JeepCrawler98

Just a heads up, and this should only affect older or nodes running self configured software (such as Debian 9, or modified HamVoIP or ASL builds). It appears the issuing authority for the myGMRS TLS certificates (LetsEncrypt) is no longer playing nicely with certain older systems, so certain nodes are no longer pulling in the node list or posting statistics to the mygmrs network map.
If your node is no longer showing up on the mygmrs.network map or able to connect to other nodes otherwise on the network; the easiest workaround I know of is to not have it check for certificates, by modifying as follows:
rpt.conf: your statpost_program should be as follows: 
statpost_program=/usr/bin/wget,-q,--timeout=5,--tries=1,--no-check-certificate,--output-document=/dev/null If you do not have this string, add it - the main change is the addition of --no-check-certificate, the other stuff is to keep you from spamming the mygmrs server in case there's network issues.
Node list: depending on your mechanisms for pulling in the nodes list (https://mygmrs.network/nodes)
If you're using usr/local/bin/rc.updatenodelist - you'll need to add "--no-check-certificate" to the calls to wget in that file. I don't use this mechanism, so if someone wants to take a stab at modifying that one and posting it here I'm sure it'd be appreciated. If you're using wget in a cron job - add "--no-check-certificate" to the line you have for that  

RG8x is better than RG58 but is still terrible for UHF - spring for the LMR400; it'll give you a noticeable boost in performance. It's worth the cost: https://abrind.com/product-category/abr400-solid-ultraflex-assemblies/
I can't comment first hand on the antenna; but the Browing BR-6353 works well at GMRS for what it is, it's only slightly more than the TWAYRADIO brand: https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=3580&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkbuKBhDRARIsAALysV7PYMkBxYiCxyoQ5dSVENW9I2CnZc0eMgrFmNlvt_oP7ufbQQW9qdYaAiPhEALw_wcB. It's fully welded and pre-tuned, it's surprisingly tough for how cheap it is. I recommend getting away from Amazon when shopping for radio stuff.
Bonus points for the type N connectors too - while PL259's are also called "UHF" connectors it's because when they were designed UHF was anything above 30mhz; Type N is mechanically a better and lower loss connector, and are better for weatherproofing too.
edit:
Back on the coax; you're putting up a 7.1dBi yagi antenna, with 50' RG-8x you will lose 4.246db of that gain for a net system gain of 2.9db.
In contrast; with the LMR400 - you're 'only losing' 1.371dB for a net system gain of 5.7dB
For the hell of it - using RG-58 results in a net system gain of 0.2dB; it'd almost completely negate the benefit of your antenna to an isotropic radiator (which is below the performance of a basic dipole as it is already).
For reference; a basic dipole 'unity gain' antenna is 2.15dBi (aka 0.0dBd)
see: https://www.qsl.net/co8tw/Coax_Calculator.htm

RG8x is better than RG58 but is still terrible for UHF - spring for the LMR400; it'll give you a noticeable boost in performance. It's worth the cost: https://abrind.com/product-category/abr400-solid-ultraflex-assemblies/
I can't comment first hand on the antenna; but the Browing BR-6353 works well at GMRS for what it is, it's only slightly more than the TWAYRADIO brand: https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=3580&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkbuKBhDRARIsAALysV7PYMkBxYiCxyoQ5dSVENW9I2CnZc0eMgrFmNlvt_oP7ufbQQW9qdYaAiPhEALw_wcB. It's fully welded and pre-tuned, it's surprisingly tough for how cheap it is. I recommend getting away from Amazon when shopping for radio stuff.
Bonus points for the type N connectors too - while PL259's are also called "UHF" connectors it's because when they were designed UHF was anything above 30mhz; Type N is mechanically a better and lower loss connector, and are better for weatherproofing too.
edit:
Back on the coax; you're putting up a 7.1dBi yagi antenna, with 50' RG-8x you will lose 4.246db of that gain for a net system gain of 2.9db.
In contrast; with the LMR400 - you're 'only losing' 1.371dB for a net system gain of 5.7dB
For the hell of it - using RG-58 results in a net system gain of 0.2dB; it'd almost completely negate the benefit of your antenna to an isotropic radiator (which is below the performance of a basic dipole as it is already).
For reference; a basic dipole 'unity gain' antenna is 2.15dBi (aka 0.0dBd)
see: https://www.qsl.net/co8tw/Coax_Calculator.htm

RG8x is better than RG58 but is still terrible for UHF - spring for the LMR400; it'll give you a noticeable boost in performance. It's worth the cost: https://abrind.com/product-category/abr400-solid-ultraflex-assemblies/
I can't comment first hand on the antenna; but the Browing BR-6353 works well at GMRS for what it is, it's only slightly more than the TWAYRADIO brand: https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=3580&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkbuKBhDRARIsAALysV7PYMkBxYiCxyoQ5dSVENW9I2CnZc0eMgrFmNlvt_oP7ufbQQW9qdYaAiPhEALw_wcB. It's fully welded and pre-tuned, it's surprisingly tough for how cheap it is. I recommend getting away from Amazon when shopping for radio stuff.
Bonus points for the type N connectors too - while PL259's are also called "UHF" connectors it's because when they were designed UHF was anything above 30mhz; Type N is mechanically a better and lower loss connector, and are better for weatherproofing too.
edit:
Back on the coax; you're putting up a 7.1dBi yagi antenna, with 50' RG-8x you will lose 4.246db of that gain for a net system gain of 2.9db.
In contrast; with the LMR400 - you're 'only losing' 1.371dB for a net system gain of 5.7dB
For the hell of it - using RG-58 results in a net system gain of 0.2dB; it'd almost completely negate the benefit of your antenna to an isotropic radiator (which is below the performance of a basic dipole as it is already).
For reference; a basic dipole 'unity gain' antenna is 2.15dBi (aka 0.0dBd)
see: https://www.qsl.net/co8tw/Coax_Calculator.htm

What's this? Anyways - we had a repeater start hearing itself (Pecos 550) after we adjusted a few other things including shooting microwave internet over to the site to get rid of a link radio that had started acting up with the 4 hours of burn time we get almost daily now. It's been unlinked until we fix it - it's not a ping pong between different repeaters or a link radio/repeater, but an antenna noise issues with lack of adequate isolation on the filters after an antenna change. There's a return trip involved with that one unfortunately; nothing we can fix remotely.

What's this? Anyways - we had a repeater start hearing itself (Pecos 550) after we adjusted a few other things including shooting microwave internet over to the site to get rid of a link radio that had started acting up with the 4 hours of burn time we get almost daily now. It's been unlinked until we fix it - it's not a ping pong between different repeaters or a link radio/repeater, but an antenna noise issues with lack of adequate isolation on the filters after an antenna change. There's a return trip involved with that one unfortunately; nothing we can fix remotely.

I'll cross post this here from Reddit since it's reference information and will be a hot topic I'm sure.
IMO don't start hooking up your TNC's just yet, this doesn't do much for the users, just a bit for the manufacturers.
------------------------
For reference; here is the full rules on data on GMRS with the change implemented as outlined in the Appendix "Final Rules"; the change is in bold:     This fortunately/unfortunately depending on your side of the fence means that we cannot hook up APRS modems to our handhelds with removable antennas or mobile radios due to the "removable" antenna limitation. Also - does anyone know if MDC1200 or FleetSync are not permitted on removable-antenna radios or on the repeater inputs since they're data transmissions? This is common practice, but I'm not so sure it's legal practice.   I had approached the FCC on the APRS topic as I feel the above as written applies to handhelds and only new radios seeking certification (what about attaching a modem to a historically certified radio?) below is the response I received at the time:     The above is a written response, not a ruling and it could be argued I feel, but that's their stance anyways.   Onto the CB topic! The determination on CB radio FM is interesting; but a maximum 8khz bandwidth is going to make it super narrow band (most narrow-band FM is 11.25Khz)

What's the make, model and type of duplexer? Duplexers always lose some power, I've measured losses like that first hand on the Jesai, Fumei and other Chinese flatpacks around the 6-7dB range which is exactly the power drop you're measuring. They're really only acceptable down to about a 7mhz split or bigger, not the 5mhz split we're used to.
If it's something with a reputable brand name, it's not normal. a Celwave/Phelps Dodge or Telewave duplexer will have insertion losses around 1.5dB or so, if you take your time tuning those you can get that down to 0.8dB or so; if you get something like that the 42W you measured would be up around 35W after passing through...

You’re right: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/amp
That’s pretty ridiculous and should be a total deal breaker.
The tested (and therefore actual approved configuration) also shows an integral antenna and not the removable one they’re selling now; wonderful. Sounds like these things are not technically legal as sold and if they’re set to wideband.

Which as I pointed out in an earlier post is another flaw in the certification - they measured ERP alone because it was tested with an integral antenna so that's the right unit of measure and is appropriate in that configuration. But that's not what they're selling.
This radio is shipped to the consumer with a removable antenna, meaning we can hook up the gains to it. The radio should be tested also based on transmitter output, not just ERP, if they want to sell it with removable antennas.
See product as tested: https://fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/Internal-Photos/Internal-photos-5110431
edit:
For example; here's a report on a Kenwood TK3180 where it's done right. https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-test-report-424905.pdf (SAR - exposure safety) and https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/Test-Report/test-report-424900.pdf (for emissions masks, based on conducted power, appropriate because of the removable antenna)
Multiple antennas tested, multiple batteries tested, and a max conducted power rating is given based on actual measurement. In contrast, the UV9G also gives a maximum rated transmitter power (not tested, based on manufacturer's claims) of 3.5W. 3.5W is not 5.0W and Baofeng knows this because they stated that - see https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2AJGM-P52UV/5110426 
Yeah the consumers buying these don't and shouldn't care about stuff this far down the paper trail, nor should they be expected to, in fact it would appear the FCC doesn't really scrutinize this enough since they're obviously letting this through the cracks until it hits the "rugged radios" kind of scale, but this is exactly why it's important for manufacturers to get it right and actually sell what they claim and what is legal.

One of the things that seems to be fairly prevalent in the repeater listings are paper repeaters - those who are listed, but not longer online or usable. It would be nice if there was some sort of process for removing these - either by vote, requesting a review, flagged as "reported offline," or something like that.
 
We have a few of these in the Tucson area; their owners at times haven't logged in in almost a decade and/or their licenses expired.

So for reference; I just got done tuning up our portable repeater's duplexer for a campout next week with the local GMRS crew - this is a Celwave 633-6A-2N mobile duplexer, measurement device is an Anritsu MT8212B. This is measured through a couple extra fittings that are part of the normal install; so this adds a few tenths of a dB for insertion loss.
For 462.700 Mhz (TX side) - insertion loss is -1.52dB, with a high notch (nothing RX) at -81.72dB
For 467.700 Mhz (RX side) - insertion loss is -1.25dB, with a low notch (notching TX) at -87.97dB




Below are comparative measurements I took a while ago of a similar Celwave unit (left) vs. the chinesium Jesai/Fumei unit (right); you can see the difference - the cheap stuff is unfortunately garbage at the 5mhz split:

So for reference; I just got done tuning up our portable repeater's duplexer for a campout next week with the local GMRS crew - this is a Celwave 633-6A-2N mobile duplexer, measurement device is an Anritsu MT8212B. This is measured through a couple extra fittings that are part of the normal install; so this adds a few tenths of a dB for insertion loss.
For 462.700 Mhz (TX side) - insertion loss is -1.52dB, with a high notch (nothing RX) at -81.72dB
For 467.700 Mhz (RX side) - insertion loss is -1.25dB, with a low notch (notching TX) at -87.97dB




Below are comparative measurements I took a while ago of a similar Celwave unit (left) vs. the chinesium Jesai/Fumei unit (right); you can see the difference - the cheap stuff is unfortunately garbage at the 5mhz split:

@WRNA236 - yup here it is: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf
At first glance Pages 12 and 23 or of interest; with the limits imposed by the table on Page 23 you're probably okay but it's not a blanket exemption to automatically put everyone in the clear unfortunately (except for handhelds). Awkward.

Which as I pointed out in an earlier post is another flaw in the certification - they measured ERP alone because it was tested with an integral antenna so that's the right unit of measure and is appropriate in that configuration. But that's not what they're selling.
This radio is shipped to the consumer with a removable antenna, meaning we can hook up the gains to it. The radio should be tested also based on transmitter output, not just ERP, if they want to sell it with removable antennas.
See product as tested: https://fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/Internal-Photos/Internal-photos-5110431
edit:
For example; here's a report on a Kenwood TK3180 where it's done right. https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-test-report-424905.pdf (SAR - exposure safety) and https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/Test-Report/test-report-424900.pdf (for emissions masks, based on conducted power, appropriate because of the removable antenna)
Multiple antennas tested, multiple batteries tested, and a max conducted power rating is given based on actual measurement. In contrast, the UV9G also gives a maximum rated transmitter power (not tested, based on manufacturer's claims) of 3.5W. 3.5W is not 5.0W and Baofeng knows this because they stated that - see https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2AJGM-P52UV/5110426 
Yeah the consumers buying these don't and shouldn't care about stuff this far down the paper trail, nor should they be expected to, in fact it would appear the FCC doesn't really scrutinize this enough since they're obviously letting this through the cracks until it hits the "rugged radios" kind of scale, but this is exactly why it's important for manufacturers to get it right and actually sell what they claim and what is legal.

What's the make, model and type of duplexer? Duplexers always lose some power, I've measured losses like that first hand on the Jesai, Fumei and other Chinese flatpacks around the 6-7dB range which is exactly the power drop you're measuring. They're really only acceptable down to about a 7mhz split or bigger, not the 5mhz split we're used to.
If it's something with a reputable brand name, it's not normal. a Celwave/Phelps Dodge or Telewave duplexer will have insertion losses around 1.5dB or so, if you take your time tuning those you can get that down to 0.8dB or so; if you get something like that the 42W you measured would be up around 35W after passing through...

What's the make, model and type of duplexer? Duplexers always lose some power, I've measured losses like that first hand on the Jesai, Fumei and other Chinese flatpacks around the 6-7dB range which is exactly the power drop you're measuring. They're really only acceptable down to about a 7mhz split or bigger, not the 5mhz split we're used to.
If it's something with a reputable brand name, it's not normal. a Celwave/Phelps Dodge or Telewave duplexer will have insertion losses around 1.5dB or so, if you take your time tuning those you can get that down to 0.8dB or so; if you get something like that the 42W you measured would be up around 35W after passing through...

What's the make, model and type of duplexer? Duplexers always lose some power, I've measured losses like that first hand on the Jesai, Fumei and other Chinese flatpacks around the 6-7dB range which is exactly the power drop you're measuring. They're really only acceptable down to about a 7mhz split or bigger, not the 5mhz split we're used to.
If it's something with a reputable brand name, it's not normal. a Celwave/Phelps Dodge or Telewave duplexer will have insertion losses around 1.5dB or so, if you take your time tuning those you can get that down to 0.8dB or so; if you get something like that the 42W you measured would be up around 35W after passing through...

Using another repeater falls under the cooperative use clause and restrictions by the owner fall under 'individual licensee duties' of 47 CFR §95.1705:
 
Repeaters are still classified as 'stations.' This section is why many repeater owners require permission, as they're technically required to keep a list of control stations.
Key takeaways:
"Shall determine specifically which individuals, including family members, are allowed to operate (i.e., exercise operational control over) its GMRS station(s)"
(2) May allow any person to use (i.e., benefit from the operation of) its GMRS repeater, or alternatively, may limit the use of its GMRS repeater to specific persons;
(3) May disallow the use of its GMRS repeater by specific persons as may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section.
"Specifically" in that first paragraph implies that a repeater's licensee must specify who you allow to act as a control station (which is any station using a repeater) over your GMRS station (in this case a repeater). This pretty much means that you have a duty as a repeater owner to keep a list of users to be compliant with this rule.
This is aside from helping to tune out the noise caused by people who take others' hard work for granted and cause trouble.
I don't think anyone stumbling onto a GMRS repeater is breaking the rules as a control station since it's hard to post a repeater as locked down in a matter fitting public notice; but the repeater owner does have a legal burden to keep track of you as a permitted user which users need to be aware of and thus should notify repeater owners of their intent. Of course, per the above, they can tell you to get off their equipment too and it's entirely within their rights to do so.
In practice; is this ever enforced and does the FCC care? I doubt it - but it is in the rules.

Good find; the user manual has some interesting tidbits in it - namely mention of a mini XLR connector on the radio for remote headsets.
Looks like they have it channel locked to the standard 22 + 8 arrangement; I wish the consumer oriented manufacturers would get out of the habit of doing that as there's no limitation on the number of memory channels a GMRS radio can have access to, just the frequencies. If they want to keep it newbie proof keep the first 30 channels locked as is and allow the memory channels above 30 to be whatever. An alphanumeric display with an option for more than 30 total memory channels (like 128 or so, like many commercial Part 95 radios and the increasingly popular Wouxun KG805, KG905, and KG1000) would be really nice to have for those who use repeaters a lot. I get that the FCC recommends the 22+8 arrangement for approval in their technical bulletins, but it's not actually a requirement for approval, so if you happen to be a manufacturer reading this (looking at you Midland, Retevis, B-Tech): STOP IT! There's no actual need.
Also sad to report the USB connector on the body is supposedly for charging only; hopefully they have a way to get a programming cable hooked up like the MXT400. As seems to be standard for Midland they have a really attractive physical packaging and decent performing radio, but are being too conservative with the programmable bells and whistles for the price point; these would be so easy to incorporate it's a shame not to IMO.

Using another repeater falls under the cooperative use clause and restrictions by the owner fall under 'individual licensee duties' of 47 CFR §95.1705:
 
Repeaters are still classified as 'stations.' This section is why many repeater owners require permission, as they're technically required to keep a list of control stations.
Key takeaways:
"Shall determine specifically which individuals, including family members, are allowed to operate (i.e., exercise operational control over) its GMRS station(s)"
(2) May allow any person to use (i.e., benefit from the operation of) its GMRS repeater, or alternatively, may limit the use of its GMRS repeater to specific persons;
(3) May disallow the use of its GMRS repeater by specific persons as may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section.
"Specifically" in that first paragraph implies that a repeater's licensee must specify who you allow to act as a control station (which is any station using a repeater) over your GMRS station (in this case a repeater). This pretty much means that you have a duty as a repeater owner to keep a list of users to be compliant with this rule.
This is aside from helping to tune out the noise caused by people who take others' hard work for granted and cause trouble.
I don't think anyone stumbling onto a GMRS repeater is breaking the rules as a control station since it's hard to post a repeater as locked down in a matter fitting public notice; but the repeater owner does have a legal burden to keep track of you as a permitted user which users need to be aware of and thus should notify repeater owners of their intent. Of course, per the above, they can tell you to get off their equipment too and it's entirely within their rights to do so.
In practice; is this ever enforced and does the FCC care? I doubt it - but it is in the rules.

That did it; thanks Rich!

Fair enough for simplex; but you have to remember that if you're using a repeater you don't own yourself you're actually actively using someone else's radio in addition to your own. This is why repeater owners may have their own rules and practices they want followed when using their hardware; sometimes these rules include not having roger beeps.
Since on repeaters you have people monitoring for traffic from others and are often dependent on them for communications, aside from the fact that they tend to be watering holes for radio traffic - you are forcing other operators to listen to you. Simplex, not so much a problem because you can tune out and not miss anything as you mentioned.

Fair enough for simplex; but you have to remember that if you're using a repeater you don't own yourself you're actually actively using someone else's radio in addition to your own. This is why repeater owners may have their own rules and practices they want followed when using their hardware; sometimes these rules include not having roger beeps.
Since on repeaters you have people monitoring for traffic from others and are often dependent on them for communications, aside from the fact that they tend to be watering holes for radio traffic - you are forcing other operators to listen to you. Simplex, not so much a problem because you can tune out and not miss anything as you mentioned.

I've looked into this in the past; I still believe it's technically legal on GMRS if you want to argue it. I took this up with the FCC and below is what I received back from them. I think there's grounds to argue against their response, but it settled the issue for me (for now) anyways. Justified or not, and while APRS as a protocol is allowed, their stance is that they don't want it unless limited to a certified low-power handheld radio with fixed antenna, which severely limits its application as it eliminates the ability to develop a solid digipeating/gateway infrastructure (which I had planned to start developing at the time on one of the 462 interstitial 'FRS' channels)
My original request to them:
 
Their response: