Orleans Cutover

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThePagerGeek

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
192
Just curious how the database admins are going to address this?

It will have the same WACN but different System ID, similar to Monroe, Ontario, Genesee.

- Monroe and Ontario systems are actually linked, so they should be grouped together in the database (and they are)
- Genesee isn't linked, but the database is combined with Monroe and Ontario anyways. (not sure why)
- Orleans isn't linked, but will they grouped in with the rest of them?

tpg
 

Thunderknight

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
2,033
Location
Bletchley Park
This has come up before in the forum without any action (not sure if no action was on purpose by the db admin, or just from lack of submission requesting change).

If they have different system IDs, shouldn't they be separate entries, even if they are linked? Not sure what the official policy is on that.

For example, in Central NY the 4 of the counties are the same sysid and are one entry, but Cortland is a different sysid and therefore it's own entry.

I'm not in the area to confirm myself, so I can't in good conscience put in a database submission. If you are and can confirm the information you posted, please submit a database submission asking for them to be split into individual system and see what happens.

I think the entry as it exists today is kind of confusing.
 

Thunderbolt

Global Database Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Messages
6,939
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan
If they have different system IDs, shouldn't they be separate entries, even if they are linked? Not sure what the official policy is on that.
Not anymore. If there is evidence to support trunked radio systems are linked together by whatever means, or share talkgroups, then they will be merged together as one single database listing.

For example, in Central NY the 4 of the counties are the same sysid and are one entry, but Cortland is a different sysid and therefore it's own entry.
Currently, it's our understanding that Cortland County is not linked into the CNYICC TRS. This will likely change down the road, and when they do so, or if someone submits information when this happens, the Cortland TRS will be merged into CNYICC TRS. With that being said, it will be very interesting to see how the Broome County P25 TRS is rolled-out in the future.

Modern Harris P25 trunking radio systems are different than Motorola. They are linked via WACN, with each cell having a different system ID. This allows them connect, and share talkgroups over each cell site, much like Motorola does via Omni-Link.

I think the entry as it exists today is kind of confusing.
The "Finger Lakes Region New York Interoperable Communications Consortium," is spearheading this new radio system. They're a newly formed consortium of ten counties in the Finger Lakes Region whose goal is to promote the implementation of interoperable radio communications, and the implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1 technologies among the participating Counties. Originally, the system was named in our database along these lines to promote the regional communications concept, but was changed due to the delay some counties were experiencing in joining the new radio network.

73's

Ron
 

ThePagerGeek

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
192
Not anymore. If there is evidence to support trunked radio systems are linked together by whatever means, or share talkgroups, then they will be merged together as one single database listing.



Currently, it's our understanding that Cortland County is not linked into the CNYICC TRS. This will likely change down the road, and when they do so, or if someone submits information when this happens, the Cortland TRS will be merged into CNYICC TRS. With that being said, it will be very interesting to see how the Broome County P25 TRS is rolled-out in the future.

Modern Harris P25 trunking radio systems are different than Motorola. They are linked via WACN, with each cell having a different system ID. This allows them connect, and share talkgroups over each cell site, much like Motorola does via Omni-Link.



The "Finger Lakes Region New York Interoperable Communications Consortium," is spearheading this new radio system. They're a newly formed consortium of ten counties in the Finger Lakes Region whose goal is to promote the implementation of interoperable radio communications, and the implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1 technologies among the participating Counties. Originally, the system was named in our database along these lines to promote the regional communications concept, but was changed due to the delay some counties were experiencing in joining the new radio network.

73's

Ron
I can say for certain that Genesee and Orleans are not connected.

Just because they have the same WACN, doesn't mean they are connected. The concept promotes future connectivity, but that's just it... "future"...

The Consortium was built to keep all 10 counties aware of what every other county is doing in the arena of communications. It is an effort to keep technologies in sync. It wasn't about creating a giant radio system. Livingston and Wayne intend to stay VHF.

As for your comparison between Motorola and Harris systems, they are the same. Both work the same way, per the P25 standard. Nothing magical. Again, just because they have the same WACN, doesn't mean they are connected.

tpg
 

ThePagerGeek

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
192
Modern Harris P25 trunking radio systems are different than Motorola. They are linked via WACN, with each cell having a different system ID. This allows them connect, and share talkgroups over each cell site, much like Motorola does via Omni-Link.
Also, to clarify; a "cell" is the RFSS ID, not System ID.

tpg
 

ThePagerGeek

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
192
Not anymore. If there is evidence to support trunked radio systems are linked together by whatever means, or share talkgroups, then they will be merged together as one single database listing.
Based on the database; it appears that you're going to choose to do it regardless of factual information provided to you.

Oh well... I tried.

tpg
 

RF-Burns

Member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
297
I agree they seem to do what ever they want. Reporting facts about the system is all you can do for what ever reason they don't care. Thats the problem of having admins hundreds of miles away. I thought it was funny one mentioned Livingston and Wayne County in another post. Both of them were smart and absolutely refuse to go on this system.


Based on the database; it appears that you're going to choose to do it regardless of factual information provided to you.

Oh well... I tried.

tpg
 

bigcam406

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,154
Location
oshawa,ont,canada
so,if they switched over on the 28th,how will we know what talkgroups are being used if they are merged together? I assume we have to wait until someone submits them.
 

ThePagerGeek

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
192
They are not merged. They have their own talkgroups.... just like Genesee.

Someone will need to post what they hear / decode.

tpg
 

bigcam406

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,154
Location
oshawa,ont,canada
I meant merged as lumped together in the database.i guess we got to wait to see what others come up with.im going to try and receive it up here,as im right across the lake to the north.
 

zrulli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
19
Location
Webster, NY
I've been doing some Trunking discovery on each site on my new BCD536HP. Soon as I get Orleans on there i will have to go drive over that-a-way and try to get some talk groups.

and oh poor Wayne & Livingston are going to be VHF forever it seems.
 

mciupa

Member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
7,382
Based on the database; it appears that you're going to choose to do it regardless of factual information provided to you.

Oh well... I tried.

tpg

This is the directive we as DB Admin's should work under:

TRUNKED DATA
6.3.1. GENERAL
Never combine more than one logical system as a single system entry in the RR database. Just because a system is licensed to the same operator does not mean the sites are networked. Only systems of a type that is capable of being networked and that are known to be networked together shall be included as a single system in the RR database. “Hard” talkgroup patches between one or more systems are not considered “networked” for the purposes of the RR database.
All trunked systems in the RR database are automatically assigned a unique ID (“sid”). Please note that the “sid” value is not the same as a trunked system’s “system ID” (if it has one).
Conventional frequencies used in conjunction with a trunked radio system shall be entered in the database on the appropriate county (or if applicable, agency) page in the RR database. You shall link the corresponding trunked system to the subcategory by using the subcategory trunked system link. Subcategory-to-trunked radio system links shall be added to all conventional subcategories for which there is a related trunked radio system. The trunked radio system links are intended to facilitate easy identification of the proper place to monitor specific agencies and departments, especially for novice users or users unfamiliar with a particular area.
Trunked systems shall always be entered with the “highest level” mode of operation for which it is confirmed to be capable. For example, enter a Project 25 system as “Phase 2” type if it is confirmed to be Type 2 capable even if it has no TDMA talkgroups confirmed in use yet.
Trunked systems shall be assigned to the union of all counties for which they are actually intended to provide coverage in addition to any other counties containing transmitter sites. Only use the “Statewide” special county setting for systems that truly cover all counties in a state. While new systems are being built out, assign them only to the counties which are actually confirmed to be covered.
 

Jay911

.
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,307
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
I wish the inverse was followed too. There are several systems in the RRDB which have identical WACN and sysid (which DOES indicate that it's all one system) but have been separated for aesthetic or other unknown reasons.

Same WACN but different sysid = different systems. Otherwise 99% of Mot P25 systems should be considered interconnected.
 

ThePagerGeek

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
192
Well, I tried...

Submission 149628:

This has been covered several times in the NY Forum, be here is an official "submission."

The Monroe County and Ontario Counties are tied together, but are 2 systems under a single WACN to allow roaming.
Orleans is independent, not connected to the others.
Genesee is independent, not connected to the others.

Just because they have the same WACN, doesn't mean they are connected. They are NOT.

Also, Genesee is the only one using Phase 2.

The local scanner users are getting incorrect information based on this, and programming is hard to explain with your misinformation in the database.

Users think they are all linked, they are not.
Users think that Monroe, Ontario and Orleans are now Phase 2, they are not.

Thank you.
Thunderbolt said:
After reviewing your submission regarding the aforementioned radio system. The Administrative staff at this Web site have decided to leave the listing in our database as is. This is in compliance with our general guidelines regarding such matters.
Eh... oh well lol
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
General Order Number One should be that the information in the database is as accurate as possible.
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
5,419
Location
Ohio
Modern Harris P25 trunking radio systems are different than Motorola. They are linked via WACN, with each cell having a different system ID. This allows them connect, and share talkgroups over each cell site, much like Motorola does via Omni-Link.
Actually this is true for Motorola systems as well, it's part of the P25 standard.

While Motorola has Master Sites (the brains of the whole system) scaled for different size users which vary mainly in the number of zones and sites which can be connected, the largest (M3) core can support up to 7 zones with 100 sites per zone, all under a single system ID. That's a pretty big system, and is what's being rolled out in Ohio even now.

In addition, multiple Motorola systems with different system IDs can be interconnected via ISSI to further expand coverage, sharing only a common WACN. The number of available talk paths across systems can be set up as desired in the system Master Sites.

Finally, systems from other manufacturers can also be cross-connected via ISSI, similar to the above. As long as the WACN and other setup parameters are matched up, seamless roaming is possible.

So you could easily have a monster P25 network comprised of multiple systems made by Motorola, Harris, Cassidian and Tait, and all seamless to the users (and scannists).

As to the systems under discussion in this thread, it is RadioReference policy that all P25 systems which are networked together are listed as a single system. As long as there is evidence to support networking we'll enter them as a single system; conversely, if they're not networked they'll be entered as stand-alone systems.
 
Last edited:

ThePagerGeek

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
192
Yup. I agree. I tried simplifying it in Post #4 above. (Last line)

I guess my main point is: They don't HAVE to be connected if they have the same WACN. It certainly makes programming, roaming, etc easier... but for BOTH Motorola AND Harris... it's only an option.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Maybe a note could be placed on the system(s) in question stating that they are not networked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top