Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: ARRL LOTW and More

To: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL LOTW and More
From: "Gary Smith" <Gary@ka1j.com>
Reply-to: Gary@ka1j.com
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:17:21 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
I use Logic software for normal logging, awards tracking and for 
contesting. I should learn N1MM for when I help out with a team 
effort and if they use that. I believe the author was one of the 
original authors for the LOTW format.

http://www.hosenose.com/logic/default.aspx

Be that as it may, this software makes it incredibly simple to update 
both LOTW at ARRL and download to the LOTW tracking in the software. 
I have 97 confirmed in cards & LOTW on 17M and when I get the next 3 
I will have enough to submit for 9 band DXCC. When I go to organize 
what to submit I tell the award tracking software to use cards first 
and LOTW 2nd and it creates a list of exactly what I need to submit.

To download my LOTW incoming confirmations takes about 10 seconds to 
do. To submit I have to select what QTH & time period to choose from 
so it takes longer but it's normally a 20 second procedure to submit 
my weekly uploads. I would expect using a non-automated system 
instead could be an issue.

Gary
KA1J




> ARRL 160 meter contest is based on *Sections*.  KP2 and KP4 are
> *SECTIONS* as are South Florida, North Florida, West Central Florida
> and any other section.  It makes no earthly sense to change the rules
> for one or two sections after thirty plus years of the contest.
> 
> If you don't like the rules, find a different contest.
> 
> 73,
> 
>     ... Joe, W4TV
> 
> 
> On 12/18/2012 5:41 PM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
> > Joe,  I don't ask for both....just wish to be treated the same way
> > as another station a few miles north (VP2V) .   Actually there is
> > little "DX" on during this contest compared to the others like CQ
> > and TBDC. The ARRL has a list of DXCC entities which works for all
> > their other contests but for some strange reason disallows U.S.
> > Territories for their 160 meter contest.  Makes no sense.
> >
> >
> > Herb, KV4FZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/18/2012 6:08 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> >>
> >> Herb,
> >>
> >> > I complained in past posts about the lack of fairness in the ARRL
> >> > 160 Meter Contest for not treating the U.S. Territories as DX, no
> >> > not even KP1 or KP5, none.  But with the ARRL 10 Meter contest
> >> > that followed, stations located in the U.S. Territories are
> >> > indeed DX as it should be.  Why in the world won't anyone on the
> >> > CAC or at HQ realize that there is no acceptable reason for not
> >> > correcting this problem. or if there is they aren't saying.
> >>
> >> Calling KP2 and KP4 DX for the ARRL 160 Meter Contest would mean
> >> that you *could not work DX.*  You have bitched for years that DX
> >> thought the could not work you - I can find the references in the
> >> archives going back almost to be beginning of this list) but it
> >> would mean that you got to count each QSO with the rest of us on
> >> the mainland as 5 points instead of 2 points.  Now you want to be
> >> able to work DX but count all your QSOs as five points instead of
> >> two?
> >>
> >> Do you want to be DX or work everybody?  Take your pick but don't
> >> act like a two year old and say "both!"
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >>    ... Joe, W4TV
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/18/2012 3:41 PM, herbs wrote:
> >>> After several frustrating weeks of trying to figure out why
> >>> my ARRL LOTW uploads were not registering I decided to
> >>> contact the company.  It seems they are back logged beyond
> >>> comprehension.  Not even the most recent DX-Peditions who
> >>> have uploaded all there logs are showing up.  As a result
> >>> confirmations will not show either.  I certainly hope that
> >>> some DX-ers don't get bumped from the Honor Roll because of
> >>> this slow down in accreditation.  LOTW used to be very fast
> >>> and now it is so slow to almost not be worth the money
> >>> charged for the service.
> >>>
> >>> I complained in past posts about the lack of fairness in the
> >>> ARRL 160 Meter Contest for not treating the U.S. Territories
> >>> as DX, no not even KP1 or KP5, none.  But with the ARRL 10
> >>> Meter contest that followed, stations located in the U.S.
> >>> Territories are indeed DX as it should be.  Why in the world
> >>> won't anyone on the CAC or at HQ realize that there is no
> >>> acceptable reason for not correcting this problem. or if
> >>> there is they aren't saying.
> >>>
> >>> I struggle to find out who is responsible for prohibiting
> >>> this correction. HQ tells me to write the CAC members and
> >>> the CAC members tell me they have no power to do anything
> >>> unless they are "tasked" by those in command at HQ.  I see
> >>> how easy it was to give Ontario more sections and even in
> >>> the ARRL 10 Meter Contest you get multipliers by working
> >>> "Mexican" states that nobody knows about, that some how
> >>> found relevance...I don't know how this is logically done
> >>> but someone must have the way to make things happen at HQ.
> >>> I presume that there are some fundemental democratic
> >>> principles that would allow for debate fo this topic so I
> >>> can make my case on behalf of the much malighed U.S.
> >>> Territories in the structure of this contest's rules.
> >>>
> >>> If you know what to do.  Please let me know.
> >>>
> >>> 73,
> >>>
> >>> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground
> >>> whatsoever for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground
> >> whatsoever for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground
> > whatsoever for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell
> >
> _______________________________________________
> It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground
> whatsoever for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell
> 



_______________________________________________
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever 
for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell

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