RR Database - West Virginia - Submissions Requested

[mtindor]

Recently we have had quite a number of updates of frequency information for counties in West Virginia. This is great considering that a lot of the information in the RRDB for many WV counties is old and potentially outdated.

Since seeing these new submissions, it made me think to put out a request.

If you monitor a specific county in WV, please look at your county's database page in the RadioReference Database. If you know of new frequencies that are in use which are not listed in your county, or if you see inaccurate information in the database for your county, please feel free to submit updates via the Submit button in your county's database page.

A few notes about submissions:

1. We only want accurate / current information that has been confirmed by listening

Simply providing information garnered from FCC data is not enough. We only want to have up to date, accurate information that has been confirmed by listening

2. We prefer to have as much information as possible such as:

• Frequency or Frequency Pair (if it is a repeater and you have confirmed the input/output)
• Tone (PL, DPL/DCS, NAC)
• Mode (FM, P25)
• Suggested Alpha Tag
• Agency using the system
• Primary activity (Dispatch / Tactical Comms / etc)

3. Submissions are closely scrutinized by admins who work those submissions

Admins take into consideration numerous factors when working submissions, such as your history on these boards, previous submissions that you have made and their accuracy, whether or not your information is associated with an FCC license, and many other factors.

Often times an admin needs to dialog further with the submitter before the submission can be properly worked. This means that if you submit information and you really believe it is accurate and you wish to see it entered into the DB, you should make yourself available via email / PM in the event that an admin needs to get a hold of you to clarify some aspect of your submission.

Keep in mind that sometimes multiple people submit data for a articular county or agency and that sometimes there is an information conflict. We'll work it out via dialog between the admins and submitters. Do not take offense if something you submit is not added exactly as you submitted it, if your submission is rejected, or if we have to dialog further before feeling comfortable with adding the submission. It's all a part of the process of having a database with accurate information.

==========================

With all of that said, it is very encouraging to see new submissions coming in for various counties in WV. Please continue to provide confirmed updates. And if you have never submitted information for inclusion into the database before, don't be afraid. In just a few clicks you can submit your items. Accurate information is appreciated and applauded. We'll love you for it and so will your fellow scanning enthusiasts.

Mike

PS: Thanks to all of you who have contributed thus far!

 

[Mylan]

1. We only want accurate / current information that has been confirmed by listening

Simply providing information garnered from FCC data is not enough. We only want to have up to date, accurate information that has been confirmed by listening

[

well I wish that was the case Mike but the admins seem to want to keep all the old outdated stuff "just because it is licensed" and "they *may* use it"....... so basically the message they send is who cares if listeners report that a certain freq is not used at all anymore "it cannot be removed" and "it must remain" because it is licensed RIGHT>>> So what's the difference with raw fcc data.... I mean it IS licensed so that means that it MAY be used and thus should be entered into the DB....... I think they need to take another look at this policy and maybe make a category for "outdated and depreciated" freqs in case someone would like to scan them knowing full well that they probably will not hear anything on them...

 

[mtindor]

well I wish that was the case Mike but the admins seem to want to keep all the old outdated stuff "just because it is licensed" and "they *may* use it"....... so basically the message they send is who cares if listeners report that a certain freq is not used at all anymore "it cannot be removed" and "it must remain" because it is licensed RIGHT>>> So what's the difference with raw fcc data.... I mean it IS licensed so that means that it MAY be used and thus should be entered into the DB....... I think they need to take another look at this policy and maybe make a category for "outdated and depreciated" freqs in case someone would like to scan them knowing full well that they probably will not hear anything on them...

Mylan,

We don't leave frequencies reported to be unused in the database because they are licensed. That means very little. We leave these reportedly outdated frequencies in the database because a single person reporting them to be no longer in use usually is not able to effectively able to judge for sure that they are no longer in use.

For instance, let's say an agency uses VHF primarily. Let's say they then switch to WVIRP or Ohio County P25 and you haven't heard them on VHF for a month or two. Did they remove the radios from the vehicles? If the submitter doesn't know for sure whether the agency removed this equipment from operation completely, there is no reason for it to removed from the database and in fact it should not be removed from the dateabase. If there is any chancce that the agency still has the radio equipment in an operable state [to use for backup, or for a odd tactical situation], then the frequencies should remain in the database.

If a submitter can provide some [seriously] convincing information that would provide us with the confidence that the agency no longer has the means to communicate on their old frequencies [ex - radios were removed from dispatch center / cars and traded in for other equipment, sold, etc] then we can obviously remove those entries from the database. But there aren't many people here who would be able to give us significant proof that this is the case, so that is why many things remain in the database even if you feel they are outdated.

For instance, in Ohio Co, I am willing to bet that a large number of FDs still have VHF equipment around. So frequencies shouldn't be removed from the database because they _could_ be used.

Mike

 

[mtindor]

PS: Notice the "Deprecated" service tags next to some entries in Ohio Co. That is all that is needed.

Somebody can easily make a decision whether or not to listen to those frequencies based upon the "deprecated" tab

 

[MOTOROLANUT]

outdated freqs

I agree with the depreciated tag, With the advent of the WVIRP here in WV. Some municipalities will retire thier systems while others will maintain legacy systems. These frequencies need to stay in the database and just be tagged old or secondary use only...so to speak...

 

[Bubba1661]

I Agree too, the legacy frequencies should stay too.

 

[MOTOROLANUT]

Legacy Tagging

A penny for your thoughts.....Tag the Old Frequencies as Legacy and also tag as Simulcast when used in conjunction with the WVIRP..... Especially since some county/city municipalities across WV still use the legacy freqs as backup to the WVIRP.

 

[mtindor]

A penny for your thoughts.....Tag the Old Frequencies as Legacy and also tag as Simulcast when used in conjunction with the WVIRP..... Especially since some county/city municipalities across WV still use the legacy freqs as backup to the WVIRP.

A few thoughts on that:

1. mile-long descriptions look cheesy. We can do them, we do do them, but they look cheesy (personal feeling)

I personally don't like looking at the db at multi-line descriptions. Sometimes its unavoidable.

2. taking into consideration #1, if somebody submits information for which they are absolutely positive that the traffic on the frequency they are claiming to be simulcast on the WVIRP is indeed simulcast on the WVIRP, we will certainly accomodate by indicating such in the frequency description of that conventional frequency.

I would simply ask that people not make assumptions with regard to what is or what is not simulcast and instead only submit information when you have verified for yourself that you hear the same traffic on frequency xxx.xxxx that you hear on WVIRP TG #### on a consistent basis.

3. I do agree that it is useful to know which ones are simulcast

4. It's safe to say that if something is noted as simulcast, it should not be noted as deprecated because obviously it is in use

5. Keep in mind that "tagging" is to modify the service tag (which can be changed to Deprecated for frequencies determined to no longer be in used). Instead of noting legacy in the description anywhere, I personally will try to tag it as Deprecated if it is not in use. That's what the tag is there for, and this way it doesn't force a typical single-line description into a potentially 2-line entry


Mike

 

[MOTOROLANUT]

changes

Noted.

#1 Instead of adding to the box format of the frequencies then place a note at the top of each box, LE, Fire, EMS, Schools that they (counties, cities) are now using the WVIRP (when they do) but the depreciated or legacy simulcast frequencies are listed below. That should solve the mile long cheesy problem.

#2 Or one could eliminate the Alpha tag section to the conventional frequencies, seeing how alpha tags are actually what the LE, Fire, EMS and so on radios display on the radio LCD or LED when the radios have a display option programmed per channel. Actually the alpha tag section currently serves no purpose except an opinion of what someone thinks the channel should be named.

#3 As far as simulcast submissions OR plain old new submissions go, hopefully these people are sending yourself and other mods verified freqs and NOT mirror images. Tracking down freqs can be tricky sometimes, But quite often Public Entities will publish information of frequencies on thier department web sites to the general public, except for undercover/task force operation of course.

I am sure I speak for all RR members in saying we try to make your and other moderators jobs as easy as we can but only submitting quality information and advice.

Best Reguards
P.

 

[mtindor]

Noted.
#2 Or one could eliminate the Alpha tag section to the conventional frequencies, seeing how alpha tags are actually what the LE, Fire, EMS and so on radios display on the radio LCD or LED when the radios have a display option programmed per channel. Actually the alpha tag section currently serves no purpose except an opinion of what someone thinks the channel should be named.

Any new scanner and some older ones [with the exception of vvery low end and older scanners] have support for Alpha Tags.

We [admins] are not supposed to name Alpha Tags based upon what somebody's radio has programmed in it - since different agenccies can have different names programmed in for the very same talkgroup on a system. The alpha tags are supposed to be descriptive of the agency using them [for RR DB purposes] and are not supposed to be some obscure few letters and numbers such as 35LE60OPS. The idea is that the alpha tags in the DB will allow those people using scanners with alpha tag abilities (75% of mine have this ability), to download these descriptions right in from the RR Database. This is very useful and needed in my opinion, and I imagine others share this belief.

I see many instances where admins accept tags that somebody got directly from a radio readout... but I know the admin handbook specifies that admins are not supposed to do this, and I try not to. The exception is when I'm adding information to a trunked system and the previous admins have already made it a policy to use that type of nomenclature. In that case, I'll add it to be similar to others. I don't like it though I like more sensible alpha tags, and that's what the admin handbook says we are to put in.

I alpha tag everything in my scanners.. if the capability is there, I don't know many who wouldn't use it.

I wouldn't be a proponent of removing alpha tags.

#3 As far as simulcast submissions OR plain old new submissions go, hopefully these people are sending yourself and other mods verified freqs and NOT mirror images. Tracking down freqs can be tricky sometimes, But quite often Public Entities will publish information of frequencies on thier department web sites to the general public, except for undercover/task force operation of course.

People definitely tend to send verified information, but there certainly are times when submissions are questionable. Since I was putting out the request for people to go over their county entries in the DB and submit updated info, I felt the need to make sure I included the part about wanting only verified information.

I am sure I speak for all RR members in saying we try to make your and other moderators jobs as easy as we can but only submitting quality information and advice.

And the vast majority of you do, just as I try to do when I'm submitting info for other admins to work. That is appreciated, both from the perspective of an admin and also from the perspective of a user who makes use of the data you guys all submit. It'd be a real bummer if we didn't know what to listen to in the various areas.

Thanks!

Mike