[VHFcontesting] MSK144 contacts in cabrillo

Bob K0NR - email list list at k0nr.com
Sun Jan 29 19:33:13 EST 2017 

Jay,

I don't know if LoTW truly "cares" about Cabrillo...I don't think 
they've implemented the AI feature yet :-).
But LoTW does accept Cabrillo for most contests
https://lotw.arrl.org/lotw-help_devel_en/cabrillo/?lang=en

73, Bob K0NR

On 29-Jan-17 4:57 PM, Keith Morehouse wrote:
> LoTW doesn't care about Cabrillo.  LoTW uses .ADIF files which can be much
> more specific as to mode.  However, the current ADIF standard does not
> (yet) understand what MSK144 is.
>
> But, as far as contest logging goes, if you want to keep your digital QSOs
> distinguishable from SSB QSOs, RY is the way to go since, as has been
> mentioned, Cabrillo only understands PH, CW, FM or RY as modes.  If you
> just don't care, PH or RY will both work as has been proven for almost 15
> years.  Although, keep in mind the OTHER guy might care, whether you QSL
> via hard card; LoTW or <shudder> E-QSL.
>
> Jay W9RM
> DM58 CO
>
> Keith J Morehouse
> Managing Partner
> Calmesa Partners G.P.
> Olathe, CO
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Bob K0NR - email list <list at k0nr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Roger,
>>
>> Thanks for the rational explanation. It's odd that cabrillo uses a higher
>> level construct for voice communications (Phone) and a more specific format
>> for digital communications (RTTY). Too bad RY isn't DT or something else to
>> indicate and cover all digital modes. The cabrillo standard is rather
>> limiting on mode, but it is what it is.
>>
>> I've had issues with logging programs mapping PH to SSB when the contact
>> was really on FM. I can usually sort that out with enough effort and a good
>> text editor.
>>
>> 73, Bob K0NR
>>
>>
>> On 29-Jan-17 1:41 PM, Roger Rehr W3SZ wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I had thought this was all common knowledge and "settled law" for at
>>> least a decade.  It is not a  "new standard"   :)
>>> It is correct that it is not something to worry about or expend any time
>>> or energy on.
>>>
>>> LOTW is one reason why it matters.  Many of us submit our logs to LOTW.
>>> And LOTW will not map "PHONE" modes to the "DATA" mode group and will
>>> reject QSO matches if one partner's QSO is recorded in the phone group
>>> and the other partner's QSO is recorded in the data group.  Data modes
>>> accepted for LOTW include more than two dozen sub-modes but as would be
>>> expected, PHONE modes are not among those modes.
>>>
>>> LOTW mode mapping is described here:
>>> https://lotw.arrl.org/lotw-help/frequently-asked-questions/#modes
>>>
>>> The fundamental issue is that the Cabrillo Specification, which is used
>>> by the ARRL as well as other organizations (e.g. CQ, DARC) for the
>>> purposes of contest log scoring, includes only one data mode, "RY".
>>>
>>> This specification was not developed by the ARRL and is not determined
>>> by "fiat" from the ARRL.
>>> The Cabrillo specification was developed by N5KO and is administered by
>>> the WWROF, which is independent of the ARRL.  See:
>>> http://wwrof.org/cabrillo/
>>>
>>> Logging programs COULD be written so as to allow the user to enter the
>>> exact data mode used for each contact, be it JT65C, MSK144, JT4G or
>>> whatever, and then have the software automatically map those modes to
>>> "RY" when generating the Cabrillo file.  Most logging program developers
>>> have not chosen to do that.
>>>
>>> And the Cabrillo specification mode definitions could be broadened, but
>>> they have not been.
>>>
>>> Additionally, entering all digital contacts in the log as phone modes
>>> deprives one of the ability to go back over one's logs and determine
>>> which contacts were and were not digital.  The "RY" designation is
>>> imperfect to be sure, but far superior in this respect to the "PH" or
>>> "USB" designations.
>>>
>>> In summary, there are very good reasons not to log every digital contact
>>> as a phone mode.  And it is not the ARRL's fault that "RY" is the only
>>> mode choice given by many contest logging programs.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Roger Rehr
>>> W3SZ
>>>
>>> On 1/29/2017 2:59 PM, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello All....I have been using PH for WSJT contacts in my log files
>>>> sent to the ARRL for as long as I have been sending them.  What WSJT
>>>> does is to inject tones into the microphone connector(essentially).
>>>> These tones follow the same path that speech would follow in the rig.
>>>> For me, that makes it PH.  None of my logs has ever been questioned or
>>>> rejected.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, the ARRL's VHF contests are not mode specific.  In other
>>>> words, the mode does not matter....you get to work the other station
>>>> only once in any case.  The robot does not match my PH against my
>>>> contact's RY or CW.
>>>>
>>>> I would rather that the ARRL not, by fiat, create a "standard" for
>>>> WSJT type contacts.  These contacts are clearly NOT RTTY.  I don't
>>>> want to have to edit my log files to change all the PH to {new
>>>> standard} for just the WSJT contacts.  Since MODE does not matter,
>>>> spending a lot of time worrying about it us just wasted time and energy.
>>>>
>>>> If someone else wants to use RY, go for it, but I will stay with PH
>>>> unless I am forced to change.  Since mode does not matter, why bother?
>>>>
>>>> 73 Marshall K5QE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/28/2017 10:07 PM, Sean Waite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It most certainly does help, thanks. Exactly what I was looking for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean WA1TE
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 18:38 Roger Rehr W3SZ <w3sz73 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is an answer and Jay is 100% correct.   :)
>>>>>> I was told long ago that RY is standard.  There is good documentation
>>>>>> for this and so RY is what I have been doing for years to log digital
>>>>>> contacts for Cabrillo logs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some references, listed as first reference then quotation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://qsl.net/w3km/cab_template.htm
>>>>>> Most sponsors use `RY` for all non-CW digital modes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~becher/ShackPrimer/N1MM%20Logger
>>>>>> %20Documents%202011-02-03_merged[1].pdf
>>>>>> <https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~becher/ShackPrimer/N1MM%20Logger%20Documents%202011-02-03_merged%5B1%5D.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~becher/ShackPrimer/N1MM%20Logge
>>>>>> r%20Documents%202011-02-03_merged%5B1%5D.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> page 174:  Note: The Cabrillo standard only supports one mode
>>>>>> designator
>>>>>> for digital modes: RY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/Tutoria
>>>>>> ls/Submitting%20An%20Electronic%20Contest%20Log.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The next item is the mode used . The standard abbreviations are PH for
>>>>>> an SSB or AM QSO, CW for CW, FM for FM, and RY for RTTY/digital modes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope that helps!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Rehr
>>>>>> W3SZ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/28/2017 4:50 PM, Sean Waite wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like there is no real answer, with some people doing PH or RY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as there is no official whatever for it, I guess we can use
>>>>>>> whatever makes sense. Probably RY, though PH is reasonable as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Sean WA1TE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 16:26 Keith Morehouse <w9rm at calmesapartners.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RY will do it.
>>>>>>>> Jay W9RM
>>>>>>>> DM58 CO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keith J Morehouse
>>>>>>>> Managing Partner
>>>>>>>> Calmesa Partners G.P.
>>>>>>>> Olathe, CO
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Sean Waite <waisean at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey All,
>>>>>>>>> What do we put for Mode in a cabrillo file when you've made an
>>>>>>>>> MSK144
>>>>>>>>> contact? The only options in the QSO standard seem to be CW, PH,
>>>>>>>>> FM or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>> Sean WA1TE
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>>>>>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>>>>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>>>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Bob Witte K0NR
>> bob at k0nr.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting


-- 

--
Bob Witte K0NR
bob at k0nr.com

More information about the VHFcontesting mailing list