It has been pointed out [in another thread] that certain data for this system was added to the DB [by me] based upon the network map broadcast periodically by the system. It was claimed because of the minimal additions made back when the network map was obtained, the TriConnex system in the DB is now "trashed". I disagree wholeheartedly. I monitor many sites on the system regularly.
Joe: ll of those Triconnex sites over in your territory [and there are a lot of them], and I didn't see any huge contribution from you. In fact, I saw very little in the way of contributions from you. Most of the Triconnex site information that existed came from me, prior to the network map. I sure could have used some help, but [with the exception of a few] the WPA crowd appears to be tightlipped about anything they find. That leaves somebody else to do the dirty work.
I purposefully put sites from the network map [that weren't listed in the DB] into the Wiki, until such point that people confirmed those sites active.
I absolutely get that you're annoyed by any additional LCNs added to an existing site based solely upon the network map. If you wish to point out any that were added in that fashion, I'd be glad to remove them.
There are two sides to this:
1. If all [active] LCNs are not listed in the DB, one cannot properly scan the site.
And of course if nobody submits that information, those sites without all of their associated active LCNs are nearly useless for monitoring.
2. If all LCNs from the network map are added, everyone can properly scan the sites
... with the exception that scanners that do not trunk based upon monitoring the control channel have to poll every LCN -- and in that case a nonactive [but listed] LCN might be causing their scanner to hang up if there is traffic on that particular frequency from another location.
I really think # 2 is a rarity when scanning this sytem. Like I said, I get it. But one really has to weigh the pros and cons of adding the network map data.
All somebody has to do is tell us that particular LCNs aren't active and I'll gladly remove them. It's much easier to note what LCNs are in use, either in a scanner or DSDPlus, and then let us know if one or more is not in use versus running DSDPlus and attempting to track down LCNs that one knows are active but aren't listed in the DB.
With all of that said, I'll go through the sites I can reach, when I can, and remove inactive LCNs from the database. If somebody else runs DSDPlus on a site and notes that particular LCNs are absolutely not in use, let us know and we'll remove them. And from this point forward, I'll make sure that any future network map data is not used to add LCNs that haven't actually been confirmed active.
Mike
Joe: ll of those Triconnex sites over in your territory [and there are a lot of them], and I didn't see any huge contribution from you. In fact, I saw very little in the way of contributions from you. Most of the Triconnex site information that existed came from me, prior to the network map. I sure could have used some help, but [with the exception of a few] the WPA crowd appears to be tightlipped about anything they find. That leaves somebody else to do the dirty work.
I purposefully put sites from the network map [that weren't listed in the DB] into the Wiki, until such point that people confirmed those sites active.
I absolutely get that you're annoyed by any additional LCNs added to an existing site based solely upon the network map. If you wish to point out any that were added in that fashion, I'd be glad to remove them.
There are two sides to this:
1. If all [active] LCNs are not listed in the DB, one cannot properly scan the site.
And of course if nobody submits that information, those sites without all of their associated active LCNs are nearly useless for monitoring.
2. If all LCNs from the network map are added, everyone can properly scan the sites
... with the exception that scanners that do not trunk based upon monitoring the control channel have to poll every LCN -- and in that case a nonactive [but listed] LCN might be causing their scanner to hang up if there is traffic on that particular frequency from another location.
I really think # 2 is a rarity when scanning this sytem. Like I said, I get it. But one really has to weigh the pros and cons of adding the network map data.
All somebody has to do is tell us that particular LCNs aren't active and I'll gladly remove them. It's much easier to note what LCNs are in use, either in a scanner or DSDPlus, and then let us know if one or more is not in use versus running DSDPlus and attempting to track down LCNs that one knows are active but aren't listed in the DB.
With all of that said, I'll go through the sites I can reach, when I can, and remove inactive LCNs from the database. If somebody else runs DSDPlus on a site and notes that particular LCNs are absolutely not in use, let us know and we'll remove them. And from this point forward, I'll make sure that any future network map data is not used to add LCNs that haven't actually been confirmed active.
Mike
