[CQ-Contest] Mobile operation uploads to LOTW

Tom Haavisto kamham69 at gmail.com
Mon May 11 20:10:39 PDT 2009

Hi Ron

No, I get your point, but there are a few things we need to remember:

Before I was able to upload VE3CX QSO's to LOTW, I had to supply
documentation showing that I have a valid licence to operate from Ontario.
If I were to operate from Pitcarin, I would have to supply documentation to
the DXCC desk before they accept my *paper* QSL cards to count.  Part of
that docuentation would be the valid start/end dates for my operation from
that entity.  This same data could be extended to LOTW.

Will it require some work to get this information in?  Certainly.  As the
same time, its a one shot deal.  Once its there, it is there forever.

We also need to remember is that YOU don't get get to pick what VR200PI/ID
counts for.  You upload the record to LOTW, and your part is done.  It is
now up to VR200PI/ID to supply his documentation to the DXCC desk before ANY
of his QSL's are accepted - paper or electronic.  Absent that documentation,
it does not count.  With that documentation submitted to the DXCC desk, it
can count - both for paper and LOTW.

The bottom line being - there are rules.  Once the rules are known to a
human, they can be translated into software and applied.  Even if the rules
may appear complex, the bottom line remains - there are rules.

Tom - VE3CX

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>wrote:

> I think Tom has missed my point.
> There is, so far as I know, NO single set series of rules governing the “/”
> situation.  There can’t be, as the rules can change due to the
> administration using them, the circumstances, the time… and they can change
> tomorrow, seemingly on a whim.  Some of these are temporary or
> special-event
> situations that may only be in effect for a short-time.
> And even experienced operators don't always know the difference.
> Take, for example, VR200PI/ID.  Hong Kong?  Pitcairn Island?  Or Italy?
> I could come up with hundreds more (special events, unofficial Olympic
> designators, anniversaries, etc.) but I won't bore everyone with the list.
> I'm simply pointing out that anyone who thinks it's (relatively) easy to
> set
> up the computer's decision making process to parse all of these
> permutations, even factoring in all of the known or suspected extenuating
> circumstantial data (date, time, frequency, announcements, physical cards,
> etc.) should think again.

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list