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

RE: [wsjtgroup] LOTW

Expand Messages
  • Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH) Watson
    Hi Dave: Thanks for the input. I will go take a look at that URL 73 Mike, W5UC ... age and treachery will overcome youth and skill All outgoing mail checked
    Message 1 of 23 , Jun 23, 2004
      Hi Dave:

      Thanks for the input.  I will go take a look at that URL

      73
      Mike, W5UC


      At 10:13 AM 6/23/2004 -0400, you wrote:
      The answer I got from Wayne, two weeks after they announced the launch of LOTW was "LOTW uses the modes defined by the ADIF committee, if you want more modes you need to petition them to add them" http://www.hosenose.com/adif/
       
      Dave
       
      WW2R
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH) Watson [mailto:w5uc@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:59 AM
      To: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [wsjtgroup] LOTW

      Ok gang, here is the answer straight from HQ:

      Mike,
      Right now, it appears that FSK-441 and JT-65 are not specifically supported. You can use the mapping utility in TQSL to present the QSOs as some other mode, but there is no accepted standard. We should be doing a new tqsl software release in a month or so, and I hope we will address these and newer modes at that time.
      Wayne, N7NG/1



      73
      Mike, W5UC
      "age and treachery will overcome youth and skill"
      All outgoing mail checked for virus content

      To unsubscribe, send an email to:
      wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Activity Periods http://www.qsl.net/wa5ufh/WSJTGROUP/WSJTGROUP.htm
      NAHSMS Contest Page http://www.qsl.net/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm













      To unsubscribe, send an email to:
      wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Activity Periods http://www.qsl.net/wa5ufh/WSJTGROUP/WSJTGROUP.htm
      NAHSMS Contest Page http://www.qsl.net/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm









      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT



      Yahoo! Groups Links

      "age and treachery will overcome youth and skill"
      All outgoing mail checked for virus content
    • Black Michael
      I m just curious if there s anybody on there that does not use LOTW because they think it costs money. There are a lot that use eQSL for example, but not LOTW.
      Message 2 of 23 , Jul 20 8:52 AM
        I'm just curious if there's anybody on there that does not use LOTW because they think it costs money.

        There are a lot that use eQSL for example, but not LOTW.  And I think there may be many who don't know that LOTW is free to upload/download QSOs/QSLs.

        So...if you do eQSL but LOTW I'm curious as to why or if you just thought LOTW costs money.

        de Mike W9MDB
      • Joe Dzekevich
        I am not a contester, and so I do not use any logging programs. Actually, I have all my ARRL paper logs back to 1962 when I was first licensed. So then, QSL
        Message 3 of 23 , Jul 20 9:06 AM

          I am not a contester, and so I do not use any logging programs.  Actually, I have all my ARRL paper logs back to 1962 when I was first licensed.  So then, QSL services for me must be decoupled from the logging software, so I’ll reply to all eQSLs and QRZ QSLs and of coarse paper QSLs.

           

          It has nothing to do with cost for my case.  Since I am not a contester nor chase certificates, I don’t need any logging software.  I think the various logging software programs are just fine, just not my preference.

           

          Joe, K1YOW

           


          From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Black Michael mdblack98@... [wsjtgroup]
          Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 11:52 AM
          To: WSJT Group
          Subject: [wsjtgroup] LOTW

           

           

          I'm just curious if there's anybody on there that does not use LOTW because they think it costs money.

           

          There are a lot that use eQSL for example, but not LOTW.  And I think there may be many who don't know that LOTW is free to upload/download QSOs/QSLs.

           

          So...if you do eQSL but LOTW I'm curious as to why or if you just thought LOTW costs money.

           

          de Mike W9MDB

        • Jim Brown
          Hi Joe, Like you, I still have my paper logs from the 50s through the 70s, but when I got back on the air in 2003 after a long period of inactivity (work,
          Message 4 of 23 , Jul 20 10:00 AM
            Hi Joe,

            Like you, I still have my paper logs from the '50s through the '70s, but
            when I got back on the air in 2003 after a long period of inactivity
            (work, family, etc.), I discovered a fine, free logging program called
            DXKeeper, and I've been happily using it ever since. It runs on a laptop
            computer next to my radio.

            When we were young, a popular motto was that "the final courtesy of a
            QSO is a QSL," it cost a penny or two to mail one, and no one would have
            conceived of sending an SASE to get a return card. 60 years later, few
            hams will send a paper QSL if the requester doesn't pay for postage, so
            sending and receiving a QSL within our own country costs a buck (postage
            both ways plus the cost of printing the card) and an average of $3.50
            for a card from another country.

            While WE may not care about a QSL, our QSO partner may care a lot.
            Several popular operating awards accept LOTW, eQSL, and ClubLog as
            confirmations, saving the cost of paper QSLs. Many hams around the world
            chase WAS (Worked All US States) and DXCC, most hams active on VHF
            collect grids for VUCC (VHF/UHF Century Club). LOTW confirmations can be
            used for all three of these awards. The popular IOTA (Islands On The
            Air) award accepts ClubLog confirmations. Free logging programs like
            DXKeeper make it easy to keep a log, and to send that log periodically
            to eQSL, ClubLog, and LOTW. While I don't use WSJT-X for logging, I
            think it produces a log that can be sent to these on-line logbooks, or
            that be put into a logging program like DXKeeper.

            So, in the 21st century, with postage costs going through the roof, the
            final courtesy of a QSO is LOTW and eQSL. And if we're on an island,
            ClubLog.

            73, Jim K9YC

            On 7/20/2017 9:06 AM, 'Joe Dzekevich' joedzekevich@...
            [wsjtgroup] wrote:
            >
            > I am not a contester, and so I do not use any logging programs.
            > Actually, I have all my ARRL paper logs back to 1962 when I was first
            > licensed. So then, QSL services for me must be decoupled from the
            > logging software, so I’ll reply to all eQSLs and QRZ QSLs and of
            > coarse paper QSLs.
            >
            > It has nothing to do with cost for my case. Since I am not a
            > contester nor chase certificates, I don’t need any logging software.
            > I think the various logging software programs are just fine, just not
            > my preference.
            >
          • Black Michael
            I do believe you can download an ADIF from QRZ and/or eQSL and upload to LOTW.  No local logger needed.That would be a wonderful courtesy to all the LOTW
            Message 5 of 23 , Jul 20 10:13 AM
              I do believe you can download an ADIF from QRZ and/or eQSL and upload to LOTW.  No local logger needed.
              That would be a wonderful courtesy to all the LOTW users.

              de Mike W9MDB


              From: "'Joe Dzekevich' joedzekevich@... [wsjtgroup]" <wsjtgroup-noreply@yahoogroups.com>
              To: 'Black Michael' <mdblack98@...>; 'WSJT Group' <wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 11:06 AM
              Subject: RE: [wsjtgroup] LOTW

               
              I am not a contester, and so I do not use any logging programs.  Actually, I have all my ARRL paper logs back to 1962 when I was first licensed.  So then, QSL services for me must be decoupled from the logging software, so I’ll reply to all eQSLs and QRZ QSLs and of coarse paper QSLs.
               
              It has nothing to do with cost for my case.  Since I am not a contester nor chase certificates, I don’t need any logging software.  I think the various logging software programs are just fine, just not my preference.
               
              Joe, K1YOW
               

              From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Black Michael mdblack98@... [wsjtgroup]
              Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 11:52 AM
              To: WSJT Group
              Subject: [wsjtgroup] LOTW
               
               
              I'm just curious if there's anybody on there that does not use LOTW because they think it costs money.
               
              There are a lot that use eQSL for example, but not LOTW.  And I think there may be many who don't know that LOTW is free to upload/download QSOs/QSLs.
               
              So...if you do eQSL but LOTW I'm curious as to why or if you just thought LOTW costs money.
               
              de Mike W9MDB


            • Jack
              If you respond to all eQSL requests then you should be able to download an ADIF log from them and then upload it to LoTW. No need to create additional logs or
              Message 6 of 23 , Jul 20 10:43 AM

                If you respond to all eQSL requests then you should be able to download an ADIF log from them and then upload it to LoTW. No need to create additional logs or files since this does it for you.

                I just downloaded my eQSL ADIF log (nearly 6000 confirmations) to verify it works as I thought and it does.

                73,

                Jack, W6NF/VE4SNA


                On 7/20/2017 11:06 AM, 'Joe Dzekevich' joedzekevich@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:
                 

                I am not a contester, and so I do not use any logging programs.  Actually, I have all my ARRL paper logs back to 1962 when I was first licensed.  So then, QSL services for me must be decoupled from the logging software, so I’ll reply to all eQSLs and QRZ QSLs and of coarse paper QSLs.

                 

                It has nothing to do with cost for my case.  Since I am not a contester nor chase certificates, I don’t need any logging software.  I think the various logging software programs are just fine, just not my preference.

                 

                Joe, K1YOW

                 


                From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Black Michael mdblack98@... [wsjtgroup]
                Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 11:52 AM
                To: WSJT Group
                Subject: [wsjtgroup] LOTW

                 

                 

                I'm just curious if there's anybody on there that does not use LOTW because they think it costs money.

                 

                There are a lot that use eQSL for example, but not LOTW.  And I think there may be many who don't know that LOTW is free to upload/download QSOs/QSLs.

                 

                So...if you do eQSL but LOTW I'm curious as to why or if you just thought LOTW costs money.

                 

                de Mike W9MDB


              • Joe Dzekevich
                Thanks Jack for the heads-up on the eQSL ADIF export capability. I will look into that. Now I do chuckle a bit when I see the problems some folks have when
                Message 7 of 23 , Jul 20 12:36 PM

                  Thanks Jack for the heads-up on the eQSL ADIF export capability.  I will look into that.  Now I do chuckle a bit when I see the problems some folks have when they crash and/or whatever goes wrong and they have to recover their computer log files.  I would probably only lose my logs if they go moldy, like me.  LOL.  If they can be exported in a date range, then that would work.  One export to export all, and then follow-up exports of just the newer entries now and then.  Joe, K1YOW

                   


                  From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack vhfplus@... [wsjtgroup]
                  Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:43 PM
                  To: Joe Dzekevich ; ' Black Michael '; 'WSJT Group'
                  Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] LOTW

                   

                   

                  If you respond to all eQSL requests then you should be able to download an ADIF log from them and then upload it to LoTW. No need to create additional logs or files since this does it for you.

                  I just downloaded my eQSL ADIF log (nearly 6000 confirmations) to verify it works as I thought and it does.

                  73,

                  Jack, W6NF/VE4SNA

                   

                  On 7/20/2017 11:06 AM, ' Joe Dzekevich ' joedzekevich@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:

                   

                  I am not a contester, and so I do not use any logging programs.  Actually, I have all my ARRL paper logs back to 1962 when I was first licensed.  So then, QSL services for me must be decoupled from the logging software, so I’ll reply to all eQSLs and QRZ QSLs and of coarse paper QSLs.

                   

                  It has nothing to do with cost for my case.  Since I am not a contester nor chase certificates, I don’t need any logging software.  I think the various logging software programs are just fine, just not my preference.

                   

                  Joe, K1YOW

                   


                  From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Black Michael mdblack98@... [wsjtgroup]
                  Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 11:52 AM
                  To: WSJT Group
                  Subject: [wsjtgroup] LOTW

                   

                   

                  I'm just curious if there's anybody on there that does not use LOTW because they think it costs money.

                   

                  There are a lot that use eQSL for example, but not LOTW.  And I think there may be many who don't know that LOTW is free to upload/download QSOs/QSLs.

                   

                  So...if you do eQSL but LOTW I'm curious as to why or if you just thought LOTW costs money.

                   

                  de Mike W9MDB

                   

                • Sakari Nylund
                  If yo are non US ham you need to snail mail a copy of your passport, driving licence or other official document to prove that you are you. That can be one
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jul 21 10:07 AM
                    If yo are non US ham you need to snail mail a copy of your passport,
                    driving licence or other official document to prove
                    that you are you.
                    That can be one reason not to use LOTW.
                    At least I know some ones who do not like to send those copies for
                    getting certificate.

                    That kind of operation is not needed with eQSL.

                    --
                    Saku
                    OH1KH
                  • Ted
                    Perhaps, Mike, another related question: given that LOTW and eQSL are both free, which venue do you believe has more credibility, better checks to combat
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jul 21 5:17 PM

                      Perhaps, Mike, another related question: given that LOTW and eQSL are both free, which venue do you believe has more credibility, better checks to combat fraud, etc.?

                       

                      I might argue that some of the LOTW fees are over the top, but at the end of the day, I believe LOTW has more credibility in the ham community. (I have an eQSL account but, frankly, have not even looked at it in years)

                       

                      73, Ted

                      K7TRK

                       

                      From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Black Michael mdblack98@... [wsjtgroup]
                      Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:52 AM
                      To: WSJT Group
                      Subject: [wsjtgroup] LOTW

                       

                       

                      I'm just curious if there's anybody on there that does not use LOTW because they think it costs money.

                       

                      There are a lot that use eQSL for example, but not LOTW.  And I think there may be many who don't know that LOTW is free to upload/download QSOs/QSLs.

                       

                      So...if you do eQSL but LOTW I'm curious as to why or if you just thought LOTW costs money.

                       

                      de Mike W9MDB

                    • Jim Brown
                      ... Over the top?? The only LOTW fees are for redeeming QSLs for an award. It is $0.12 per QSO. It costs $0.34 to mail a postcard to a US address, $0.49 to
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jul 21 6:43 PM
                        On 7/21/2017 5:17 PM, 'Ted' k7trkradio@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:
                        > I might argue that some of the LOTW fees are over the top, but at the
                        > end of the day, I believe LOTW has more credibility in the ham community.

                        Over the top??

                        The only LOTW "fees" are for redeeming QSLs for an award. It is $0.12
                        per QSO.

                        It costs $0.34 to mail a postcard to a US address, $0.49 to mail it in
                        an envelope, $1.15 to mail to another country. Return postage from other
                        countries to the US ranges from $1 - $4.

                        SO -- using LOTW to claim an ARRL award is about 1/10 the cost of
                        sending your card and an SASE to someone in the US, and about 1/30 of
                        the average cost of mailing a card to another country with enough "green
                        stamps" for return postage. And, of course, envelopes and card printing
                        isn't free.

                        Looking at it another way, the cost of LOTW for 100 QSOs for DXCC is
                        $12, for WAS is $6. Postage both ways for those same 100 DX cards would
                        be about $350, and $50 for WAS. LOTW is a HUGE bargain.

                        73, Jim K9YC
                      • Jim Preston
                        Ted, While I understand your comment about credibility, I have reasons for using both services. I send my QSO s to both to support those who might use one, but
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jul 21 7:12 PM
                          Ted,

                          While I understand your comment about credibility, I have reasons for
                          using both services.

                          I send my QSO's to both to support those who might use one, but not the
                          other, for whatever awards they are interested in.

                          While the awards I am most interested in are covered by LOTW, there are
                          some that eQSL covers that LOTW doesn't.

                          I understand that non-USA stations have a more difficult time of
                          registering for LOTW, and wish that it could be made easier.

                          This is getting pretty far off topic of WSJT, but let me encourage as
                          many JT users as possible to sign up for both services, to help those
                          who use them. Once registered, it is very easy (and free) to upload to both.

                          73,

                          Jim N6VH




                          On 7/21/2017 5:17 PM, 'Ted' k7trkradio@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:
                          > Perhaps, Mike, another related question: given that LOTW and eQSL are
                          > both free, which venue do you believe has more credibility, better
                          > checks to combat fraud, etc.?
                          >
                          > I might argue that some of the LOTW fees are over the top, but at the
                          > end of the day, I believe LOTW has more credibility in the ham
                          > community. (I have an eQSL account but, frankly, have not even looked at
                          > it in years)
                          >
                          > 73, Ted
                          >
                          > K7TRK
                          >
                        • WA2PNI
                          I personally could not agree more with Jim. In 30 years of sending cards to confirm contacts, I can t imagine what I have spent in achieving 5 band DXCC and
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jul 21 8:00 PM

                            I personally could not agree more with Jim. In 30 years of sending cards to confirm contacts,

                            I can’t imagine what I have spent in achieving 5 band DXCC and WAS and other awards.

                            Plus never receiving returns on some cards. I’m sure I mailed a new radio away. I’m not positive, plus I don’t think the ARRL accepts e-QSL as proof of a litigate contact.   

                             

                            Tom – WA2PNI

                          • Jeff Brennan
                            Jim and Ted - I for one do not think eQSL and LOTW are way off the topic of WSJT...it s how many of us who are JT users QSL. For me, it s just the backend of
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jul 21 8:52 PM
                              Jim and Ted - I for one do not think eQSL and LOTW are way off the topic of WSJT...it's how many of us who are "JT users" QSL. For me, it's just the backend of the QSO process.  I may not be young but I am new school when it comes to QSL - it's by computer or it is not going to happen for me. And, we have to use both for coverage as Ted encourages in his email below, if we want to include most non-USA stations.  I have one more ask - put pressure on the ARRL at every opportunity to address the non-USA stations for easier inclusion in LOTW.  Cheers and 73 - Jeff, AC7IJ

                              On Jul 21, 2017, at 19:12, Jim Preston jpreston1@... [wsjtgroup] <wsjtgroup-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                               

                              Ted,

                              While I understand your comment about credibility, I have reasons for
                              using both services.

                              I send my QSO's to both to support those who might use one, but not the
                              other, for whatever awards they are interested in.

                              While the awards I am most interested in are covered by LOTW, there are
                              some that eQSL covers that LOTW doesn't.

                              I understand that non-USA stations have a more difficult time of
                              registering for LOTW, and wish that it could be made easier.

                              This is getting pretty far off topic of WSJT, but let me encourage as
                              many JT users as possible to sign up for both services, to help those
                              who use them. Once registered, it is very easy (and free) to upload to both.

                              73,

                              Jim N6VH

                              On 7/21/2017 5:17 PM, 'Ted' k7trkradio@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:
                              > Perhaps, Mike, another related question: given that LOTW and eQSL are
                              > both free, which venue do you believe has more credibility, better
                              > checks to combat fraud, etc.?
                              >
                              > I might argue that some of the LOTW fees are over the top, but at the
                              > end of the day, I believe LOTW has more credibility in the ham
                              > community. (I have an eQSL account but, frankly, have not even looked at
                              > it in years)
                              >
                              > 73, Ted
                              >
                              > K7TRK
                              >

                            • Richard Lamont
                              ... That s certainly been the case at the RSGB Conventions I ve been to, where a lot of serious DXers congregate each year. There are often conversations about
                              Message 14 of 23 , Today at 1:46 AM
                                On 22/07/17 01:17, 'Ted' k7trkradio@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:

                                > I might argue that some of the LOTW fees are over the top, but at the end of the day, I believe LOTW has more credibility in the ham community.

                                That's certainly been the case at the RSGB Conventions I've been to,
                                where a lot of serious DXers congregate each year. There are often
                                conversations about LoTW and Clublog OQRS, but eQSL is rarely even
                                mentioned.

                                73,
                                Richard G4DYA
                              • Dana
                                I had no problems getting on LOTW, other than verifying with ARRL that I was legally licensed. The whole concept of LOTW is legitimacy, and verifiability…not
                                Message 15 of 23 , Today at 7:31 AM
                                  I had no problems getting on LOTW, other than verifying with ARRL that I was legally licensed.

                                  The whole concept of LOTW is legitimacy, and verifiability…not a bad idea in todays environment.

                                  Having done the paper awards route, the LOTW route is so much more cost effective.

                                  Kudos to ARRL on this.
                                  73

                                  Dana VE3DS
                                • Ji m
                                  Instead of waiting months or years for overseas QSL cards you just have to wait for one last postcard from the ARRL. It took me years to work DXCC back in the
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Today at 8:22 AM
                                    Instead of waiting months or years for overseas QSL cards you just have to wait for one last postcard from the ARRL. It took me years to work DXCC back in the 1980's and 90's. I signed up for LOTW and started all over. I had DXCC in a year without sending or receiving a card. Between online spotting, digital modes, and LOTW it's like shooting fish in a barrel. 

                                    73,
                                    Jim W3ATV
                                  • Björn Ekelund
                                    LoTW may be the best best ham radio related innovation since the transistor ... I am looking forward to the ODBC upgrade which will speed up processing a lot
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Today at 9:24 AM
                                      LoTW may be the best best ham radio related innovation since the transistor :-)

                                      I am looking forward to the ODBC upgrade which will speed up processing a lot and also the ability to correct or even erase erroneous entries. 

                                      I got my account in less than two weeks by applying on line and mailing photo copies of my passport and license to the ARRL office.
                                      From Sweden.

                                      73,

                                      Björn SM7IUN

                                      2017-07-22 16:31 GMT+02:00 Dana ve3ds@... [wsjtgroup] <wsjtgroup-noreply@yahoogroups.com>:
                                       

                                      I had no problems getting on LOTW, other than verifying with ARRL that I was legally licensed.

                                      The whole concept of LOTW is legitimacy, and verifiability…not a bad idea in todays environment.

                                      Having done the paper awards route, the LOTW route is so much more cost effective.

                                      Kudos to ARRL on this.
                                      73

                                      Dana VE3DS


                                    • Robert Lorenzini
                                      Not having LOTW will reduce your number of replies. I was able to do all logging and uploads before a JT65/9 contact was completed, no so with JT8 but almost.
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Today at 9:37 AM
                                        Not having LOTW will reduce your number of replies.
                                        I was able to do all logging and uploads before a
                                        JT65/9 contact was completed, no so with JT8 but
                                        almost.
                                        Bob - wd6dod

                                        On 7/22/2017 9:24 AM, Björn Ekelund bjorn@... [wsjtgroup] wrote:
                                         
                                        LoTW may be the best best ham radio related innovation since the transistor :-)

                                        I am looking forward to the ODBC upgrade which will speed up processing a lot and also the ability to correct or even erase erroneous entries. 

                                        I got my account in less than two weeks by applying on line and mailing photo copies of my passport and license to the ARRL office.
                                        From Sweden.

                                        73,

                                        Björn SM7IUN

                                        2017-07-22 16:31 GMT+02:00 Dana ve3ds@... [wsjtgroup] <wsjtgroup-noreply@yahoogroups.com>:
                                         

                                        I had no problems getting on LOTW, other than verifying with ARRL that I was legally licensed.

                                        The whole concept of LOTW is legitimacy, and verifiability…not a bad idea in todays environment.

                                        Having done the paper awards route, the LOTW route is so much more cost effective.

                                        Kudos to ARRL on this.
                                        73

                                        Dana VE3DS



                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.