Utah County Trunker

[bneilson]

Would someone explain, in very, very simple terms for a very, very simple (minded) person (me) how you figure (the mathematics of) a status bit.

Ok, as I understand it....

So the very first talk group possible on UCAN is "0". spacing of groups is in a base32 system, in other words talk groups are spaced 32 numbers apart.

From this you can make a list of all possible talkgroups: 0, 32, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 288, 320, etc....

So that means that every "base" talk group should be divisible by 32. Take the Air 1 channel talk group 17184. Divided by 32 equals a non decimal number. This tells you that that talk group is a "base" group and not a status bit group.

If Air 1 was using a status bit of "2" the talk group represented on your scanner would be 17186 (17184+2). If you take 17186 and divide by 32 you get 537.0625, thus indicating that a status bit is being used.

So what I have done is made a spreadsheet that list out all possible talk groups. I am not sure how high it goes so I only went to 65000. When I see a number like 17186, I refrence my sheet and can see that it is 2 higher then 17184 thus indicating a status bit of 2.

Did this help?

 

[bneilson]

Individual Threads?

I agree. Let's just keep adding them here, to this thread, and contact the Mod to rename this thread. Each time someone posts to this thread it will bump it to the top of the forum. Right now we have unknown TGIDs scattered in at least six threads and it is impossible to keep track of them.

What about creating a thread for each unknown TG? That way things stay straight and relevant to that TG and it makes it easy to follow the thread for recon activities by the group?

 

[Rolfman]

I like the idea of that. Whomever finds some information about one of these TGID's would have a place to post and when a general consensus is reached we can then forward our decision to the database.

Other forums have a “sticky” thread that stays at the top of the page. I think that would be the best. Who do we contact to request this?


Question on Trunker Gary:
So does trunker log the hit with the status bit added to the base TGID? Then where does the 2 letter codes come from in the upper half to the far right like MX, MS etc... For some reason I was under the impression those were the status bit codes. Think I am more confused the glajlu was. And where can I find a list of what those codes mean then?

 

[gldavis]

CORRECTION: Motorola System2 Talk Groups are Base16. Not Base32. Base16 is the Motorola standard. All talkgroups are spaced 16 apart. The first would be 0, then 16, then 32, then 48, then 64, ect. For the most part, UCAN has been using every other possible TG, i.e., 32, 64, 96, ect. However, I have been noticeing lately that they are working in the "skipped" TG's.

A diffferent thread for each UnID'ed TG is a good idea.

I am still learning Trunker. From what I've experienced, Trunker does not show the status bit info. It logs the base16 ID. I haven't seen the 2 letter codes on my screen. I must have mine set differently so as to not get them. I also need to find out what version I'm running as well. I've been looking for an "Operating Manual" for Trunker, but have been unsuccesful so far.

There is a Yahoo group for Trunker, and they are very responsive to queries there.

Gary

 

[qlajlu]

What about creating a thread for each unknown TG? That way things stay straight and relevant to that TG and it makes it easy to follow the thread for recon activities by the group?

That would be one way to keep close track of each TG. If we keep adding them to one thread they are going to get jumbled but they will ALL be in one place.

Using either one of these methods is going to create a large, unwieldy forum. Either we will have a huge amount of threads or we will have one thread that is huge, but we need some way to track these unknown TGIDs.

I like the idea of that. Whomever finds some information about one of these TGID's would have a place to post and when a general consensus is reached we can then forward our decision to the database.

Other forums have a “sticky” thread that stays at the top of the page. I think that would be the best. Who do we contact to request this?

The Mod for this forum is loumaag. You can find out who the Moderator is for each State Forum by scrolling to the bottom of a State's forum before opening any threads. There you will find two boxes. One will show you who is currently logged on and browsing that particular forum and the other box names the Moderator for that forum.

Before contacting him though, we need to decide which way we want to approach this. Do we go for all unknown TGs in one thread or one thread for each unknown TG? Personally, I am open to either but lean to one thread for all TGs because we could get it stickied so it would be easily found. Each guy might have to do like bneilson has done with the status bits and make an individual spreadsheet to track all the TGs himself as they are reported in that thread. That has the additional feature of being able to sort them into an easily searched format. Yes, it also creates a little more work...like we need more things to do, but, hey, these are just my thoughts on it.

If you have an individual thread for each unknown TG, eventually the ones that are not worked on and receiving updates will move down and off the visible board. You can't sticky ALL the unknown TGIDs to have them remain at the top.

If we decide on one thread for all unknowns, I would suggest we start a new, fresh thread without all the dialog we have had so far and post the TGs from this thread into it.

gldavis has already posted that he would like a separate thread for each TG and bneilson has suggested it. If we go this way, there would be no reason to contact a Mod.

I guess what we really need is a poll.

 

[Rolfman]

Of course my only concern with one thread for all is that it would be rather hard to keep track of the progress or discussions on a TGID.

I do agree that if we have one thread per TGID it could baloon out of control as well. I like the idea of a poll to make the decision but wonder if there is another way to skin this cat.

If we break the TGID's by groups of 5,000 to 10,000? Which kind of correlates to how the blocks are broken down by county. That would give us more than one stickey but not something unmanageable.

Where do we feel the TGID blocks break by county?

224 to 4000 Salt Lake County Agencies
4000 to 4900 UHP
4900 to 5500 & 6500 to 7500 Corrections
5600 to 6400 & 7600 to 16000 Weber & Davis
16100 to 17300 Medical
etc..

I am in favor of more than one thread but have to agree that I did not consider how out of control one thread for each would get, not to mention the amnount of requests to get one added and then one removed as they appear then get resolved.

 

[qlajlu]

Makes more sense

I wish you had made that suggestion before I created the poll. I like this idea of breaking the TGIDs at logical points and tracking that way. If there were not too many breaks we could even get them all stickied too, I'll bet.

 

[Rolfman]

Sorry