Patched frequencies and Database placement

[b52hbuff]

I have a question about the proper placement of patched frequencies in the RR.com database. The abstract question is… "Should two different frequencies (and tones) that are assigned to two different facilities that are located in two different counties be entered in a statewide page, or should they be migrated into their respective county's page?

If these frequencies were not patched together, then the answer is provided in this thread:
http://forums.radioreference.com/da...162-clarification-state-wide-frequencies.html

However, the additional confusion added by the patching leads some to believe that frequencies should be left in a state-wide agency page.

Just as discussed in the referenced thread, having superfluous frequencies in a statewide page reduces the efficiency of location based scanning. Splitting the frequencies in question into their respective county pages allows location based scanning to work as intended and minimizes the number of frequencies scanned.

Here is a link to the frequencies in question:
Federal Operations (Statewide or Regional) Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
VAMC Martinez is 407.88750 293 NAC (Contra Costa County)
VAMC Sac 414.32500 293 NAC (Sacramento County)

Note that in this example, It is the traffic and not the frequency that is 'patched'. It isn't one repeater with one frequency on a mountain serving a multi-county area. If it were a single frequency, then the concern about duplication would be valid.

The facilities use two repeaters, with two different frequencies, in two different counties, that are linked by some means. There is no reason to duplicate the VAMC Martinez facility entry in Sacramento County nor to duplicate the VAMC Sac entry in Contra Costa County.

A listener of VAMC Martinez in Contra Costa County wants only 407.8875/$293 in his scan list. A listener of VAMC Sac in Sacramento County wants only 414.325/$293 in his scan list.

What purpose is served by making everyone in the state have both frequencies in a scan list?

Database experts, please weigh in… Do multi-county patched frequencies belong on a statewide agency page, or should they be distributed to their respective county pages?

Thanks!

 

[ericcarlson]

Each should be entered on the respective county page. A note can be added to the description of each to reflect the patching.

 

[b52hbuff]

Thanks for the guidance. I'll submit a request and see what happens!

 

[kma371]

Why don't you just submit lat/longs for those. Isn't this just a way to make your HP1 easier by having them in your county rather than statewide page?

 

[GTR8000]

Why don't you just submit lat/longs for those. Isn't this just a way to make your HP1 easier by having them in your county rather than statewide page?

That seems to be his M.O. generally speaking, however in this instance because both of those frequencies are in the same subcategory "Northern California", submitting a unique Lat/Long for each frequency/county wouldn't do any good. Geotagging can only be done at the subcategory level, not on a per-frequency basis.

That being said, I don't see what the big deal is with having entries from two neighboring counties in the same statewide category as California Federal is currently setup. They are two separate repeaters using unique frequencies. The fact that they are patched is entirely irrelevant. If you don't want to listen to the repeater in the next county over, lock it out or use the HP1's Avoid feature.

Maybe there are some people who travel back and forth between both counties who listen to those repeaters and appreciate the fact that they are in the same category, rather than having to go through each county individually. What you (b52hbuff) see as an inconvenience with your HP1, some would see as a benefit. There are two sides to every coin.

 

[b52hbuff]

That seems to be his M.O. generally speaking, however in this instance because both of those frequencies are in the same subcategory "Northern California", submitting a unique Lat/Long for each frequency/county wouldn't do any good. Geotagging can only be done at the subcategory level, not on a per-frequency basis.

Chauffeur6, you are correct, this has historically been my M.O. But part of my history is learning more about the RR.com Database, and the HP-1. As I learn, I try to feed that back into my submissions and my questions.

When I first got the HP-1, my radio stopped on a lot of garbage and the scan lists seemed to be huge. My first attempt to address the problem was to submit geotag information for many of the 'state wide' entities. The geotag would allow location based scanning to filter out these frequencies that weren't in my monitoring area.

That being said, I don't see what the big deal is with having entries from two neighboring counties in the same statewide category as California Federal is currently setup. They are two separate repeaters using unique frequencies. The fact that they are patched is entirely irrelevant. If you don't want to listen to the repeater in the next county over, lock it out or use the HP1's Avoid feature.

Maybe there are some people who travel back and forth between both counties who listen to those repeaters and appreciate the fact that they are in the same category, rather than having to go through each county individually. What you (b52hbuff) see as an inconvenience with your HP1, some would see as a benefit. There are two sides to every coin.

While it is often the case that there are two sides to every coin, there are also times when there is a 'wrong way' and a 'right way'…. Even if both 'sides' were equally valid from a technical aspect, it is incumbent upon the database staff (e.g. Eric and his peers) to define a common way so that information can be processed programmatically, and presented to the users in a consistent way.

Please take a moment to review this thread:
http://forums.radioreference.com/da...162-clarification-state-wide-frequencies.html

I think there are three issues at play:
1. Allow LBS to operate as intended.
2. Allow smooth migration during transition time when not all elements are geotagged.
3. Allow information to be easily located on the site and on the device in the field.

You already understand item #1, as you corrected kma371 on the thread. You cannot geotag a frequency. You can only geotag a subcategory.

One could argue that you could divide the information up on the state-wide page, and then geotag the new subcategories. In effect, you're copying the division of county level pages manually on the state wide page. In operation, it would have a similar effect as what Eric has defined, but it has at least two drawbacks.

During the time in which not every subcategory is geotagged, the subcategory inherits the geotag from the parent page or the county page on which it is located. State wide pages inherit the state geotag. So until every subcategory is geotagged, then LBS won't work properly if frequencies are misplaced on a state wide level page.

The other issue is how to locate information while you are out in the field? Once you identify your county, it is intuitive to find all county related information on that page and subpages. If a county-scoped entity is stored on a state-scoped page, then I have to know that ahead of time and go look.

So if I can't find 'Presidio of Monterey' in Monterey county, is it because no one has submitted the data? Or is it because the data exists on some other page? Which page? If I want to listen to Federal frequencies, then the exercise repeats… First look in the county, and then duplicate the search in the state page.

While this is simply annoying on a 1920x1200 pixel screen with a keyboard and internet browser, it is *much* more cumbersome with a radio out in the field.

Why make people look in two places, when the data logically belongs in one place?

In the case you consider, where someone wants to put the frequencies together, I would argue this is what a 'Favorites' list is for. Because if you force these frequencies together, the only way to separate them is to 'Avoid' one or the other. This is also cumbersome in the field and on the move. Why not configure the data to allow LBS to do what it was intended to do? Allow a GPS to create scan lists of frequencies and TGIDs that are within your monitoring jurisdiction?

 

[b52hbuff]

Why don't you just submit lat/longs for those. Isn't this just a way to make your HP1 easier by having them in your county rather than statewide page?

As Chauffer6 says, simply submitting geotags won't work, since frequencies are not geotag-able elements.

The DB AG says you aren't supposed to make changes simply to support a device.

3.6. DATABASE ENTITY NAMING POLICY
The RR database entities (e.g., frequencies, talkgroups, categories, subcategories, descriptions, alpha tags, etc.) should never be added, removed, named, renamed or changed to adjust them for a specific device, product or consumer of RR data.

It is not acceptable to attempt to work-around bugs in third party devices or products by modifying the RR database. Bugs in third party devices or products that occur due to incomplete or incorrect usage of RR data should be reported directly to the third party device manufacturers.

But moving the frequencies to county pages is a 'win win'. It makes those entries adhere to the guidelines of the DB Admin Guide *and* it makes the HP-1 easier to use.
From the last thread:
http://forums.radioreference.com/da...162-clarification-state-wide-frequencies.html

http://wiki.radioreference.com/imag...e.com_Database_Administrator_Handbook_1.4.pdf

6.2.3. COUNTY-LEVEL PAGES
County-level pages are the main pages within the RR database for accessing conventional radio data. All public safety and local government frequencies should be placed on the county page corresponding to the county in which they are used.

And Eric affirms this in the thread:

In general things should be on the county page. Statewide pages are only for truly statewide operations or special case multi-county uses that are not specific to a county. Your example of specific military bases is something that should be on the county pages.

The Federal frequencies under discussion do not warrant an exception to Eric's rule. And the fact that they are patched is immaterial. There are other statewide frequencies in the California section that will need to be moved as part of this understanding...

 

[kma371]

I hate holding my tounge

 

[b52hbuff]

Go to lounge and let it fly...