bill28227 said:
I am Bill from Charlotte, NC but I use to live in the Berea, North Olmsted and Fairview area until 1999. I began listening to the police radio with a tunable Hallicrafter S-95 back in the mid-1950s. As for the western suburbs North Olmsted use to have cars in the 60s such as car 64. Fairview was in the 30s, Rocky River was in the 100 series. Olmsted Falls and Twp were in the 50 I believe and Bay Village was in the teens. I recall Westlake was in the 70s but the background sound of the Westlake station was so unique that with even an open carrier you knew it was them.

As I recall in the late 1960s or the early 1970s the first two numbers were made the city identification number and it was in alphabetical order with some skiping. The last two numbers were unique to the city. There were some holdouts that did not change such as Lakewood that stayed in the 200 series.

Miss you guys up there, Bill
Yeah, I was in the south/west burbs in the mid-to-late 90's... When I discovered the more-or-less "alphabetical" system, I was pretty enchanted, as I was still pretty new to the Cleveland scanning scene and didn't talk much to other scannists. It looks like the system is older than I am!

My thoughts on the holdouts is that some of these cities are too big to be confined to 2-digit ID's left behind after the assignment of the "city number". The holdouts seem to be big suburbs like Lakewood, Euclid, Parma, etc. It wouldn't surprise me that Cleveland Hts would do this too, since they've always seemed like a strange egg to me, what with their low-band system and now their 450MHz TRS coming around. Broadview Heights used to use 19** and Solon 68**, but seem to have slipped into using badge numbers as call signs (bad idea).

When I was still in town, CMRD was 2**, CMHA was 8**, and GCRTA police were 9**, to the best of my knowledge. I think I remember UC on 83**, too. I also remember some Geauga Co suburbs (the Russells and Bainbridges) using compatible callsigns in the 81**-84** range.

I was once told by a Linndale officer (back in the mid-90's) to listen for "4111".

WIth Westlake and RR using 77** and 33** respectively, I wonder if they occasionally come across as identifying with 7** and 3** as the result of cutting themselves off by speaking too fast after keying up the mic. It usually does take a second or two to gin up the repeater and open the squelch.

As I remember, Cleveland PD had units marked "72**" and "94**" also, in addition to their zone cars' 3-digit scheme.

Ah... the complexity of it all...
 

JerryNone

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
843
Location
Ohio
Due to their new E.D.A.C.S. Narrowband 2 Site TRS with possiblly(?) two new sites, for a total of four: Old Brooklyn-Cleveland, Beachwood, Brunswick & Wickliffe or Willoughby, I do NOT listen to the G.C.R.T.A. anymore becsue my Pro-92B has a hard time scanning that system. Last time I listened to them, they still were 9XX

CMRD? Who is CMRD?

CMHA was 8XX? I did not know this. Thank you. I do NOT think that they are 8XX anymore. Somebody @ one time told me that they have Districts like CPD does. Does anybody know if they use the same District boundaries or some other bopundaries?

Yes, University Circle, Inc. P.D. which I belive is a Private Police force, was 83XX but since their move to the 900 Conventional frequencies and me NOT living in Cleveland but in Southwestern Suburbia(YYYYAAAAWWWWNNNN), I did NOT program them
into my radio scanner. Which is odd. UC = 83XX and Westlake = 77XX. That is an Alpahbetic oddity.

Also what gives with 76XX or Highland Hills? What is up with that?

Well I would think that maybe a five or six digit scheme would be better. That way all the burbs and Cleveland could be renumbered correctly. :)

Does anybody know where the Cleveland Metroparks fit into all of this?
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Highland Hills was formerly Warrensville Twp hence the 76xx.
BTW the former chief of WTPD was instrumental in this numbering system. He gave me the list at the time but I have no idea when or where the original documentation is. :(
 

JerryNone

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
843
Location
Ohio
ed_azailia said:
Highland Hills was formerly Warrensville Twp hence the 76xx.
BTW the former chief of WTPD was instrumental in this numbering system. He gave me the list at the time but I have no idea when or where the original documentation is. :(

A big thanks to Ed Azailia. That clears up alot. I could never understand why they were assigned 76XX but once you mentioned the Warrensville Township part, I looked it up on the Internet and came up with this info:
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/programs/exurbs/pdf/LUdocument/cuyahoga.pdf

Here's hoping that you find that document. It would be very interesting.

Thanks gain.
 

spd766sgt

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
7
Location
Ohio
I work for Solon PD that uses i.d. numbers instead of car numbers,someone here mentioned it's a bad idea,i'm kinda curious why since it works fine? And by the way,soon Univ. Circle PD,which I once worked for,is disbanding.Case Western is becoming a actual Police Dept.
 
Last edited:

2112

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
340
Location
OK
JerryNone said:
CMRD? Who is CMRD?

Does anybody know where the Cleveland Metroparks fit into all of this?
CMRD = Cleveland Metroparks Ranger Department :D

JerryNone said:
Well I would think that maybe a five or six digit scheme would be better. That way all the burbs and Cleveland could be renumbered correctly. :)
Yeah, but that's too cumbersome for everyday use, which takes precedence over interoperability. You can only structure so far. Besides, it would cost truckloads of cash to replate-redecal all the vehicles. Way too much to replace a system that doesn't need replacement.

ed_azailia said:
Highland Hills was formerly Warrensville Twp hence the 76xx.
BTW the former chief of WTPD was instrumental in this numbering system. He gave me the list at the time but I have no idea when or where the original documentation is.
I'd love to see a copy of that documentation. :D

There are some other holes in the system... 64**, which I assume was for Riveredge Twp PD (if there was one)... but with RET getting sucked up into Fairview Park or Cleveland around 1990, remains a hole.

Others include: 26** (City of Cleveland), 28**, 47**, 78**. Anyone know what the latter three holes were/are for? Some might hypothesize that 28** and 47** are for Lorain and Geauga Co's respectively, but if that were the case, I'd expect to see holes at 52**, 77**, 67**, and 43**.

I always used to like to plug Lakewood in at 42**, even though they should have been 41**.

Looking through some old notes that I have, I guess the Russells and Bainbridges of Geauga Co that used 81**-84** were/are dispatched by CFPD... (81** = Russell Twp PD, 82** = S Russell PD, 83** = Bainbridge PD, 84** = Bainbridge Twp PD).
 

2112

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
340
Location
OK
spd766sgt said:
I work for Solon PD that uses i.d. numbers instead of car numbers,someone here mentioned it's a bad idea,i'm kinda curious why since it works fine? And by the way,soon Univ. Circle PD,which I once worked for,is disbanding.Case Western is becoming a actual Police Dept.
Hi, Sarge. Back when I lived in Cuyahoga Co, (worked in neighboring Bedford for a time), I seem to remember SPD using 68** on-the-air. This was some 10 years ago, though.

It's generally a bad idea to use badge numbers (or unit numbers) as callsigns because in public safety comms, callsigns should carry some on-air meaning other than identifying a certain individual or unit. Using badge numbers as callsigns is not really any better than using first names as callsigns. Someone calls out on the radio "This is Joe". No one knows anything about Joe except that Joe's talking, unless they happen to know something about Joe. But if Joe happens to be working in a certain capacity, and has a callsign based on this capacity, when he calls it out everyone immediately knows something about who's calling other than the guy's first name. Look at your badge number, which is used as a callsign. If you say "766" on the air, I have no idea based on that that you're a boss.

For smaller departments an easy system that cooperates with the suburb interoperability plan could be appropriate. For example, for Solon something like:

6800 Chief of Police
6801-6809 Patrol bosses, decreasing rank/seniority
6811-6839 Patrol officers (3rd digit could indicate shift, no last digits "0")
6841-6849 Other personnel

and so on... this is similar to the callsign plan that I put together for one of my agencies. If someone were to call out "6805", I'd know immediately that it was a Solon boss, and a lower ranking one than 6802. (And just to eliminate confusion, I'd leave badge numbers in the 7** and make the unit numbers some other system entirely.)

As a department grows, it becomes harder to maintain such a system, as the sheer number of personnel would outstrip the ability of this type of callsign system to cope. At some point, the system would have to be converted to one based on beats, zones, districts, etc. Something like Cleveland PD's, for example. Here, the callsigns indicate district, zone, shift, bosses, and sometimes 1- or 2-person car (and other items). 221A is 2nd district, 2nd zone, 1st shift, primary (2-person?) car (I might have the zone and shift flipped here, but the point is still valid).

To sum up, badge number, callsign, and unit number systems should always be kept separate, because they serve different purposes. Badge numbers identify individuals and should never change for the duration of employment of the officer. Unit numbers are unit specific, based on vehicle information, and may change (but usually don't) depending on the status of the unit and fleet operations. Callsigns identify operational significance, and change from time to time to accomodate operations.

Hope this helps. :D

PS That's interesting info about UCPD and CWRU PD...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top