Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: /p /m stations logging

Expand Messages
  • Robert Chudek - K0RC
    yes, understood. I was trying to be brief. :-) I could get on the air and sign KØRC/HSØ and people would log me, thinking I am in Thailand on vacation. But
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      yes, understood. I was trying to be brief.  :-)

      I could get on the air and sign KØRC/HSØ and people would log me, thinking I am in Thailand on vacation. But if I don't have a valid certificate with that DXCC entity issued by the ARRL, uploading my log with any other certificate will not give those QSOs credit for HSØ.

      So my point is that (legal on-air requirements aside), any qualifier tacked onto a call sign is not significant for LoTW. It solves the VE3/KØRC or KØRC/VE3 issue as well.

      73 de Bob - KØRC in MN



      On 2/19/2013 7:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

      In my opinion, LoTW should ignore all the self-appointed call sign
      qualifiers that are tacked on during a QSO. Those include /r, /m,
      /mm, /ae, /cty, and even /DX Entities. They convey no meaningful
      information to the confirmation process.

      I would agree with all except DX entities.  In the case of W4TV/VE2
      that VE2 is a legal part of the call sign - it is required under the
      US/Canada treaty that permits automatic reciprocal licensing.  Yes,
      I would need a different certificate any way because it is another
      DXCC entity but *in this case* the identifier is *not* one that has
      been "self-assigned".

      73,

         ... Joe, W4TV


      On 2/19/2013 6:56 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
      I am hoping this is an area of the LoTW code that gets reviewed closely.

      In my opinion, LoTW should ignore all the self-appointed call sign
      qualifiers that are tacked on during a QSO. Those include /r, /m, /mm,
      /ae, /cty, and even /DX Entities. They convey no meaningful information
      to the confirmation process.

      The reason is that when you strip down to the "root call sign", you can
      still go on to compare the date, time, mode, and band to allow a match
      for a confirmation. So LoTW shouldn't be using these qualifiers for QSO
      matching in the first place. That is the purpose of assigning a "Station
      Location" when creating a *.tq8 file. The DX Entity being matched will
      be coming from the certificate that was used when preparing the file for
      uploading.

      I would think this concept could be implemented "retroactively" to
      existing QSO records and there would be a flurry of new confirmations
      created in the system with no user intervention needed.

      73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      On 2/19/2013 5:37 PM, skunkweed1973 wrote:

      > The rule for logging has always been "log what they send". It's a
      > problem when the other guy sends /p, which you dutifully log, but
      > doesn't upload to LOTW that way. You can try uploading with and
      > without self-assigned indicators. It makes a zombie, but oh well.

      Yeah. I had problem with 30m FK8DD/m he sent. Didn't get confirmed. I
      removed /m and voila, there is confirmation.
      I'm wondering how many of confirmations are missing because of this.
      Mike






    • Peter Laws
      ... You *could*, but you d be in violation of 47 CFR 97.119(c) which says (in part) that No self-assigned indicator may conflict with any other indicator
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@...> wrote:


        >
        > I could get on the air and sign KØRC/HSØ and people would log me, thinking I am in Thailand on vacation. But if I


        You *could*, but you'd be in violation of 47 CFR 97.119(c) which says
        (in part) that "No self-assigned indicator may conflict with any other
        indicator specified by the FCC Rules or with any prefix assigned to
        another country."

        Agreed about self-assigned indicators for LOTW - ignore them! The
        problem is that while N5UWY/VE2 is my legal callsign while operating
        in Quebec, and M/N5UWY would be my legal callsign while in England,
        using KH6/N5UWY while operating in Hawai'i is merely a self-assigned
        indicator. How do you come up with a valid rule set about what gets
        ignored and what doesn't?

        --
        Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
      • Robert Chudek - K0RC
        I m saying everything attached to the call sign except the root call sign itself should be ignored by the LoTW contact matching process. If you operated from
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm saying "everything attached to the call sign" except the root call sign itself should be ignored by the LoTW contact matching process.

          If you operated from Hawaii, you would apply to the ARRL for a certificate for that operation. When you apply that certificate to your QSOs from Hawaii, that tells LoTW your QTH. It should not matter if on the air you sign KH6/N5UWY, N5UWY/KH6, KH7/N5UWY, or just plain old N5UWY. What you used on the air does not validate your QTH, the certificate does. This is the case for operating from different DXCC Entities.

          The self-assigned qualifiers are slightly different because YOU assign your location using tQSL with the Station Location dialog. This aspect is more on the 'honor system', specifically when operating mobile during a state QSO Party. In that case, you might visit 10 different counties and setup 10 different Station Locations. But whether you sign (on the air) N5UWY, or N5UWY/m, or N5UWY/CTY, or N5UWY/m/CTY... should not matter to LoTW. It is going to use the information you setup in tQSL as the Station Location.

          Having LoTW ignore any call sign qualifiers eliminates all the issues of 'perfect matching' of the call sign. Your root call sign doesn't change. The logical flowchart for LoTW should be "Does the root call sign match?" No, discard. Yes, continue. "Does the date/time stamp match?" No, discard. Yes, continue. "Does the band/mode match?" No, discard. Yes, confirm the contact using the certificate entity and Station Location information.

          73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


          On 2/19/2013 9:30 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
           

          On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC k0rc@...> wrote:

          >
          > I could get on the air and sign KØRC/HSØ and people would log me, thinking I am in Thailand on vacation. But if I

          You *could*, but you'd be in violation of 47 CFR 97.119(c) which says
          (in part) that "No self-assigned indicator may conflict with any other
          indicator specified by the FCC Rules or with any prefix assigned to
          another country."

          Agreed about self-assigned indicators for LOTW - ignore them! The
          problem is that while N5UWY/VE2 is my legal callsign while operating
          in Quebec, and M/N5UWY would be my legal callsign while in England,
          using KH6/N5UWY while operating in Hawai'i is merely a self-assigned
          indicator. How do you come up with a valid rule set about what gets
          ignored and what doesn't?

          --
          Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!


        • Joe Subich, W4TV
          ... Only if you are talking about areas within the US and US Territories as well as specific areas like FO, VP8, E5, 3D2, and JD1 where one prefix is used in
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            > What you used on the air does not validate your QTH, the certificate
            > does. This is the case for operating from different DXCC Entities.

            Only if you are talking about areas within the US and US Territories
            as well as specific areas like FO, VP8, E5, 3D2, and JD1 where one
            prefix is used in multiple "countries." Otherwise the Prefix/Call,
            in fact, does define the "country."

            While I agree with stripping the self-assigned stuff, I do not think
            that LotW should ignore stuff like KH2D/W4 where someone plays games
            with the way they log a call to make it "fit" some software's built-
            in categorization system. If the station sends KH2D/W4 and uploads
            to LotW that way, fine it matches. If the station is sending KH2D and
            you log/upload KH2D/W4, that's "no QSL" in my book because you did not
            copy the call correctly.

            73,

            ... Joe, W4TV


            On 2/19/2013 10:59 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
            > I'm saying "everything attached to the call sign" except the root call
            > sign itself should be ignored by the LoTW contact matching process.
            >
            > If you operated from Hawaii, you would apply to the ARRL for a
            > certificate for that operation. When you apply that certificate to your
            > QSOs from Hawaii, that tells LoTW your QTH. It should not matter if on
            > the air you sign KH6/N5UWY, N5UWY/KH6, KH7/N5UWY, or just plain old
            > N5UWY. What you used on the air does not validate your QTH, the
            > certificate does. This is the case for operating from different DXCC
            > Entities.
            >
            > The self-assigned qualifiers are slightly different because YOU assign
            > your location using tQSL with the Station Location dialog. This aspect
            > is more on the 'honor system', specifically when operating mobile during
            > a state QSO Party. In that case, you might visit 10 different counties
            > and setup 10 different Station Locations. But whether you sign (on the
            > air) N5UWY, or N5UWY/m, or N5UWY/CTY, or N5UWY/m/CTY... should not
            > matter to LoTW. It is going to use the information you setup in tQSL as
            > the Station Location.
            >
            > Having LoTW ignore any call sign qualifiers eliminates all the issues of
            > 'perfect matching' of the call sign. Your root call sign doesn't change.
            > The logical flowchart for LoTW should be "Does the root call sign
            > match?" No, discard. Yes, continue. "Does the date/time stamp match?"
            > No, discard. Yes, continue. "Does the band/mode match?" No, discard.
            > Yes, confirm the contact using the certificate entity and Station
            > Location information.
            >
            > 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > On 2/19/2013 9:30 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
            >>
            >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC k0rc@...
            >> <mailto:k0rc%40citlink.net>> wrote:
            >>
            >> >
            >> > I could get on the air and sign KØRC/HSØ and people would log me,
            >> thinking I am in Thailand on vacation. But if I
            >>
            >> You *could*, but you'd be in violation of 47 CFR 97.119(c) which says
            >> (in part) that "No self-assigned indicator may conflict with any other
            >> indicator specified by the FCC Rules or with any prefix assigned to
            >> another country."
            >>
            >> Agreed about self-assigned indicators for LOTW - ignore them! The
            >> problem is that while N5UWY/VE2 is my legal callsign while operating
            >> in Quebec, and M/N5UWY would be my legal callsign while in England,
            >> using KH6/N5UWY while operating in Hawai'i is merely a self-assigned
            >> indicator. How do you come up with a valid rule set about what gets
            >> ignored and what doesn't?
            >>
            >> --
            >> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
          • Robert Galambos
            lets be completely correct here. for those who do not know. the below statement is true EXCEPT when US amateurs are working in Canada and visa a versa
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 20, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              lets be completely correct here. for those who do not know. the below statement is true EXCEPT when US amateurs are working in Canada and visa a versa

              according to Reciprocal Operating Agreement treaty. when one operating in the other country the location need to be at the END of the call, instead of the beginning.

              in other words, as a holder of a Canadian ticket working in Michigan my call would be VA3BXG/W8  and for a US ticket operating in ONT it would be (as an example) N1PAB/VE3

               2013-02-20 1:18 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
               


              > What you used on the air does not validate your QTH, the certificate
              > does. This is the case for operating from different DXCC Entities.

              Only if you are talking about areas within the US and US Territories
              as well as specific areas like FO, VP8, E5, 3D2, and JD1 where one
              prefix is used in multiple "countries." Otherwise the Prefix/Call,
              in fact, does define the "country."

              SNIP


            • Robert Chudek - K0RC
              What I think is getting mixed up in the discussion is the distinction between what meets legal requirements on the air and whether these qualifiers are
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 20, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                What I think is getting mixed up in the discussion is the distinction between what meets legal requirements on the air and whether these qualifiers are necessary for LoTW to perform QSO matching.

                My point is that just because an on-air requirement (legal requirement) might dictate how you attach qualifiers to your root call sign, this doesn't require the LoTW QSO matching routine to follow that example. Your root call remains constant. LoTW uses other methods (certificates and station locations) to determine where the QSO took place. So I contend the on-air qualifiers are irrelevant (for QSO matching purposes).

                Maybe my statement below below would have been 'more correct' if I had said "What you used on the air does not validate your QTH as far as LoTW is concerned".

                Joe, I don't understand your comment. Can you give me an example?

                73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


                On 2/20/2013 7:22 AM, Robert Galambos wrote:
                 

                lets be completely correct here. for those who do not know. the below statement is true EXCEPT when US amateurs are working in Canada and visa a versa

                according to Reciprocal Operating Agreement treaty. when one operating in the other country the location need to be at the END of the call, instead of the beginning.

                in other words, as a holder of a Canadian ticket working in Michigan my call would be VA3BXG/W8  and for a US ticket operating in ONT it would be (as an example) N1PAB/VE3

                 2013-02-20 1:18 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
                 


                > What you used on the air does not validate your QTH, the certificate
                > does. This is the case for operating from different DXCC Entities.

                Only if you are talking about areas within the US and US Territories
                as well as specific areas like FO, VP8, E5, 3D2, and JD1 where one
                prefix is used in multiple "countries." Otherwise the Prefix/Call,
                in fact, does define the "country."

                SNIP



              • Joe Subich, W4TV
                ... I m guessing at your real question ... In most DXCC countries the callsign either a native call like DL1ABC or a CEPT call like DL/W4TV is required -
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 20, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Joe, I don't understand your comment. Can you give me an example?

                  I'm guessing at your real question ...

                  In most DXCC "countries" the callsign either a native call like
                  DL1ABC or a CEPT call like DL/W4TV is required - there is no doubt
                  based on the call used on the air that it is either in Germany or
                  a pirate.

                  However, in the US and territories W4TV could e legally be operated
                  from any one of 17 DXCC "countries." Similarly a FO callsign could
                  be operating from any one of four DXCC "countries", a VP8 could be
                  in any one of six "countries", etc.

                  Where the "identifier" is legally required it should not be ignored
                  by LotW - e.g., OA4/PA3GFE and PA3GFE should not be matched by LotW
                  even though OA4/PA3GFE often uses PA3GFE when working JT65 and signs
                  OA4/PA3GFE 73 in his final transmission.

                  If a station uses a "DXCC Prefix" on the air - e.g. KP4/W4TV - and
                  uploads his logs with the DXCC Prefix, logs uploaded without the
                  prefix (or suffix as in the case of W4TV/VE2) should not match.
                  Simply, the "other" station did not copy the call correctly. The
                  same standard should be applied to those who would log KH7XS (in
                  Florida) as W4/KH7XS - it is a "busted call" and should not count.

                  73,

                  ... Joe, W4TV


                  On 2/20/2013 9:48 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
                  > What I think is getting mixed up in the discussion is the distinction
                  > between what meets legal requirements on the air and whether these
                  > qualifiers are necessary for LoTW to perform QSO matching.
                  >
                  > My point is that just because an on-air requirement (legal requirement)
                  > might dictate how you attach qualifiers to your root call sign, this
                  > doesn't require the LoTW QSO matching routine to follow that example.
                  > Your root call remains constant. LoTW uses other methods (certificates
                  > and station locations) to determine where the QSO took place. So I
                  > contend the on-air qualifiers are irrelevant (for QSO matching purposes).
                  >
                  > Maybe my statement below below would have been 'more correct' if I had
                  > said "What you used on the air does not validate your QTH as far as LoTW
                  > is concerned".
                  >
                  > Joe, I don't understand your comment. Can you give me an example?
                  >
                  > 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > On 2/20/2013 7:22 AM, Robert Galambos wrote:
                  >>
                  >> lets be completely correct here. for those who do not know. the below
                  >> statement is true EXCEPT when US amateurs are working in Canada and
                  >> visa a versa
                  >>
                  >> according to Reciprocal Operating Agreement treaty. when one operating
                  >> in the other country the location need to be at the END of the call,
                  >> instead of the beginning.
                  >>
                  >> in other words, as a holder of a Canadian ticket working in Michigan
                  >> my call would be VA3BXG/W8 and for a US ticket operating in ONT it
                  >> would be (as an example) N1PAB/VE3
                  >>
                  >> 2013-02-20 1:18 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>> > What you used on the air does not validate your QTH, the certificate
                  >>> > does. This is the case for operating from different DXCC Entities.
                  >>>
                  >>> Only if you are talking about areas within the US and US Territories
                  >>> as well as specific areas like FO, VP8, E5, 3D2, and JD1 where one
                  >>> prefix is used in multiple "countries." Otherwise the Prefix/Call,
                  >>> in fact, does define the "country."
                  >>>
                  >>> SNIP
                  >>>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                • Gary Hinson
                  FWIW My responsibility is (a) to identify myself on air with the official callsign assigned to me by the licensing authorities, according to my legally-binding
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 20, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    FWIW

                    My responsibility is (a) to identify myself on air with the official
                    callsign assigned to me by the licensing authorities, according to my
                    legally-binding license terms and conditions such as the frequency with
                    which I ID, use of phonetics, permitted use of prefixes and suffixes etc.;
                    and (b) to log whatever callsign the other guy sends to me in QSO over the
                    air, accurately and completely, asking for repeats if I'm not sure.

                    I accept no responsibility for second-guessing the other guy's license terms
                    and conditions. If he IDs using the callsign "XY99XY/5W/QRP/M" I will log
                    it just so. I have NO IDEA what the laws in XY-land say about callsigns and
                    suffixes. I can't tell whether he is or is not legally licensed, or if that
                    is or is not a legitimate way for him to ID. I really don't care that much
                    (piracy aside) - his ID is his responsibility not mine. I DO care about
                    complying with my own licensing laws, which is why I refuse to adjust calls
                    by arbitrarily removing, adding or changing any modifiers.

                    I understand that I need not necessarily send a copy of what is recorded in
                    my official log to LoTW, but I would feel distinctly uncomfortable about
                    sending anything different, in terms of both my own call as transmitted
                    (including any prefixes and suffixes I sent as an integral part of my call
                    i.e. separated from my allocated callsign by the slash character, not by a
                    space) and the other parties' calls as received (including their prefixes
                    and suffixes as sent in the same way).

                    I further understand that if the other guy takes it on himself not to submit
                    both his and my calls as sent over the air to LoTW, we will not get a match.
                    I can live with that, though one of us might be a bit annoyed if it was a
                    new one!

                    However, if LoTW declares a match using whatever rules it applies, then it
                    is an LoTW match. It's their game, their rules. If ARRL decides to relax
                    the match-making, so be it.

                    Just sayin'

                    73
                    Gary ZL2iFB

                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-
                    > LOTW@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
                    > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013 4:31 p.m.
                    > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: /p /m stations logging
                    >
                    >
                    > > Joe, I don't understand your comment. Can you give me an example?
                    >
                    > I'm guessing at your real question ...
                    >
                    > In most DXCC "countries" the callsign either a native call like DL1ABC or
                    a CEPT
                    > call like DL/W4TV is required - there is no doubt based on the call used
                    on the
                    > air that it is either in Germany or a pirate.
                    >
                    > However, in the US and territories W4TV could e legally be operated from
                    > any one of 17 DXCC "countries." Similarly a FO callsign could be
                    operating
                    > from any one of four DXCC "countries", a VP8 could be in any one of six
                    > "countries", etc.
                    >
                    > Where the "identifier" is legally required it should not be ignored by
                    LotW -
                    > e.g., OA4/PA3GFE and PA3GFE should not be matched by LotW even though
                    > OA4/PA3GFE often uses PA3GFE when working JT65 and signs OA4/PA3GFE
                    > 73 in his final transmission.
                    >
                    > If a station uses a "DXCC Prefix" on the air - e.g. KP4/W4TV - and uploads
                    his
                    > logs with the DXCC Prefix, logs uploaded without the prefix (or suffix as
                    in
                    > the case of W4TV/VE2) should not match.
                    > Simply, the "other" station did not copy the call correctly. The same
                    standard
                    > should be applied to those who would log KH7XS (in
                    > Florida) as W4/KH7XS - it is a "busted call" and should not count.
                    >
                    > 73,
                    >
                    > ... Joe, W4TV
                    >
                    >
                    > On 2/20/2013 9:48 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
                    > > What I think is getting mixed up in the discussion is the distinction
                    > > between what meets legal requirements on the air and whether these
                    > > qualifiers are necessary for LoTW to perform QSO matching.
                    > >
                    > > My point is that just because an on-air requirement (legal
                    > > requirement) might dictate how you attach qualifiers to your root call
                    > > sign, this doesn't require the LoTW QSO matching routine to follow that
                    > example.
                    > > Your root call remains constant. LoTW uses other methods (certificates
                    > > and station locations) to determine where the QSO took place. So I
                    > > contend the on-air qualifiers are irrelevant (for QSO matching
                    purposes).
                    > >
                    > > Maybe my statement below below would have been 'more correct' if I had
                    > > said "What you used on the air does not validate your QTH as far as
                    > > LoTW is concerned".
                    > >
                    > > Joe, I don't understand your comment. Can you give me an example?
                    > >
                    > > 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
                    > >
                    > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > > -- On 2/20/2013 7:22 AM, Robert Galambos wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> lets be completely correct here. for those who do not know. the below
                    > >> statement is true EXCEPT when US amateurs are working in Canada and
                    > >> visa a versa
                    > >>
                    > >> according to Reciprocal Operating Agreement treaty. when one
                    > >> operating in the other country the location need to be at the END of
                    > >> the call, instead of the beginning.
                    > >>
                    > >> in other words, as a holder of a Canadian ticket working in Michigan
                    > >> my call would be VA3BXG/W8 and for a US ticket operating in ONT it
                    > >> would be (as an example) N1PAB/VE3
                    > >>
                    > >> 2013-02-20 1:18 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>> > What you used on the air does not validate your QTH, the
                    > >>> > certificate does. This is the case for operating from different DXCC
                    > Entities.
                    > >>>
                    > >>> Only if you are talking about areas within the US and US Territories
                    > >>> as well as specific areas like FO, VP8, E5, 3D2, and JD1 where one
                    > >>> prefix is used in multiple "countries." Otherwise the Prefix/Call,
                    > >>> in fact, does define the "country."
                    > >>>
                    > >>> SNIP
                    > >>>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    --
                    This message has been scanned for viruses and
                    dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
                    believed to be clean.
                  • Gary Hinson
                    I m currently updating my log to for DXCC credits recently received. Whereas LoTW retains suffixes such as /P on QSOs I have uploaded, the DXCC records appear
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 28, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'm currently updating my log to for DXCC credits recently received.
                      Whereas LoTW retains suffixes such as /P on QSOs I have uploaded, the DXCC
                      records appear to have dropped the suffixes.

                      For example, my log shows a QSO with "UA6AF/P", matched and confirmed on
                      LoTW as "UA6AF/P" but plain "UA6AF" was credited for DXCC/CW.

                      73
                      Gary ZL2iFB



                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Gary Hinson [mailto:Gary@...]
                      > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013 5:29 p.m.
                      > To: 'ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com'
                      > Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: /p /m stations logging
                      >
                      > FWIW
                      >
                      > My responsibility is (a) to identify myself on air with the official
                      callsign
                      > assigned to me by the licensing authorities, according to my
                      legally-binding
                      > license terms and conditions such as the frequency with which I ID, use of
                      > phonetics, permitted use of prefixes and suffixes etc.; and (b) to log
                      > whatever callsign the other guy sends to me in QSO over the air,
                      accurately
                      > and completely, asking for repeats if I'm not sure.
                      >
                      > I accept no responsibility for second-guessing the other guy's license
                      terms
                      > and conditions. If he IDs using the callsign "XY99XY/5W/QRP/M" I will
                      log it
                      > just so. I have NO IDEA what the laws in XY-land say about callsigns and
                      > suffixes. I can't tell whether he is or is not legally licensed, or if
                      that is or is
                      > not a legitimate way for him to ID. I really don't care that much (piracy
                      aside)
                      > - his ID is his responsibility not mine. I DO care about complying with
                      my
                      > own licensing laws, which is why I refuse to adjust calls by arbitrarily
                      > removing, adding or changing any modifiers.
                      >
                      > I understand that I need not necessarily send a copy of what is recorded
                      in
                      > my official log to LoTW, but I would feel distinctly uncomfortable about
                      > sending anything different, in terms of both my own call as transmitted
                      > (including any prefixes and suffixes I sent as an integral part of my call
                      i.e.
                      > separated from my allocated callsign by the slash character, not by a
                      space)
                      > and the other parties' calls as received (including their prefixes and
                      suffixes
                      > as sent in the same way).
                      >
                      > I further understand that if the other guy takes it on himself not to
                      submit
                      > both his and my calls as sent over the air to LoTW, we will not get a
                      match. I
                      > can live with that, though one of us might be a bit annoyed if it was a
                      new
                      > one!
                      >
                      > However, if LoTW declares a match using whatever rules it applies, then it
                      is
                      > an LoTW match. It's their game, their rules. If ARRL decides to relax
                      the
                      > match-making, so be it.
                      >
                      > Just sayin'
                      >
                      > 73
                      > Gary ZL2iFB
                      >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-
                      > LOTW@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > > Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
                      > > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013 4:31 p.m.
                      > > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: /p /m stations logging
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > Joe, I don't understand your comment. Can you give me an example?
                      > >
                      > > I'm guessing at your real question ...
                      > >
                      > > In most DXCC "countries" the callsign either a native call like DL1ABC
                      > > or a CEPT call like DL/W4TV is required - there is no doubt based on
                      > > the call used on the air that it is either in Germany or a pirate.
                      > >
                      > > However, in the US and territories W4TV could e legally be operated
                      > > from any one of 17 DXCC "countries." Similarly a FO callsign could be
                      > > operating from any one of four DXCC "countries", a VP8 could be in any
                      > > one of six "countries", etc.
                      > >
                      > > Where the "identifier" is legally required it should not be ignored by
                      > > LotW - e.g., OA4/PA3GFE and PA3GFE should not be matched by LotW
                      > even
                      > > though OA4/PA3GFE often uses PA3GFE when working JT65 and signs
                      > > OA4/PA3GFE
                      > > 73 in his final transmission.
                      > >
                      > > If a station uses a "DXCC Prefix" on the air - e.g. KP4/W4TV - and
                      > > uploads his logs with the DXCC Prefix, logs uploaded without the
                      > > prefix (or suffix as in the case of W4TV/VE2) should not match.
                      > > Simply, the "other" station did not copy the call correctly. The same
                      > > standard should be applied to those who would log KH7XS (in
                      > > Florida) as W4/KH7XS - it is a "busted call" and should not count.
                      > >
                      > > 73,
                      > >
                      > > ... Joe, W4TV
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > On 2/20/2013 9:48 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
                      > > > What I think is getting mixed up in the discussion is the
                      > > > distinction between what meets legal requirements on the air and
                      > > > whether these qualifiers are necessary for LoTW to perform QSO
                      > matching.
                      > > >
                      > > > My point is that just because an on-air requirement (legal
                      > > > requirement) might dictate how you attach qualifiers to your root
                      > > > call sign, this doesn't require the LoTW QSO matching routine to
                      > > > follow that
                      > > example.
                      > > > Your root call remains constant. LoTW uses other methods
                      > > > (certificates and station locations) to determine where the QSO took
                      > > > place. So I contend the on-air qualifiers are irrelevant (for QSO
                      matching
                      > purposes).
                      > > >
                      > > > Maybe my statement below below would have been 'more correct' if I
                      > > > had said "What you used on the air does not validate your QTH as far
                      > > > as LoTW is concerned".
                      > > >
                      > > > Joe, I don't understand your comment. Can you give me an example?
                      > > >
                      > > > 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
                      > > >
                      > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > > > --
                      > > > -- On 2/20/2013 7:22 AM, Robert Galambos wrote:
                      > > >>
                      > > >> lets be completely correct here. for those who do not know. the
                      > > >> below statement is true EXCEPT when US amateurs are working in
                      > > >> Canada and visa a versa
                      > > >>
                      > > >> according to Reciprocal Operating Agreement treaty. when one
                      > > >> operating in the other country the location need to be at the END
                      > > >> of the call, instead of the beginning.
                      > > >>
                      > > >> in other words, as a holder of a Canadian ticket working in
                      > > >> Michigan my call would be VA3BXG/W8 and for a US ticket operating
                      > > >> in ONT it would be (as an example) N1PAB/VE3
                      > > >>
                      > > >> 2013-02-20 1:18 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
                      > > >>>
                      > > >>>
                      > > >>> > What you used on the air does not validate your QTH, the
                      > > >>> > certificate does. This is the case for operating from different
                      > > >>> > DXCC
                      > > Entities.
                      > > >>>
                      > > >>> Only if you are talking about areas within the US and US
                      > > >>> Territories as well as specific areas like FO, VP8, E5, 3D2, and
                      > > >>> JD1 where one prefix is used in multiple "countries." Otherwise
                      > > >>> the Prefix/Call, in fact, does define the "country."
                      > > >>>
                      > > >>> SNIP
                      > > >>>
                      > > >>
                      > > >>
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------------------------------
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >


                      --
                      This message has been scanned for viruses and
                      dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
                      believed to be clean.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.