Jump to content

Talk:Black Hill transmitting station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(moved from article page): Please expand the article! How tall is the mast?

I tried to add some geographical context, but I'm not sure if locals would say that Black Hill is "on the eastern outskirts of Glasgow, Scotland," as I phrased it. In other words, I'm not sure how far out you have to go to be considered "outskirts." I'm sure there are some Scots around who can set it straight. Jasmol 01:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population Coverage

[edit]

Justin, where did you get that population figure of 2.5m, making BH the 5th largest, from? The Ofcom post-DSO site reckons Black Hill is 9th in terms of coverage:

Modified this to reflect the actual immediate locale of the transmitter (village and district), I agree it is definately not the eastern outskirts of Glasgow, that is quite a bit out for its geographical location. --Karaokemac (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further tweaked the location information on this article to mark its location more precisely, not many know this transmitter is in our wee humble village --Brett ~ KaraokeMac (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dttcoverage/

These are the digital figures I grant, but this refers to full power post-DSO coverage, which is supposed to match existing analogue coverage. Chillysnow 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The figures I quote are from a BBC document dated 1977 and are obviosly for analogue coverage. Whilst I accept that the numbers may have altered on the margins I cannot believe that they are that much different today. The real difference probably lies in the fact the Ofcom figures are HOUSEHOLDS whereas the BBC figures are POPULATION. Any other discrepencies are probably irrelevant because the coverage predictions (along with any maps....) are inaccurate anyway. All figures etc involving coverage should only ever be quoted as "approximately". So long as this is done they are still worthwhile and interesting. JustinSmith 14:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely understand the difference between population and households, but that should not affect the rankings, as long as the definition of household does not vary per region. The only reason I queried this is because I found it odd that Black Hill would be 5th in analogue terms but 9th in post DSO terms. The coverage is supposed to be near identical after all. Chillysnow 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look through the Ofcom reference which I found very interesting but also quite amusing at the same time ! Coverage can only ever be estimated very roughly for the reasons given here [1] it is impossible to gauge coverage unless you physically visit every area and check where all the high buildings, hills or trees are ! As stated in the quoted link distance from the transmitter is the LEAST important factor in most installers choice of transmitter and it`s not unknown to get houses on the same street on three (or even four !) DIFFERENT transmitters ! Bearing all the above in mind how can Ofcom quote such "accurate" figures as 335,000 on the Sheffield transmitter. With the time I had the biggest anomaly I could find was Belmont figures which are markedly different. My BBC list puts Belmont on 1.4 million (I`d round that up to around 1.5 million....) but Ofcom gives it`s household coverage as 2.3 million and if you multiply by (say) two to get population that`s around 5 million. One only has to look at a map of the UK (how many large towns and cities are there which rely exclusively on Belmonts output ?) and spend far too long looking at peoples aerials installs all over the country (like I do........) to guess that the Ofcom figure is far less likely than the BBC one. In fact generally speaking I`d say the 1977 BBC figures seem more realistic altogether, BUT IT`S ALL ONLY ROUGH ESTIMATION ONLY !!!!. JustinSmith 09:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Hill transmitting station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Hill_transmitting_station&oldid=1200107504"