[CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

[Nate Bargmann]

* Albert Crespo <f5vhj at orange.fr> [2009 Dec 13 10:08 -0600]:

>  Of course the remedy would be a  new exchange. That would  will be the 
> latitude and longitude coordinates. That will get rid of the  599 + robot 
> zone exchange that others cry about.  This will  show off  CW  skills by 
> being able to copy all those unique reports ( try copying 18 56 N 74 35 W in 
> a QRM pile Up) If you bust the exchange, get ready for a penalty.

Maidenhead subsquares would seem to fill this role nicely.  Here at mid
lattitudes (I'm near 40 deg North) my locator of EM19qu defines an area
of about 3 miles lattitude and 4.5 miles longitude (4.83 km x 7.24 km).
A subsquare will be largest at the equator and smallest at the poles
and would seem to be reasonably consistent in size for most of the
population centers of either hemisphere.

If greater precision would be warranted the system allows for longer
locator strings that alternate between letters and figures but the six
character strings would seem to be "close enough".  Plenty of logging
programs support the use of Maidenhead grid squares to calculate
distance and azimuth to the other station.  Algorithms for such
calculations abound.

The use of a six character (four letters, two digits) string as part of
the exchange would make the exchange more meaningful for a 'test such
as CQ WW where now the only difficulty lies in copying the callsign
correctly.

73, de Nate >>

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html