[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC 2006 and Writelog

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC 2006 and Writelog
From: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 00:23:00 +0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
OH1NOA suggested to M0CLW:

> > Quoting further from Rule 8: "Nevertheless TR and CT could be used
> > but the Committee does not assume any responsibility on the
> > conversion to cabrillo. We will ask CT and TR to develop a specific
> > version for WRTC 2006 in order to mitigate or eliminate problems on
> > the conversion to cabrillo."
> >
> > Now, this strikes me as being overly odd. Firstly, why should any
> > problems be encountered on the conversion to Cabrillo? Exporting a
> > log in Cabrillo format for a contest is now de facto standard, and
> > just about any contester can do this. And I have no doubt that WRTC
> > competitors will have absolutely no qualms/problems in exporting to
> > Cabrillo. So, what's the issue?
>The issue is propably that in the last WRTC, these softwares couldn't make
>conversion to CORRECT Cabrillo format. It seemed not to be so easy after

Two main stream programs (one probably being the most "popular")
don't generate valid Cabrillo for a mainstream contest like IARU?

Like logs received for the recent ARRL DX SSB, it's amazing that
something like 70% of entries have various silliness & after that
probably another 10% will have problems with the QSO data itself.

I can understand how Cabrillo is a mess for non-mainstream events -
but how can we _still_ be having problems (whatever they may be)
so many years on for something like IARU?

What is so difficult about implementing what is in the spec?

73, VR2BrettGraham

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>