We Need Updated and New Database Information for California
- Thread starter hotdjdave
- Start date
- Status
socalradioguy
Just some radio guy
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Messages
- 26
Thanks JR. I don't think it should be a secret to begin with, but I don't make the rules....
Anyway it looks like my submission is still open, so hopefully it'll be processed shortly.
Also, on System 9, I was just listening to a fire in Ontario about 3 hours ago at China Wok and heard the IC tell all units switch to Tac 3 which is not listed in the database. There is, however, a 9-ONT-3 channel with TGID 2768 which is shown to be Ontario Fire's HAZMAT channel. I did a quick search to see if I could find it, and I came up with TGID 2800 which had all of the incident traffic...therefore I can only presume that this would be Ontario Fire Tac 3, but after checking the database it appears someone else has already entered TGID 2800 as 9-MTCL-3 (Fire HAZMAT). I know for fact that location of the fire was in the city of Ontario, and I know for fact that the incident was on this TGID, so I don't know why it would be in the db as a Montclair channel.
Can anyone else confirm that TGID 2800 does belong to Ontario before I submit this correction?
Thanks
Jeremy
Anyway it looks like my submission is still open, so hopefully it'll be processed shortly.
Also, on System 9, I was just listening to a fire in Ontario about 3 hours ago at China Wok and heard the IC tell all units switch to Tac 3 which is not listed in the database. There is, however, a 9-ONT-3 channel with TGID 2768 which is shown to be Ontario Fire's HAZMAT channel. I did a quick search to see if I could find it, and I came up with TGID 2800 which had all of the incident traffic...therefore I can only presume that this would be Ontario Fire Tac 3, but after checking the database it appears someone else has already entered TGID 2800 as 9-MTCL-3 (Fire HAZMAT). I know for fact that location of the fire was in the city of Ontario, and I know for fact that the incident was on this TGID, so I don't know why it would be in the db as a Montclair channel.
Can anyone else confirm that TGID 2800 does belong to Ontario before I submit this correction?
Thanks
Jeremy
Last edited:
socalradioguy
Just some radio guy
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Messages
- 26
I'm beginning to think that System 9 went through a talkgroup re-org or something, because earlier this morning I listened to a structure fire in Chino Hills (ME62 was first due, so I know for fact it was Chino Hills). Per the IC, the incident traffic was moved to Tac 1, however I was unable to hear anything on TGID 2384 which according to the database is the Chino Valley Fire Tac 1. After scanning around a bit, I was able to find it on TGID 2576, which according to the db is 9-RCMG-1 (Fire Tactical 2). Ignoring the fact that Tac 2 should be 9-RCMG-2, this TG appears to be used for Chino Valley Fire, not Rancho Cucamonga.
Again, has anyone else seen these (or similar) discrepancies with the db vs the actual audio?
Jeremy
Again, has anyone else seen these (or similar) discrepancies with the db vs the actual audio?
Jeremy
Ok, after some verification over this busy weekend I can say (and did submit) that 155.3625 (which is licensed to BBLFD) is being used by them and Big Bear City FD as their link to 8-fire-1. Couldn't tell if the other two agencies in the valley (SBCO FD and Baldwin Lake VFD) are using it also or if they go directly to 8-fire-1. Green is being used as a tac/fireground for the Bear Valley FD's.
socalradioguy
Just some radio guy
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Messages
- 26
Sorry for the delayed response.
JR-You are correct with the new highband freq. I can tell you that BLFD primarily uses this new channel, but also talks on 8-FIRE-1 occasionally. From what I recall, City and Lake operate primarily on highband as well, but they may still have a handheld or two on 800.
I'm going to start monitoring System 9 more aggressively and submit any corrections I have to get the db updated and hopefully get the correct (re)assignment for some of these former Rancho Fire TG's.
Hopefully I'll get a chance to monitor System 8 again soon, but I've not been up there for a couple of months now.
JR-You are correct with the new highband freq. I can tell you that BLFD primarily uses this new channel, but also talks on 8-FIRE-1 occasionally. From what I recall, City and Lake operate primarily on highband as well, but they may still have a handheld or two on 800.
I'm going to start monitoring System 9 more aggressively and submit any corrections I have to get the db updated and hopefully get the correct (re)assignment for some of these former Rancho Fire TG's.
Hopefully I'll get a chance to monitor System 8 again soon, but I've not been up there for a couple of months now.
jlanfn
California Database Admin
Rancho Fire has been using several unidentified TG's on System 6/7 since their switch to CommCenter. If I can get them identified along with several others for 6/7 I'll submit them.
I've caught training and logistical traffic on the following
2576
2608
3920
15408
I've caught training and logistical traffic on the following
2576
2608
3920
15408
I know Bear City has radios that go directly to system 8 as the ambulances (they provide all ambulance service in the Bear Valley area) use it to talk with the hospitals and prior to going to comm center they would jump on 8 fire 1 when assisting station 49.
Hey JR and JL,
I spent some time with family in Forest Falls recently (on the south side of Mt San Gorgonio from Big Bear), and realized after some scanning that they use two conventional 800 Mhz repeaters located at volunteer fire department to link into systems 7 or 8. The Sheriff substation would be out of Yucaipa so I guessed the LE channel was patched to 8-MTN-1/7-EVC-2, and I guessed the fire channel was patched to 8-FIRE-1, but I was out of range of system 8 in the valley so I couldn't confirm.
Here's what I submitted:
Forest Falls, town of
Utilizes 800 MHz conventional to fill-in instead of trunking.
Frequency License Type Tone Alpha Tag Description Mode Tag
868.41250 WPHA769 RM 131 DPL Sheriff Ptch Sheriff Patch (to 7-EVC-2 / 8-MTN-1?) FM
868.93750 WPHA769 RM 131 DPL CoFire Patch County Fire Patch (to 8-FIRE-1?) FM
Do you guys think the patch info is correct, or have any more information?
I spent some time with family in Forest Falls recently (on the south side of Mt San Gorgonio from Big Bear), and realized after some scanning that they use two conventional 800 Mhz repeaters located at volunteer fire department to link into systems 7 or 8. The Sheriff substation would be out of Yucaipa so I guessed the LE channel was patched to 8-MTN-1/7-EVC-2, and I guessed the fire channel was patched to 8-FIRE-1, but I was out of range of system 8 in the valley so I couldn't confirm.
Here's what I submitted:
Forest Falls, town of
Utilizes 800 MHz conventional to fill-in instead of trunking.
Frequency License Type Tone Alpha Tag Description Mode Tag
868.41250 WPHA769 RM 131 DPL Sheriff Ptch Sheriff Patch (to 7-EVC-2 / 8-MTN-1?) FM
868.93750 WPHA769 RM 131 DPL CoFire Patch County Fire Patch (to 8-FIRE-1?) FM
Do you guys think the patch info is correct, or have any more information?
Could be, I would have to check it out a little. Forest Falls being so far up the canyon does not get good reception on anything. I know when Yucaipa units pass the ranger station at Bryant dispatch tells them to switch to 8 mountain 1.
Thanks for taking a look. There were multiple large yagis on a tower behind the fire station pointing west towards the mouth of the valley, which I assume corresponded to the WPHA769 license.
Caboosey
Member
I just submitted a bulk of data for Fresno, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties over the weekend.
I noticed all three counties were laking businesses & public works frequencies. So I went around with my scanner searching for frequencies.
It be great to see more data specially ones without FCC licenses since those are harder to find.
I noticed all three counties were laking businesses & public works frequencies. So I went around with my scanner searching for frequencies.
It be great to see more data specially ones without FCC licenses since those are harder to find.
Un-Verified 0460.2300 & 0460.5650
I have two frequencies that are not in the database here. I have listened and listened to the transmissions to try and find out who they are. It is a police agency for sure and there are two frequencies that I cannot identify.
1. 0460.2300 ? repeater
2. 0460.5650
Does anybody know who this would be? I am in Kern County in the desert and both of these freq's are clear as day.
I am also new to this scanner stuff, but I do catch on pretty quick and I have searched the database here and neither one of these freq's show up. Above and below the freq's they do, but not these two exact freq's that do have traffic.
Anyhow, these two freq's should be added once they are identified.
Thank you
LarryAaron.
I have two frequencies that are not in the database here. I have listened and listened to the transmissions to try and find out who they are. It is a police agency for sure and there are two frequencies that I cannot identify.
1. 0460.2300 ? repeater
2. 0460.5650
Does anybody know who this would be? I am in Kern County in the desert and both of these freq's are clear as day.
I am also new to this scanner stuff, but I do catch on pretty quick and I have searched the database here and neither one of these freq's show up. Above and below the freq's they do, but not these two exact freq's that do have traffic.
Anyhow, these two freq's should be added once they are identified.
Thank you
LarryAaron.
460.33000 is not a valid frequency. The valid splits are 460.22500 and 460.23750. Kern has local towers on .22500, so try monitoring that frequency and see if the traffic is identical. If so, you may be getting bleedover (?) or there is a transmitter out of calibration (just guessing). There is no local FCC data for 460.23750.
460.56500 is also not a valid frequency. the valid splits for that one are 460.56250 and 460.57500. Inyo County has 460.56250 in service and you MIGHT hear that from Ridgecrest if they're on Rogers...maybe from Silver but wouldn't likely be clear. Kern has local repeaters on 460.57500. Check those two and see if they match what you are hearing.
Hope that helps...
460.56500 is also not a valid frequency. the valid splits for that one are 460.56250 and 460.57500. Inyo County has 460.56250 in service and you MIGHT hear that from Ridgecrest if they're on Rogers...maybe from Silver but wouldn't likely be clear. Kern has local repeaters on 460.57500. Check those two and see if they match what you are hearing.
Hope that helps...
Suisun City PD change
Suisun City PD now operating on the Vacaville / Fairfield trunk system. Talk group ID is 10064. Their website says the change over was on 6-2.
Suisun City PD now operating on the Vacaville / Fairfield trunk system. Talk group ID is 10064. Their website says the change over was on 6-2.
151.44500 M GlennCoFDT11 Fire Tactical 11 FM Fire-Tac
This is Cal Fire Tac 11...
This is Cal Fire Tac 11...
Thank you, I appreciate your reply.
cousinkix1953
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
- Messages
- 518
FAILURE to highlight updates in green and yellow
Is it just me, or have others noticed the FAILURE to highlight updates in green and yellow backgrounds. It shows on the maps; but in the listings half of the time any more. What a waste of time looking for the new frequencies...
Is it just me, or have others noticed the FAILURE to highlight updates in green and yellow backgrounds. It shows on the maps; but in the listings half of the time any more. What a waste of time looking for the new frequencies...
This is probably not a big deal but I thought I should bring it up for at least some discussion. While reviewing the California database, I noticed that the CDF command channels have been renamed to CalFire command and tac channels. Technically, Cal Fire has not changed the name of these channels and still refer to them as CDF. I was looking at it from a new persons perspective. They hear someone on the radio to switch to CDF Command 1 and there isn't one named that. It is listed as Cal Fire Command 1. It may cause confusion but hopefully someone would be smart enough to figure it out. Not a big concern of mine and if you want to keep it that way, that is fine with me.
Kingscup - It is a big deal when programing the alpha name and you cannot fit "CalFire" in the same space as CDF. ALL if the lists and programing, that I have seen, have kept it CDF. The use of "Cal Fire" was only in name reference as the agency is still titled in sate nomenclature "California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection." This is much like DOT (California Department of Transportation) is called CallTrans.
I agree. Some firefighters on the floor were initially calling channels by Cal Fire instead of CDF. This caused a problem with some less then radio knowledgeable people to say "I can't find that channel on my radio". The department had to put out a memo stating that the channel names will still be identified as CDF for interoperability purposes.
- Status
Similar threads
