Observations, Discrepancies - UCAN Db

Not open for further replies.


Silent Key
Jul 25, 2005
Kearns, Utah
I have, as you all know if you read this Forum, been having difficulty with becoming familiar with my PSR-600, so I had two solid reasons - in my mind - to go through the Db: First, to become more familiar with the scanner and more precisely, the WIN500 software, and second, to change some of the alpha tags on many of the TGs that I downloaded to tags that I felt were easier for me to understand and recognize in the 16 character field allowed by the scanner for alpha tags.

I downloaded a healthy chunk (over 325 TGs in the blink of an eye) of the UCAN system (7202) and during my trek comparing the alpha tags in my old BC780XLTs, the alpha tags in my Dusty List of Old TGs, and the alpha tags downloaded with the TGs by using the WIN500 software to my GRE scanner (That is sooooo kewel! What a neat, fast, painless way to populate the scanner!), I found some discrepancies described below.

Originally I sent an e-mail to theaton about what I had found, but then I thought that rather than making unilateral changes (I hate having changes forced on me), it would be better to get input from the members of this Utah Forum. So here are my observations and I would like to hear from the gallery.

1. Okay, the alpha tag on TG 384 should be SLSO Tac 2. In fact, in the description box in the Db it says it is Tac 2, but the alpha tag itself says Tac 1. (This one should just be changed automatically as a "clerical error" [Sorry, theaton]). TG 224 is already listed as Tac 1 and there shouldn't be two TGs with the same tag.

2. TG 960 is listed in the 7202 system as SLSO Sp Ops 1 but it has always been a SLC PD TG for the city's SWAT and it is listed in the AC33 system as SLC PD SWAT. The SLSO has a Sp Ops TG (TG 640) and my dusty list of old TGs shows TG 960 as belonging to the city not the county.

3. TG 23296 is listed in the Db twice. Once as South Jordan Service and again as VECC PD Service. The South Jordan entry should be deleted, in my opinion, because they are a small department and share the VECC PD Service with several other small departments.​

How do the rest of you feel about making these changes?


Jun 21, 2005
North Muskegon, MI
1. I concur this is likely just a error

2. Interesting, is it possible that its a link from SLC? anyone with trunker show this TG active on UCAN?

3. I think VECC service is more accurate


Member N7VU
Database Admin
Sep 17, 2004
Moab, Utah

Good catches, Brent! I went ahead and made the suggested changes.

I got to SLC this morning and am preparing for a climb in Little Cottonwood Canyon tomorrow. I picked up some rebanded UCAN traffic in Echo Canyon with my 396, so things aren't so bad thus far.

Not open for further replies.