[arrl-odv:22057] Changes in Repeater Directory data collection
I truly applaud this effort! Those of us in the Southeast have the SouthEastern Repeater Association (SERA) as a coordinating body. There was a long time problem with SERA maintaining their database. We have had several individuals within the organization that have led the effort in correcting the database, eliminating paper repeaters and developing web-based yearly updates by repeater owners. They have developed policies for de-coordinating repeaters that have not been updated yearly. So this shows some progress, but there are problems: I called a repeater owner in my city to let him know that his long-standing repeater was listed as uncoordinated. He told me that the on-line form was so difficult to navigate, that he gave up. The organization has a long standing policy to not digitize their repeater data, otherwise they feel that no one will buy their journal. This is a bit outdated in this day and age. The file they supply the ARRL may be unique, and has not been vetted by the repeater owners. They have a statement, "The codes column contains the tone frequency or CTCSS access code for those repeaters for which the owner or trustee has given us written permission and asked that we publish them." This is REALLY outdated in this day and age. It appears to defeat the purpose of the repeater manual and Travel Plus. It doesn't distinguish what repeaters are FM, D-Star, APCO 25, MotoTRBO, etc. in the journal listings. The data they supply the ARRL may distinguish them, as I see that SC repeaters that are D-Star are listed as such this past year. I have a MotoTRBO repeater on 443.4625 MHz. The Journal lists it as 443.462, and in the general listings. It does not distinguish the mode, and apparently truncates the printed data. I think having the repeater owner/trustees responsible for their repeater data (with oversight by the coordinating body) is an excellent idea. We will have to use a webpage that is not members only, as I'm sure there are many repeater owners that are not ARRL members. That being said, I'm sure there is some value-added service we can provide to repeater owners that ARE ARRL members for membership encouragement! If there is interest, I would be happy to report my findings regarding the MotoTRBO system. I know Chris (and the EC) had a bit of heartburn with the FCC to legalize the mode, and there were numerous discussions on this list about those efforts. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:52 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22052] Changes in Repeater Directory data collection All Directors: At Minute 9.3 of the October 5 EC meeting I reported on a plan developed by Steve Ford, WB8IMY to improve the accuracy of listings in the ARRL Repeater Directory. The new procedure for collecting and maintaining repeater data is explained in the attachment, which will be going out to frequency coordinators next week. Until now, repeater coordinators have provided all of the information for the Repeater Directory listings. While the data is in a common database, we regard each coordinator's data as "their" data and allow them to manage it. The degree to which the coordinators do so varies widely. As a result we receive complaints about the accuracy of the listings and are at somewhat of a competitive disadvantage to other published repeater listings. The new procedure allows data to be received directly from repeater operators. However, coordinators will still have ample opportunity to "vet" the data for their areas and to make changes, for example to delete uncoordinated repeaters. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ Chief Executive Officer
As a repeater owner, I have both mixed mode, analog/p25 and cannot seem to get it listed for both modes in both SERA and ARRL directories. I am puzzled that Alabama has its own coordinating body and not a part of SERA. There are delays in coordinating repeater pairs with SERA and no process of identifying paper repeaters. Lots of issues still exist... Jim Millsap SE Vice Director Sent from my iPhone-Jim Millsap On Nov 1, 2013, at 4:28 PM, "James F. Boehner MD" <jboehner01@yahoo.com> wrote:
I truly applaud this effort!
Those of us in the Southeast have the SouthEastern Repeater Association (SERA) as a coordinating body. There was a long time problem with SERA maintaining their database. We have had several individuals within the organization that have led the effort in correcting the database, eliminating paper repeaters and developing web-based yearly updates by repeater owners. They have developed policies for de-coordinating repeaters that have not been updated yearly.
So this shows some progress, but there are problems:
I called a repeater owner in my city to let him know that his long-standing repeater was listed as uncoordinated. He told me that the on-line form was so difficult to navigate, that he gave up.
The organization has a long standing policy to not digitize their repeater data, otherwise they feel that no one will buy their journal. This is a bit outdated in this day and age. The file they supply the ARRL may be unique, and has not been vetted by the repeater owners.
They have a statement, “The codes column contains the tone frequency or CTCSS access code for those repeaters for which the owner or trustee has given us written permission and asked that we publish them.” This is REALLY outdated in this day and age. It appears to defeat the purpose of the repeater manual and Travel Plus.
It doesn’t distinguish what repeaters are FM, D-Star, APCO 25, MotoTRBO, etc. in the journal listings. The data they supply the ARRL may distinguish them, as I see that SC repeaters that are D-Star are listed as such this past year.
I have a MotoTRBO repeater on 443.4625 MHz. The Journal lists it as 443.462, and in the general listings. It does not distinguish the mode, and apparently truncates the printed data.
I think having the repeater owner/trustees responsible for their repeater data (with oversight by the coordinating body) is an excellent idea. We will have to use a webpage that is not members only, as I’m sure there are many repeater owners that are not ARRL members. That being said, I’m sure there is some value-added service we can provide to repeater owners that ARE ARRL members for membership encouragement!
If there is interest, I would be happy to report my findings regarding the MotoTRBO system. I know Chris (and the EC) had a bit of heartburn with the FCC to legalize the mode, and there were numerous discussions on this list about those efforts.
’73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division
From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:52 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22052] Changes in Repeater Directory data collection
All Directors:
At Minute 9.3 of the October 5 EC meeting I reported on a plan developed by Steve Ford, WB8IMY to improve the accuracy of listings in the ARRL Repeater Directory. The new procedure for collecting and maintaining repeater data is explained in the attachment, which will be going out to frequency coordinators next week.
Until now, repeater coordinators have provided all of the information for the Repeater Directory listings. While the data is in a common database, we regard each coordinator’s data as “their” data and allow them to manage it. The degree to which the coordinators do so varies widely. As a result we receive complaints about the accuracy of the listings and are at somewhat of a competitive disadvantage to other published repeater listings.
The new procedure allows data to be received directly from repeater operators. However, coordinators will still have ample opportunity to “vet” the data for their areas and to make changes, for example to delete uncoordinated repeaters.
73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Jim, I have lost track of whether you received any response from staff to your post of last Friday. From Steve Ford: Briefly, we're painfully aware of the issues with SERA's data. In fact, most of the recent problems were the final straws that forced this resolution. The next edition of the Repeater Directory will include a DMR (MotoTRBO) section, much like we already include for D-Star and P25. The repeater owner/trustee page on the website will be accessible to non-members. 73, Dave K1ZZ From: James F. Boehner MD [mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:29 PM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; arrl-odv Cc: Ford, Steve, WB8IMY Subject: Changes in Repeater Directory data collection I truly applaud this effort! Those of us in the Southeast have the SouthEastern Repeater Association (SERA) as a coordinating body. There was a long time problem with SERA maintaining their database. We have had several individuals within the organization that have led the effort in correcting the database, eliminating paper repeaters and developing web-based yearly updates by repeater owners. They have developed policies for de-coordinating repeaters that have not been updated yearly. So this shows some progress, but there are problems: I called a repeater owner in my city to let him know that his long-standing repeater was listed as uncoordinated. He told me that the on-line form was so difficult to navigate, that he gave up. The organization has a long standing policy to not digitize their repeater data, otherwise they feel that no one will buy their journal. This is a bit outdated in this day and age. The file they supply the ARRL may be unique, and has not been vetted by the repeater owners. They have a statement, "The codes column contains the tone frequency or CTCSS access code for those repeaters for which the owner or trustee has given us written permission and asked that we publish them." This is REALLY outdated in this day and age. It appears to defeat the purpose of the repeater manual and Travel Plus. It doesn't distinguish what repeaters are FM, D-Star, APCO 25, MotoTRBO, etc. in the journal listings. The data they supply the ARRL may distinguish them, as I see that SC repeaters that are D-Star are listed as such this past year. I have a MotoTRBO repeater on 443.4625 MHz. The Journal lists it as 443.462, and in the general listings. It does not distinguish the mode, and apparently truncates the printed data. I think having the repeater owner/trustees responsible for their repeater data (with oversight by the coordinating body) is an excellent idea. We will have to use a webpage that is not members only, as I'm sure there are many repeater owners that are not ARRL members. That being said, I'm sure there is some value-added service we can provide to repeater owners that ARE ARRL members for membership encouragement! If there is interest, I would be happy to report my findings regarding the MotoTRBO system. I know Chris (and the EC) had a bit of heartburn with the FCC to legalize the mode, and there were numerous discussions on this list about those efforts. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:52 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22052] Changes in Repeater Directory data collection All Directors: At Minute 9.3 of the October 5 EC meeting I reported on a plan developed by Steve Ford, WB8IMY to improve the accuracy of listings in the ARRL Repeater Directory. The new procedure for collecting and maintaining repeater data is explained in the attachment, which will be going out to frequency coordinators next week. Until now, repeater coordinators have provided all of the information for the Repeater Directory listings. While the data is in a common database, we regard each coordinator's data as "their" data and allow them to manage it. The degree to which the coordinators do so varies widely. As a result we receive complaints about the accuracy of the listings and are at somewhat of a competitive disadvantage to other published repeater listings. The new procedure allows data to be received directly from repeater operators. However, coordinators will still have ample opportunity to "vet" the data for their areas and to make changes, for example to delete uncoordinated repeaters. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ Chief Executive Officer
participants (3)
-
James F. Boehner MD -
Jim Millsap wb4nws -
Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ