Edmonton Assistance Required

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jay911

Silent Key (April 15th, 2023)
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,378
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
Folks,

I've been told that some of the stuff I've been putting into the database for the Edmonton area lately is way off base. What I'm putting in is stuff that people are submitting to me and the site. I need someone from the Edmonton area who is willing to keep an eye on the data and tell me if something is off base. I'll try to keep things straight once I figure out how things are supposed to be.

From all the rest of us, I need this -

I ask that you only submit stuff if you are 100% sure that what you are sending in is correct. There's a submission waiting for the EPS EDACS system right now that implies that the Police Records talkgroup needs to be changed to Bylaw Parking Enforcement. That's a pretty radical change, and I've already been given information that this isn't necessarily correct. Someone who is familiar with this system, please let me know what the correct designation for this talkgroup is.

Second - Someone has sent in data to establish the ED Electronics trunk system, and another admin worked it up. It was set up as an all-Type I trunk system, as per the request of the submitter. Today I received a significant amount of data for the Edmonton CORUS traffic helicopter from another submitter, but the talkgroup IDs are in Type II format. Which is it, guys? :)

Thanks to everyone for their submissions and help!

--j.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Bylaw PE

As for my submission on this all I can say is that it came from a reliable source that states it is Bylaw PE on the radio.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Jay said:
Folks,

I've been told that some of the stuff I've been putting into the database for the Edmonton area lately is way off base. What I'm putting in is stuff that people are submitting to me and the site. I need someone from the Edmonton area who is willing to keep an eye on the data and tell me if something is off base. I'll try to keep things straight once I figure out how things are supposed to be.

From all the rest of us, I need this -

I ask that you only submit stuff if you are 100% sure that what you are sending in is correct. There's a submission waiting for the EPS EDACS system right now that implies that the Police Records talkgroup needs to be changed to Bylaw Parking Enforcement. That's a pretty radical change, and I've already been given information that this isn't necessarily correct. Someone who is familiar with this system, please let me know what the correct designation for this talkgroup is.

Second - Someone has sent in data to establish the ED Electronics trunk system, and another admin worked it up. It was set up as an all-Type I trunk system, as per the request of the submitter. Today I received a significant amount of data for the Edmonton CORUS traffic helicopter from another submitter, but the talkgroup IDs are in Type II format. Which is it, guys? :)

Thanks to everyone for their submissions and help!

--j.
E-D electronics trunk system is a MOT mixed mode system. Otherwise program your scanner for a Type I 800 Mhz system, and work out the fleetmap. It Is'nt that hard.
 
Last edited:

Jay911

Silent Key (April 15th, 2023)
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,378
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
brechtd said:
E-D electronics trunk system is a MOT mixed mode system. Otherwise program your scanner for a Type I 800 Mhz system, and work out the fleet codes.

The current entry for E-D has one or two talkgroups listed as 700-1 Type I groups, etc., but the most recent submission I have has many talkgroups for the helicopter as 50xxx Type II groups. The current entry for the system states every block should be size code 2. So what should be done - should I post the helicopter TGs as Type II groups? If there are Type II groups, which blocks are to be set up as Type II?
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Jay said:
The current entry for E-D has one or two talkgroups listed as 700-1 Type I groups, etc., but the most recent submission I have has many talkgroups for the helicopter as 50xxx Type II groups. The current entry for the system states every block should be size code 2. So what should be done - should I post the helicopter TGs as Type II groups? If there are Type II groups, which blocks are to be set up as Type II?
Type one with a fleetcode of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 for a bearcat scanner or Type II will work also.
 
Last edited:

Jeffn8wb

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
279
I am using a pro-96 scanner to search the system and all of the talk groups are showing as type 2 talkgroups. The system ID that I am showing is 6423 and I am getting about a 98% decode on the control channel.
 

electricsheep

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
503
Location
electricsheep
bidulock said:
As for my submission on this all I can say is that it came from a reliable source that states it is Bylaw PE on the radio.

This is correct, this has been the traffic bylaw talkgroup for years. "Police Records" is not a talkgroup. INFO (Channel 5) is a talkgroup and is provoice talkgroup 554.
 

Jay911

Silent Key (April 15th, 2023)
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,378
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
Thanks for that. Guys, I'm not trying to beat anyone down or throw bricks at people. It's just that I've been told that some of the things I've been putting into the database are wrong. Being that I've never monitored radio traffic in Edmonton, I can't say yes or no whether or not things are right. I just want to make sure that what goes up on the site is correct. :)
 

electricsheep

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
503
Location
electricsheep
Jay said:
Thanks for that. Guys, I'm not trying to beat anyone down or throw bricks at people. It's just that I've been told that some of the things I've been putting into the database are wrong. Being that I've never monitored radio traffic in Edmonton, I can't say yes or no whether or not things are right. I just want to make sure that what goes up on the site is correct. :)

No problems Jay,
The problem is there are only a handful of hardcore hobbyists in this city, and the few that do know what most things are properly called are "highly protective" of this data. This lack of accurate data also reflects the attitudes of the police around here to scanners users. Nobody wants to step forward and give up the data in case they portray themselves as "helping the criminals" as this is what how it will no doubt be looked upon by the current regime here in the city.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top