- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,620
In the hopes of not starting a major thing here, what are peoples thoughts on separating out major users on DTRS from the county listings?
Our guidelines already provide for this, but when we go and take what was once a small system on its birth, and it just seems to stay that way - and have it split up to a more manageable list - some people always throw large flags on the play.
What a few of us have been doing on new statewide systems is the following format:
Interop Talkgroups
State Agencies
County A
-City A
-City B
-City C
County B
-City A
-City B
-City C
(etc)
Regional Authorities
Non Public Safety (Transit, etc)
FRCC is generally setup this way, and I personally haven't had any negative feedback.
The benefit of this format is that cities and towns with a large number of talkgroups can be split off the county section. In addition for GPS aware products, the GPS range will cover the intended area vs scanning the entire town/city in the county, when in some cases the next town over is 20mi or more away.
With the split, we can also remove some extrataous data from the descrption field that would no longer be needed.
For instance, to denote public works from cities and counties, you can have:
Any County
Public Works 1
Any City
Public Works 1
vs
Any County
Any County Public Works 1
Any City Public Works 1
Another City Public Works 1
Another City Public Works 2
Peoples Republic of Pot DPW 4
Those who have display scanners with very limited characters will benefit greatly, by not having the entire municipal name in the description field, as the category will already be named for the city/town.
This also lets you selectively chose who you want to scan by area (category) vs locking out 40 different talkgroups all contained in one large section.
A couple of examples:
https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=7768 (FRCC)
https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=8010 (Oregon - still being built out)
Curious on thoughts on this.
Thanks!
Our guidelines already provide for this, but when we go and take what was once a small system on its birth, and it just seems to stay that way - and have it split up to a more manageable list - some people always throw large flags on the play.
What a few of us have been doing on new statewide systems is the following format:
Interop Talkgroups
State Agencies
County A
-City A
-City B
-City C
County B
-City A
-City B
-City C
(etc)
Regional Authorities
Non Public Safety (Transit, etc)
FRCC is generally setup this way, and I personally haven't had any negative feedback.
The benefit of this format is that cities and towns with a large number of talkgroups can be split off the county section. In addition for GPS aware products, the GPS range will cover the intended area vs scanning the entire town/city in the county, when in some cases the next town over is 20mi or more away.
With the split, we can also remove some extrataous data from the descrption field that would no longer be needed.
For instance, to denote public works from cities and counties, you can have:
Any County
Public Works 1
Any City
Public Works 1
vs
Any County
Any County Public Works 1
Any City Public Works 1
Another City Public Works 1
Another City Public Works 2
Peoples Republic of Pot DPW 4
Those who have display scanners with very limited characters will benefit greatly, by not having the entire municipal name in the description field, as the category will already be named for the city/town.
This also lets you selectively chose who you want to scan by area (category) vs locking out 40 different talkgroups all contained in one large section.
A couple of examples:
https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=7768 (FRCC)
https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=8010 (Oregon - still being built out)
Curious on thoughts on this.
Thanks!