Entries in "Nationwide" database

[c5corvette]

I am wondering if any of the admins will confirm they are the keepers of the "Nationwide" portion of the database.

I realize this new Nationwide section, in order to be effective, will require extra scrutinization to keep out the rif-raff. However, I just made some changes and have a couple more questions before I make too many more.

My career job deals with interop daily, so naturally some of the changes I made were to the interop sections. There were some analog listings that needed to be P25 (its all publicly documented in the NIFOG guide, in case you are wondering.)

I am seeing some duplicate postings in different categories and want to make some suggestions before I blindly submit much more. Would one of the admins who concentrate on this section be willing to PM me?

 

[c5corvette]

They have started to assign / complete some of the submissions... it appears certan folks may be responsible for certain sections (this is a good thing.)

 

[c5corvette]

I've got a lot more submisisons to make, but was waiting on some of the once I sent in yesterday to get taken care of first - doesn't look like that is happening too fast.

In the meantime, let me post this question to the group...

The Nationwide > Interporability section for the most part mimics the NIFOG guide publish by DHS. Except for some 700 itinerent listed and the Railroad Police Mutual Aid listed, its completly the same.

I am consideiring asking them to remove those two items so they are exactly the same. I would propose a new subcategory for the 700 itinerant (since I have some others to add too) and would suggest that the Railroad Police Mutual Aid just be removed since its double listed (over in the RR section just add the description of Police Mutual Aid.)

(Oh, yes there is alot of other stuff double listed in business and other categories that I would propose to clean up.)

I realize that if you want to hear certain things in certain scan rotations double listing something makes programming your scanner easier, but my opinion is unless it has a different PL/NAC and serves a different purpose then if its nationwide it should only get listed once!

What is everyone elses opinion?

An admin opinion would be appreacited too???

 

[ericcarlson]

Nationwide frequencies are maintained by our "global" administrators.

Generally speaking we don't want duplicates however in the nationwide section we serve two competing interests which are (1) nationwide standard channel plans (e.g., railroad) and (2) specific identified usages of frequencies. Due to this, there will be a limited amount of overlap.

 

[ibagli]

Is there a reason why most of the interop frequencies have separate entries for the simplex frequencies, even though to the user they're just duplicates of the repeater entries? 866.0125 is 866.0125, whether it's coming straight from a mobile radio or from a repeater.

 

[krokus]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.973 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

The interop list should not match NIFOG, there are more freqs than just the ones listed in NIFOG. I could see giving the user a choice between "NIFOG only" and all listed freqs.

 

[c5corvette]

Is there a reason why most of the interop frequencies have separate entries for the simplex frequencies, even though to the user they're just duplicates of the repeater entries? 866.0125 is 866.0125, whether it's coming straight from a mobile radio or from a repeater.

In the NIFOG, they are listed seperate for example 8CALL90 and 8CALL90D. In the real world of public safety transceivers, this creates questions and confusion too since we don't call out "D" channels for other services we just know it as "simplex" mode.

In this case, since its listed in the NIFOG and becasue it has the input frequency listed, I wasn't referring to that as a duplicate. IMHO, they should leave it in the database as is, since this is how it is represented in the NIFOG.

From a hobby perspective, I agree - I dont want duplicate entries downloaded to my scanner. (What I really want is the rx frequency downloaded once, and I might want to enter the input frequencies too so I can tell when I am really near an incident. But that is not how the database was designed to work.)

I have several submissions pending to fix a few other mistakes they have listed. They are documented mistakes that can be referenced in the NIFOG, I don't know what is taking them so long to take action. Lets see how long this takes to get corrected.

 

[c5corvette]

The interop list should not match NIFOG, there are more freqs than just the ones listed in NIFOG. I could see giving the user a choice between "NIFOG only" and all listed freqs.

I disagree with you when you say the interop list should not match NIFOG.
However, I agree with giving the user a choice between "NIFOG only" and all listed freqs.

Right now there is a category called Interop and there is a subcategory under that called Intreroperability. I would recommend one subcategory called NIFOG and another called something else.

As soon as the admins fix the dozen submissions I have pending, I will then make that recommendation next.

One step at a time.

 

[c5corvette]

Nationwide frequencies are maintained by our "global" administrators.

Generally speaking we don't want duplicates however in the nationwide section we serve two competing interests which are (1) nationwide standard channel plans (e.g., railroad) and (2) specific identified usages of frequencies. Due to this, there will be a limited amount of overlap.

Good example of where duplicates are okay would be something like 154.570 listed in the (1) nationwide standard channel plans and (2) listed with PL tone for a Blimp, etc.

Generally speaking, I will send submissions for things we don't want duplicates of. Thanks.

Not withstanding the sticky in this forum that just says we'll get to it, how long should these Nationwide submissions really take to get updated?

 

[ericcarlson]

Not withstanding the sticky in this forum that just says we'll get to it, how long should these Nationwide submissions really take to get updated?

We have an all-volunteer administrator group and in recent history we've been running a 200+ submission backlog on an ongoing basis. I can't guarantee specific turn-around times on submissions for a variety of reasons. You can view submission status in your RR account and you should be notified via e-mail when submissions are processed. All submissions are logged and tracked.

 

[c5corvette]

Thanks. Watching my submissions closely.

The RR user community graciously thanks all of your volunteers for what you folks do!!!

 

[rwier]

We have an all-volunteer administrator group and in recent history we've been running a 200+ submission backlog on an ongoing basis. I can't guarantee specific turn-around times on submissions for a variety of reasons. You can view submission status in your RR account and you should be notified via e-mail when submissions are processed. All submissions are logged and tracked.

Not a submission type here, but if I did contribute, I would accept a 30-90 day delay in a database change as completely acceptable. Hard to believe anyone is retrieving, scrutinizing, editing, and entering RR database data as a full time job.

 

[c5corvette]

Not a submission type here, but if I did contribute, I would accept a 30-90 day delay in a database change as completely acceptable.

We hear all this hype about "please update the database if is not right, or if your pre-programmed scanner isn't scanning what it is supposed to, etc." and yet for the process to take weeks much less 30-90 days would not be 'completely acceptable' as you suggest!!!

I assume not only are you not a submission type, you probably dont rely on the database for up to date info needed to keep current what you listen to.

I have a feeling, Uniden and GRE (makers of the HP-1 and PSR700/800) would agree with me. The accuracy of the database is becoming more and more important as the products are driven more by the data instead of end users self-programming.