re: US Defense Dept. P25 system

[ampulman]

re: US Defense Dept. P25 system

As a resident of Camden County, NJ, I'm curious as to why updates to this system appear in 2 of 3 contiguous counties (Burlington being adjacent, Ocean and Monmouth distant).

Of the three counties, ONLY Monmouth (most distant) has sites.

While I don't monitor the system, there is the potential to do so (Philly, PA). Since I'm sandwiched between Philly and Burlington County (live a few miles from Burlington), I check it for updates that might be of interest. I also check Philly and surrounding for updates.

I'm assuming that the single-most logical criterion for listing a system in a county is the presence of sites there. Am I missing something?

Amp

 

[hpycmpr]

And to take it a step further, why does an addition to this same system in one state get listed in 21 states? and 40+ counties? I believe this diminishes the usefulness of the interactive maps.

Steve

 

[GTR8000]

And to take it a step further, why does an addition to this same system in one state get listed in 21 states? and 40+ counties? I believe this diminishes the usefulness of the interactive maps.

Steve

Because the system is assigned to each county as a whole. The fact that only one talkgroup that only operates in a single county was added/updated is irrelevant. It's just how the RRDB is interwoven, an update to a system triggers the updated flag for whatever entities it exists in. In this case, 45 counties get set to updated status because yes, a single talkgroup hundreds of miles away that you will never, ever listen to was added to the system.

 

[hpycmpr]

Thanks for the response. Is this really one system or separate systems that can be utilized by any radio assigned to its parts? In other words are the talk groups able to be heard throughout the system?

Steve

 

[ampulman]

Because the system is assigned to each county as a whole. The fact that only one talkgroup that only operates in a single county was added/updated is irrelevant. It's just how the RRDB is interwoven, an update to a system triggers the updated flag for whatever entities it exists in. In this case, 45 counties get set to updated status because yes, a single talkgroup hundreds of miles away that you will never, ever listen to was added to the system.

I understand this, but it really doesn't get to the heart of my question. I am sandwiched between two counties (Philadelphia, PA and Burlington, NJ) and am within listening distance of Philadelphia.

If Burlington and Ocean counties of NJ have no visible (at least to me) sites, why is the system listed there? No local TGs to listen to.

Since I can (almost) throw a stone into Burlington County, I check there database for updates and find it annoying to have to ponder a long list of entries, from which I will never find anything that I will be able to monitor, in the hope of finding something that I can monitor.

Amp

 

[GTR8000]

I understand this, but it really doesn't get to the heart of my question. I am sandwiched between two counties (Philadelphia, PA and Burlington, NJ) and am within listening distance of Philadelphia.

If Burlington and Ocean counties of NJ have no visible (at least to me) sites, why is the system listed there? No local TGs to listen to.

Since I can (almost) throw a stone into Burlington County, I check there database for updates and find it annoying to have to ponder a long list of entries, from which I will never find anything that I will be able to monitor, in the hope of finding something that I can monitor.

Amp

I was addressing hpycmpr's question about why every county the system is assigned to "lights up green" for even the most trivial update, and why the update to a TG that only affects a single county doesn't only show that county as being updated.

As far as your question, after looking at the list of the 45 counties the system is assigned to, I would have to say that listing it in Burlington and Ocean is an error. I won't speculate as to why it was listed in those counties, but I also noticed the system is listed in TX-UNKNOWN, which in effect turns the system into a statewide one for Texas.

I would suggest you submit a request to have Burlington and Ocean removed from the county listing, since there are no sites or bases in those counties.

Submit Data to RadioReference

 

[wise871]

I went ahead and fixed it for now but it could change later. With the current listing you are correct and NJ is not in the lineup. This does not say it will not change later when they decided on the final lineup. But again based on the current sites and talkgroups the problem should be fixed.
Dan

 

[GTR8000]

I went ahead and fixed it for now but it could change later. With the current listing you are correct and NJ is not in the lineup. This does not say it will not change later when they decided on the final lineup. But again based on the current sites and talkgroups the problem should be fixed.
Dan

To be clear, the system does exist in NJ, but only in Monmouth County for NWS Earle.

Please add Monmouth County, NJ back to the system.

 

[wise871]

Got It. Thanks.

 

[GTR8000]

Monmouth, sorry...fat fingers typo'd Ocean...should be Monmouth for NWS Earle. Sorry about that!

 

[wise871]

NP, fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[KE5TLF]

Merging all the regions into one huge monstrosity was a HUGE mistake. It was much better off being split into it's respective Navy Regions. So stupid to have one miniscule change in one state light up half the states in the country too.

 

[loumaag]

Merging all the regions into one huge monstrosity was a HUGE mistake. It was much better off being split into it's respective Navy Regions. So stupid to have one miniscule change in one state light up half the states in the country too.

Your opinion has been noted.