Consider it confirmed. 7479 is Urgent Fire.
Four new discoveries on the Madison County system:
7214 Towns Highway Department
7216 Towns Highway Department
65024 Utica PD Dispatch
7431 unknown fire department
So why is TGID 65024 on the Madison system? I recorded a lot of traffic and verified this is indeed the Utica PD. Thoughts?
Does anyone know what TGID 7431 belongs to?
Four new discoveries on the Madison County system:
7214 Towns Highway Department
7216 Towns Highway Department
65024 Utica PD Dispatch
7431 unknown fire department
So why is TGID 65024 on the Madison system? I recorded a lot of traffic and verified this is indeed the Utica PD. Thoughts?
Does anyone know what TGID 7431 belongs to?
I have logged the following
7312 SOMAC AMB (Southern Madison County)
7431 Deruyter FD
7434 Georgetown FD
7447 Fire Training Ch.
7448 Eaton FD
Hi Andy,
I uploaded the Madison County Discover files to my Google share for your review. Please pay attention to TGID 65024. The addresses referenced in the recordings are indeed Utica NY. This was recorded on the Madison County P25 system. So... what am I overlooking?
Madison_Cty - Google Drive
Scott
I have logged the following
7312 SOMAC AMB (Southern Madison County)
7431 Deruyter FD
7434 Georgetown FD
7447 Fire Training Ch.
7448 Eaton FD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
othb1234 - Are you planning on submitting these TGIDs to the RR database?
Yes all except 7447.
Also confirmed 7449 as Fire Coordinator Channel
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Andy - in regards to 7214 and 7216, these are highway department transmissions between flagmen. I didn't hear them identify the name of their departments, just their personal names (Jim, Harry, Kevin, etc...). Since we already have existing generic tags in the database, maybe we should continue to use this until someone hears something specific.
7214 MC Town Hwy 7214 Towns Highway Department Public Works
7216 MC Town Hwy 7216 Towns Highway Department Public Works
If you guys disagree, please say so.
Since we already have existing generic tags in the database, maybe we should continue to use this until someone hears something specific.
Let me weigh in, as a dbadmin. If we can figure out more specifics for these talkgroups, that is obviously preferable to having a bunch of talkgroups listed with the same generic description. This is the first I'm hearing of the Highway talkgroups being used by flagmen, which would've been something to include in previous submissions.I don’t have an issue with that.
I don’t have an issue with that. My only thing is that during one of the transmissions one of the guys said we need to change channels because we are “on the County” which makes me think these channels are a Countywide DPW TG set or potentially just a County Highway channel. I’m attempting to confirm with contacts in the field the number of channels available to them on the radios.
All, I have also heard flagging on 7213. (unknown highway dept)
Also RR database lists TGID 115 as Law Inter-County. I have in the past and today heard it referenced as Law Wide.
Gary
IMO, L-WIDE would be a channel label, and Intercounty would be a description.
I've left notes on submissions made by some in this thread which have not been replied to. I just made a thread regarding this yesterday that you guys should take a look at, please. I do everything possible to make sure that the best data gets into the database for all of you to enjoy, so please help me help you. Thanks.
Submissions for conventional stuff goes to the county, and we can see that. Submissions for trunked systems go to the system itself, with no county indicated. Since the CNYICC TRS covers five counties, it's not always clear where talkgroups or info belongs unless specified in the submission itself. The IDs were in the Madison County range, and searching each showed them to actually be in Madison, so I took care of it. Thanks!I just now saw your note. Let me first say that I’m sorry I missed that, but second, when you submit or correct information, it requires you to choose a County. I guess I didn’t realize that information is not part of what an dbadmin sees. I wonder how many others had assumed the same.