DTRS Sites 9 and 259

[greenthumb]

South Denver area folks:

Need help on the Castle Rock site - I notice that sites 9 and 259 are at the same physical location, and are using the same primary control channel, but have different site numbers and frequencies in use Can anyone confirm what the current site number is for this location, and what frequencies are in use at that site?

Thanks!

 

[jimmnn]

South Denver area folks:

Need help on the Castle Rock site - I notice that sites 9 and 259 are at the same physical location, and are using the same primary control channel, but have different site numbers and frequencies in use Can anyone confirm what the current site number is for this location, and what frequencies are in use at that site?

Thanks!

Not sure what you are referring to with 9 & 259?

T0103 868.5250 Silver Heights (Castle Rock) Site 103

T010A 868.2500 Franktown Site 110

Jim<

 

[greenthumb]

Franktown is in the database already as site 319 and i'm not talking about that site. I am referring to what is in the database as:

Site 9 - Dougas Co
Site 259 - Castle Rock

They both refer to the same FCC license, same location, and same primary control channel. Are they the same site? If so, which is the real site (not tower) number?

 

[jimmnn]

Franktown is in the database already as site 319 and i'm not talking about that site. I am referring to what is in the database as:

Site 9 - Dougas Co
Site 259 - Castle Rock

They both refer to the same FCC license, same location, and same primary control channel. Are they the same site? If so, which is the real site (not tower) number?

Those site numbers in the database make no sense, I mean Riley Peak is

T0102 868.9125 Riley Peak (Jefferson County) Site 102

but in your list says 258 or something.

Jim<

 

[greenthumb]

Those site numbers in the database make no sense, I mean Riley Peak is

T0102 868.9125 Riley Peak (Jefferson County) Site 102

but in your list says 258 or something.

Jim<

I didn't think so, either, but refer to this thread:

http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17388

...for a discussion we had a while back on this very same topic At any rate, I have a feeling that there is a duplicate site or an incorrect site in the listing.

 

[greenthumb]

Same issue with Site 320 (Denver - Greenwood Village) and Site 276 (Glendale). In the database, they are also both using the same license, location, and share all but one frequency. Can anyone confirm what the actual site number is for this site as well so that one of these entries can be deleted?

 

[scanlist]

Same issue with Site 320 (Denver - Greenwood Village) and Site 276 (Glendale). In the database, they are also both using the same license, location, and share all but one frequency. Can anyone confirm what the actual site number is for this site as well so that one of these entries can be deleted?

I think I see part of the problem.

Do NOT use FCC ULS license data as the basis for site frequencies for the Colorado system. Why? It does not jive with what is actually in use 80% of the time. It's been this way since day 1.

Now for Glendale and Greenwood Village. Greenwood was originally an Arapahoe County SmartZone site that was acquired by the state. This site was split between the state DTRS and what is left of the original Arapahoe County SmartZone. The SmartZone portion is still on the air with 1 CC and 2 voice channels. The CCNC moved some of the original Greenwood site frequencies to the Glendale (DTB) and Lookout Mountain (Golden) sites.

Sites with identical frequency assignments in other parts of the state are not uncommon.

The site numbers 259, 276 and 320 for the Denver area are invalid. Jim's information in his posts for the sites earlier in this message thread are correct.

Since Colorado is in the first region for 800 MHz rebanding all state DTRS sites will have new 800 MHz frequency assignments along with 700 MHz additions within the next 2 years.

Phil

 

[jimmnn]

Can I also possibly ask why Colorado has a system admin from Tea, South Dakota?

Jim<

 

[greenthumb]

Do NOT use FCC ULS license data as the basis for site frequencies for the Colorado system. Why? It does not jive with what is actually in use 80% of the time. It's been this way since day 1.

Correct - but that looks like what has happened with instances such as Douglas County and Castle Rock, as well as 25 Km NW of Golden and Wondervu. This is what I am trying to clean up. Obviously there are several instances where multiple licenses make up the same site.

Now for Glendale and Greenwood Village. Greenwood was originally an Arapahoe County SmartZone site that was acquired by the state. This site was split between the state DTRS and what is left of the original Arapahoe County SmartZone. The SmartZone portion is still on the air with 1 CC and 2 voice channels. The CCNC moved some of the original Greenwood site frequencies to the Glendale (DTB) and Lookout Mountain (Golden) sites.

Great info - now is what is shown in the database correct? I still see Greenwood Village with 6 channels - 2 of which are control channels. If you could submit what is correct, that would be great!

Sites with identical frequency assignments in other parts of the state are not uncommon.

I realize that and it is not a problem, however, when the sites are in VERY close proximity, one must wonder whether or not identical frequencies are being used. Back to the Douglas County site and Castle Rock example - they are in the same county, so it is not likely that they are using the majority of the same RF frequencies.

The site numbers 259, 276 and 320 for the Denver area are invalid. Jim's information in his posts for the sites earlier in this message thread are correct.

Great - let's work to get this cleaned up. I have corrected those site numbers in the database - please submit correct site numbers as you come across them!

 

[greenthumb]

Can I also possibly ask why Colorado has a system admin from Tea, South Dakota?

Jim<

Can I ask why it matters? It sounds like I have uncovered some inaccuracies/needed work to be done...not to mention that you have had admins work in data to the Colorado database from MUCH further away than I am!

 

[luke-1]

Great info - now is what is shown in the database correct? I still see Greenwood Village with 6 channels - 2 of which are control channels. If you could submit what is correct, that would be great!

Are you asking for the correct frequencies and control channels for these sites?

Luke

 

[jimmnn]

Can I ask why it matters? It sounds like I have uncovered some inaccuracies/needed work to be done...not to mention that you have had admins work in data to the Colorado database from MUCH further away than I am!

I have submitted the accruate and current Colorado DTRS database in excel format a few times to the RR Admins but it has never been posted.

Most of us who monitor the system everyday know the RR database has some flaws and more importantly all the freqs for each site are really not necessary to be listed because DTRS is a control channel trunking system only. Also site numbers are in the zone 1, zone 2 and zone 3 systems only with most all front range sites being zone 1 so there again are problems with the way it's posted in RR.

Additionally the best way to really monitor and confirm DTRS control channels is by logging with pro96com software it not only gives you the active control channel, system id, tower id but also adjacent tower information also.

Much better than any FCC database because these things change frequently.

Jim<

 

[greenthumb]

Are you asking for the correct frequencies and control channels for these sites?

Luke

Luke:

Yes - if what is in the RR database is not what represents what is out there, by all means send it to us!

 

[AngelFire91]

I have submitted the accruate and current Colorado DTRS database in excel format a few times to the RR Admins but it has never been posted.

Jim,
I've received the last set of submissions you sent in, as a matter of fact they are sitting right in front of me. I'm sorry they haven't been posted in a timely manner I've been on a really busy schedual for the last 2 months. I will get to them within the next week. I do get all your submissions and try to work them within the week I receive them; I don't want to discourage people from sending in submissions. Please if you have a submission please please please get it to the admins so the database can be accurate.

Most of us who monitor the system everyday know the RR database has some flaws and more importantly all the freqs for each site are really not necessary to be listed because DTRS is a control channel trunking system only. Also site numbers are in the zone 1, zone 2 and zone 3 systems only with most all front range sites being zone 1 so there again are problems with the way it's posted in RR.

If there are some quarks that can be changed, please let me know, I'll do my best to get them changed. As far as the zone system setup. RR.com is in the process of making some administrative decisions regurading changes to RR.com, and I'd be more then happy to put this in as a suggestion.

Can I also possibly ask why Colorado has a system admin from Tea, South Dakota?

Even though there is no such thing, I would like to believe I'm the primary Admin for Colorado. I make evey effort to get to the submissions before a Global admin or someone that's not from the area gets them. Just so a local person can do the updating, I've been local to Colorado for 22 years and have been doing work on the side as a radio tech for motorola on such systems as the ElPaso County system. I've only been doing this work crap in North Dakota for 1 1/2 years. I'm in Colorado 95% of the year and in ND 5%, so I feel that's more then enough for me to be considered local to CO. I can't tell you how much it bugs me to have another admin update talkgroups and them be totally out of order or in the wrong place. There was a county that was updated recently that doesn't flow with any of the other counties. Ahhh. Now, the other admins do wounderful jobs, and I'm not putting any of them down, for without them, this site wouldn't exisit, and I feel lucky to be a part of that crowd.

In conclusion, Please If there are updates or changes that need to be made to the Systems then please submit them. I'll be out of town for the next week starting Tuesday, but will have access to a computer, and will be doing the updates from Jim, and anyothers.

Kevin

 

[greenthumb]

Kevin:

Can you check your PMs and clean 1 or 2 out so that I can send you a PM? Apparently your mailbox has exceeded its quota and I can't get one through.

 

[AngelFire91]

Done!!! I guess the changeover brought back old PM's