Ed: I think you're pretty much correct. It might be easier to keep the confusion down a bit in an organization such as ours, but beyond our people there's not much we can do. My concerns are mainly when used for emergency communications and practice that it be as obvious as possible. We need cheat-sheets and quick reference cards for all of the radios anyway, so it's just one more list to find the callsign/site information. I still like the idea of similar or consecutive calls because if nothing else it clearly identifies the repeater as being part of the same network. Should be interesting when I place the request for the calls.
BTW, does anyone have a good direct contact at Icom for working with them on a package for the multi-site network? It seems my last contact isn't responding right now. You can reply direct with the contact information. Thanks, Chuck - N8DNX [EMAIL PROTECTED] Woodrick, Ed wrote: > Chuck, > > W3XX4, W3XX5, W3XX7 vs WR3AAA, WR3AAB, WR3AAC > > They are really all just as cryptic as each other. With a little work, you > could possibly get location specific Vanity calls. But if not, if you place > all the callsigns requests at the same time, you could possibly get a > consecutive block. > > But Mark KJ4VO and I have had a similar discussion for a long time now. Just > how are repeaters known? What do you program in the display in the text > field? And the answer has basically been, everyone does it differently. > > There are times you might call it the Chicago repeater, then other times > where it might be the WR3DDD repeater, or the 444.075 machine. > > So that answer is that no matter how you do it, someone won't like it. So my > suggestion is to follow the well used practice of a different callsign for > each repeater. That will guarantee you 100% compatibility with anything that > ever occurs. > > Ed WA4YIH > > >
