Nah. Still not buying it.
I don’t think the upgrades exist that could bring KSFO hits in any significant quantity to my neighborhood. I get some KSFO-bound traffic along the coast and across my northern edge of reception but nothing crazy. This is typical of the range I get now:
I have pretty good reach along the N to NE arc with 300+ pretty common and 324.5 the best I’ve witnessed. As you can see, not so much towards KSFO. 250 is about it.
Modeling it on HeyWhatsThat with a 1000’ mast for my antenna still doesn’t get me there. I tried 5000’ too, saw that didn’t make it either and threw in the towel. There are some mountains in the way that cause problems. I only see the high flyers past the Tehachapi’s.
This screenshot doesn’t show the aircraft ID but the light purple track under Modesto is a U2 at 60000+ ft. This is the closest I’ve seen anything get to KSFO.
Which leads me to this.
No, we’re not getting that level of KSFO traffic anywhere around here (and judging from the kind of numbers I see the LAX locals get, they probably don’t see that much KSFO traffic in San Francisco either). I checked the rogue site using HeyWhatsUp to see if there was anything occluding me but not him. No, it’s pretty similar. I have a 400’ altitude advantage that helps me a little but nothing significant. The airport is 345 miles away from me and perhaps 360 miles away from him. Consequently, I don’t think your statement can be correct.
I’m not familiar at all with aggregating data for airplane tracking purposes but I can ponder the concept and make a few suppositions. I hope this logic holds up to scrutiny.
Aggregated data will have to reflect the site(s) the data originated at. Without getting into the philosophical debate, “legitimate aggregated data” should therefore show the arithmetic sum by heat-map location of the various data sets that were aggregated. If I combined two data sets and both contained 100 positions in the North 250+ sector I would expect to see 200 positions in that sector when looking at the aggregate. Aggregated data should look like regular data, just more of it. This does not look like regular data to me.
I don’t care how many sites you stack together, a KVCV locale won’t see a 260k spike of hits in that location. I really question the validity of the data you’re getting from your #2 (my neighbor) and #1 (Mr St. Louis) contributors. I get that you don’t want to miss any data but this data is flawed. As I said earlier, I watched the site ramp up. The site operator had two radios, one with a good setup and one with a punk setup (as do I and many others, no disrespect for that). The good setup is still in operation and getting the same kind of numbers as always. The punk setup was punk for a couple of days and then appeared to get aggregated with the good one. Good numbers + punk numbers added together and were distributed properly across the heat-map. That caught my attention. After a few days of that tomfoolery is when it went completely rogue. The rest of the map kept the two-receiver aggregated numbers seen before but the NW 250+ sector started exploding. It sure seems like additional manipulation of the data began then and continues now. From my perspective, you’re getting illegitimate aggregated data and your system is getting gamed.