Ottawa P25

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveH

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
3,282
Location
Ottawa, Ont.
Ottawa Public Safety (Project 25) Trunking System, Ottawa, Ontario - Scanner Frequencies

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but in recent submission:

TG 461 is not OC Transpo Supervisors.
TG 2019 is not OC Transpo

Also, the table of unidentified TGs labelled OPS is confusing. Somebody who doesn't know
otherwise might take these to be Ottawa Police Service, which they are (mostly) not, except
anything in the 30xx range.

What it looks like to me:

15xx OC Transpo
20xx City services
30xx Ottawa Police
35xx OFS (future)

Dave
 

VE3RADIO

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,247
Location
Planet Earth
I was listening to 461 for hours and it was oc supervisors talking about fares on express routes and so on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

DaveH

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
3,282
Location
Ottawa, Ont.
OK, though it is certainly not the normal usage of TG 461. I think it may be a patch between
ParaTranso TGs in the 15xx range. Perhaps something got changed temporarily or by accident,
will listen, mostl likely it's back to "normal".

Dave
 

IdleMonitor

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
2,619
Location
The Ottawa Valley - Eastern Ontario
Why are they even in the database if they haven't been actually confirmed with an actual user?

I have a bunch of talkgroups for a few systems but I can't update the database because I don't know who they are?



For clarity, I have modified the System talkgroups to (Alpha) OTT and (Description) Ottawa from OPS.
 

DaveH

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
3,282
Location
Ottawa, Ont.
Appears that TG 461 is back to a patch for ParaTranspo...not sure why it would have changed.

TG 2019 sounds like waste operations at a dump; reference to piles (of? ;) ), heavy eqt., trucks
coming in from various waste mgt. companies, etc. Which dump is unknown.

On 2019 I did hear once a short burst of OC Transpo activity, a few seconds over a few hours of listening;
unclear if scanner mis-decoded or there is an issue with the system (which might explain TG 461 earlier).

Dave
 

mciupa

DB Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
7,086
Why are they even in the database if they haven't been actually confirmed with an actual user?

I have a bunch of talkgroups for a few systems but I can't update the database because I don't know who they are?
My thinking is that it will encourage others to listen and identify if they have a starting point.

They can easily be removed if need be.
 

VE3RADIO

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,247
Location
Planet Earth
I completely agree with you.

So is it ok to do this for this system only? or other systems as well?
I submit information for every system I find or monitor.. even if you dont know the user it helps to know what talkgroups are active.. why would you hide it? Additionally if you dont have any talkgroups then the database use scanners wont be able to use the system from the database unless you program them manually... or have the search function in your HP1 etc..
 

IdleMonitor

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
2,619
Location
The Ottawa Valley - Eastern Ontario
Again, I agree, but the rules of RR state no unconfirmed info can be sent to the database. That's why I'm asking. Confused by this since I saw all these unknown talkgroups added to the database.

So.....can I add unconfirmed talkgroups on systems when I don't know the user, but know that they've been used?

I submit information for every system I find or monitor.. even if you dont know the user it helps to know what talkgroups are active.. why would you hide it? Additionally if you dont have any talkgroups then the database use scanners wont be able to use the system from the database unless you program them manually... or have the search function in your HP1 etc..
 

mmisk

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
612
Location
Ottawa Canada
A Few TG's

OK then, here are a few items:

1528 and 1529 sounds like para transpo
1539 was used for new light rail lines testing recently
 

VE3RADIO

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,247
Location
Planet Earth
Again, I agree, but the rules of RR state no unconfirmed info can be sent to the database. That's why I'm asking. Confused by this since I saw all these unknown talkgroups added to the database.

So.....can I add unconfirmed talkgroups on systems when I don't know the user, but know that they've been used?


Unconfirmed and unknown are two different things..

I can confirm talkgroup 2015 is active.. I cannot confirm the user.. but that does not make the talkgroup not confirmed active on the system.
 

mikewazowski

Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
11,412
Location
Central Ontario
https://wiki.radioreference.com/images/1/1e/RadioReference.com_Database_Administrator_Handbook_1.8.pdf

Section 6.1.2

Any unconfirmed data – do not use the database as a “scratch pad” for miscellaneous notes; please use
the forums and wiki for this type of data. License data is not considered confirmed! A press release about a system being planned is not considered confirmed data either.


Unless a user or description of the type of traffic on the talkgroup can be added, the talkgroup should be in the Wiki.

On a trunking system, a generic description such as "Plumbing" will suffice.

Unfortunately, all those OTT talkgroups really belong in the Wiki.
 

IdleMonitor

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
2,619
Location
The Ottawa Valley - Eastern Ontario
This is basically what I was getting at. Thanks for the clarification.

https://wiki.radioreference.com/images/1/1e/RadioReference.com_Database_Administrator_Handbook_1.8.pdf

Section 6.1.2

Any unconfirmed data – do not use the database as a “scratch pad” for miscellaneous notes; please use
the forums and wiki for this type of data. License data is not considered confirmed! A press release about a system being planned is not considered confirmed data either.


Unless a user or description of the type of traffic on the talkgroup can be added, the talkgroup should be in the Wiki.

On a trunking system, a generic description such as "Plumbing" will suffice.

Unfortunately, all those OTT talkgroups really belong in the Wiki.
 

VE3RADIO

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,247
Location
Planet Earth
So your saying it's better to have no talkgroups listed for a system than have the current active talkgroups listed because we can't pinpoint the user? Without a couple key people providing a lot of information most of Ontario would be blank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

VE3RADIO

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,247
Location
Planet Earth
I'm not saying anything, I'm just pointing out the policy.

You might want to read and comment in this thread:

http://forums.radioreference.com/database-discussion-forum/333892-dmr-unknown-talkgroups.html

There's no sense in rehashing the argument here.
So quite a large bunch of us sit down for coffee every week and we were discussing how this policy is quite stupid.

Obviously its not your decision Steve.. but let me give you an example of where this policy is failing..

One system that was submitted here I will not say the name because we have decided to boycott the RR database because of this policy had talkgroups that were labeled as Channel 1, Channel 2, Channel 3 etc.. (TG1, TG2, TG3). These talkgroups were removed from the database because of the above stupid policy.. yet what the admins did not realize is that the person whom submitted the data read the codeplug right out of the radio and that is how the channels were labeled in the radio. So now there is no information for a system that was actually 100% correct..

Another problem is that some of the Uniden HP scanners do not have ID search mode unless you pay Paul for the stupid upgrade key to unlock functionality that should be basic (HP1 cough cough). This leaves people unable to scan new systems like Ottawa as there are no talkgroups in the database.. even tho they are active on the system and could be identified by people listening. I don't claim to have the facts or even know but it sure feels like this was done on purpose so people would buy the upgrade and enable the search function. *Takes out tinfoil hat*

Either way its a stupid policy and no more updates will be provided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top