Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Enforcing station location fields ?
- On 1/3/2013 8:36 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> Take a look at the Primary Administrative Subdivision enumeration inI did.
> Adding the ability to correctly populate the selector with theI don't see anything that an "<enum value>="xx">"Name"</enum> style
> correct “codes” and providing the ability for users to select a
> subdivision by its full name would be a significant effort.
system like is being used currently for countries 1, 6, 15, 54, 110,
126, and 291 couldn't handle. In some cases the list of names could
be filtered based on the callsign but that would be an enhancement.
> I agree that doing this would add value, but our first focus is toI don't know that this is expanding functionality any more than
> improve TQL's usability and reliability – not to expand its
expanding the information in the current config.xml file. Maybe I'll
play with adding a couple smaller countries to the current config and
see if they will be picked up.
The only thing I see that could derail the additional primary divisions
is if LotW is not using the generic <State: > and is instead using
application specific tags without labeling them as such ... if that's
the case it will take server side changes.
... Joe, W4TV
On 1/3/2013 8:36 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> Take a look at the Primary Administrative Subdivision enumeration in ADIF,
> Adding the ability to correctly populate the selector with the correct
> “codes” and providing the ability for users to select a subdivision by its
> full name would be a significant effort. I agree that doing this would add
> value, but our first focus is to improve TQL's usability and reliability –
> not to expand its functionality.
> Dave, AA6YQ
> From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:01 PM
> To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Enforcing station location fields ?
> On 1/3/2013 6:21 PM, NUNO LOPES wrote:
>> I think that the Primary & Secondary Administration should be open to
> There is no reason it should not be open for all. The ADIF
> tag represents *any* primary administrative division enumerates the
> primary administrative subdivision for many "countries" (including
> Portugal, Azores and Madeira. See: http://www.adif.org/adif302.htm
> I don't see why Dave and his groups would not open the enhanced tQSL
> to support for any of the enumerated countries.
> ... Joe, W4TV
> On 1/3/2013 6:21 PM, NUNO LOPES wrote:
>> I think that the Primary & Secondary Administration should be open to all.
>> That data could be use to other awards use that to accept LOTW
> comfirmations, for the awards.
>> An Italian could put is reference for WAIP award
>> An English could put is reference for WAB award
>> An Portuguese could put is reference for DMP award
>> If I could put my reference, this could be use by others to confirm my QSO
> for DMP award.
>> 73 de Nuno
>>> From: Rick Murphy/K1MU k1mu-lotw@...>
>>> To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:04 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Enforcing station location fields ?
>>> At 09:41 AM 1/3/2013, Peter Laws wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Peter Glasmacher
>>>> dk5dc@...5dc@...> wrote:
>>>>> How will you enforce that? The thing is called logbook of The
>>>> World. A lot of countries in the world do have other administrative
>>>> units. For example a county ? Germany does not have such a unit,
>>>> France neither and there's probably much much more countries who
>>>> organize themselves different. You would just exclude
>>>> Yeah, yeah, everything is US-centric. Can't help you there other than
>>>> to suggest you not patronize businesses that don't understand that not
>>>> all their customers are in the same country.
>>>> As for TQSL, the administrative subdivisions are tied to the DXCC
>>>> entity. If your certificate is for Germany, I would assume that even
>>>> in the current iteration of the program you are not even offered the
>>>> opportunity to -- much less required to -- enter a state or county.
>>>> I know that for Canada provinces are offered and oblasts for Russia.
>>>> Don't know about other entities.
>>> That's correct for the current TQSL. A station location is in a
>>> specific ARRL entity. For some of those, there are administrative
>>> subdivisions (states, provinces, etc.) You're only asked to fill that
>>> in where it's appropriate and you're not required to fill it in at all.
>>> In other words, if you don't want to say what state you're in, fine. I
>>> can't see that changing.
>>> I can see someone not wanting to fill in all the details, but asking
>>> for US State isn't much of a burden, and for many of those, there's a
>>> very limited set of CQ and ITU zones. TQSL should allow only those
>>> selections or allow the owner to ignore that and make no selection.
>>> And "Pete"/"Keith" - what you're missing is that the QSOs in LoTW can
>>> be traced back to the station who signed them. If I deliberately sign a
>>> QSO with an intentionally incorrect location, ARRL has the ability to
>>> know where it came from. That's all that we need here, not signing
>>> each QSO in blood.
>>> When I send a QSO to
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5508 - Release Date: 01/03/13
> Yahoo! Groups Links