- Joined
- Oct 28, 2017
- Messages
- 286
That. Was. Awesome. Thank you so much!My take here is that something seems to be very wonky with how UT "sees" SLERS sites (it should not see it as a new system - right?) and for some reason the sites information is getting re/over-populated.... note it put "FORT WHITE" in there again for Site 140.... (??????????)
First, some ancient history - most I'm sure you already know.
On non-Site Pro systems (plain EDACS wide and narrow), the RR DB uses fake site numbers. They are generally the real site number until there's a collision, the next site gets 100 plus its real site, the next collision gets 200 plus its real site and so on. Some Motorola systems were also done this way. The program has dealt with this messed up convention for years.
My mistake is in applying the modulo site number logic to a Site Pro system. With 256 sites, that hack in the DB does not apply.
Thanks again for calling this out.
Now, to get this thread back on topic. There does appear to also be an issue with the Melbourne site data in the RR DB. The DB shows LCN 1 to be 852.95 while your screenshot (before re-downloading the SLERs system) shows LCN 1 to be 856.5125. I'm inclined to trust your screenshot over what's currently listed in the DB.