Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW. If the other station failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there should be no match at all. There is no basis for me to be credited with a 144mhz or 432 mhz grid.
I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as LOTW demands perfection. The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52 instead of VO-52, AO51 instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected.
73, Bill NZ5N
Most likely, the other station didn't include one or both of the fields used to mark a QSO as a satellite QSO (Propagation Mode, Satellite Name). I've seen this on a handful of QSOs I've uploaded in the past few weeks.
Anyone know how this is handled?
Assuming your log has all the necessary fields for a satellite QSO (all of the QSLs I've gotten from you are showing as satellite QSOs, so I don't think your logs are missing anything), there is only one way to fix this - the other station has to upload the QSO record(s) again, this time making sure those additional ADIF fields are in their log. As long as the other QSO details like date, time, your call, etc. are the same, the new upload replaces what was originally uploaded.
If the other station's log has the satellite-related fields, then an e-mail to lotw-help @ arrl.org is necessary. There could be errors in how ARRL's database queries run to match up QSO records and make QSLs. ARRL will not fix problems with other stations' log uploads, and everything has to be in there correctly in order to use the resulting QSLs toward awards.
Bill,
Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW. If the other station failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there should be no match at all. There is no basis for me to be credited with a 144mhz or 432 mhz grid.
I think the queries they use for VUCC "accounts" and the ruleset(s) you can define are buggy. I've run into strange things, reported them to the LOTW help e-mail address, then I'm told by the LOTW help that the problem is fixed without further comment. Don't be surprised if we run into other issues that the LOTW help desk needs to look at, as more of us start using LOTW for grid-based awards.
I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as LOTW demands perfection. The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52 instead of VO-52, AO51 instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected.
You are correct on needing things perfectly entered in the logs for LOTW. The satellite names are listed in the LOTW FAQ page, so it is easy to make sure you're using what LOTW expects there. N5JB's "how-to" PDF for satellite operators using LOTW was a perfect instruction sheet for me to get started with the uploading a few weeks back.
After taking the time to upload my log from the Excel spreadsheet I use into the series of ADI files for each location I've worked from, it is a lot easier just to upload new activity. I put my QSOs from the demos at the Yuma AZ hamfest over the weekend into LOTW on Saturday night, and already have 4 QSLs from those QSOs. I have seen some stations join in recently with LOTW, so the QSL count is always on the move.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK http://www.wd9ewk.net/
Patrick, I mentioned to Bill earlier, off group, that three of my confirmed QSL's are blank in the "VUCC" column. What could have caused that? Leaving out Propagation=SAT, maybe? Also on the 10th of this month I started using an ELK-L5 and it has made a noticable difference! Hearing at much lower elevations and making QSO's at and below 10*. Thanks for all your help and advice.
73, Marvin K5MLT
________________________________ From: Bill Dzurilla billdz.geo@yahoo.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 11:19:29 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW. If the other station failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there should be no match at all. There is no basis for me to be credited with a 144mhz or 432 mhz grid.
I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as LOTW demands perfection. The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52 instead of VO-52, AO51 instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected.
73, Bill NZ5N
Most likely, the other station didn't include one or both of the fields used to mark a QSO as a satellite QSO (Propagation Mode, Satellite Name). I've seen this on a handful of QSOs I've uploaded in the past few weeks.
Anyone know how this is handled?
Assuming your log has all the necessary fields for a satellite QSO (all of the QSLs I've gotten from you are showing as satellite QSOs, so I don't think your logs are missing anything), there is only one way to fix this - the other station has to upload the QSO record(s) again, this time making sure those additional ADIF fields are in their log. As long as the other QSO details like date, time, your call, etc. are the same, the new upload replaces what was originally uploaded.
If the other station's log has the satellite-related fields, then an e-mail to lotw-help @ arrl.org is necessary. There could be errors in how ARRL's database queries run to match up QSO records and make QSLs. ARRL will not fix problems with other stations' log uploads, and everything has to be in there correctly in order to use the resulting QSLs toward awards.
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
M,
You probably had already worked and been credited for the grids of the contacts that were blank in the VUCC column.
What were you using before the Elk?
B
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Marvin Tamez k5mlt@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Marvin Tamez k5mlt@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts? To: "Bill Dzurilla" billdz.geo@yahoo.com, amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 2:30 PM
Patrick, I mentioned to Bill earlier, off group, that three of my confirmed QSL's are blank in the "VUCC" column. What could have caused that? Leaving out Propagation=SAT, maybe? Also on the 10th of this month I started using an ELK-L5 and it has made a noticable difference! Hearing at much lower elevations and making QSO's at and below 10*. Thanks for all your help and advice. 73, Marvin K5MLT
From: Bill Dzurilla billdz.geo@yahoo.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 11:19:29 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW. If the other station failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there should be no match at all. There is no basis for me to be credited with a 144mhz or 432 mhz grid.
I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as LOTW demands perfection. The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52 instead of VO-52, AO51 instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected.
73, Bill NZ5N
Most likely, the other station didn't include one or both of the
fields
used to mark a QSO as a satellite QSO (Propagation Mode, Satellite Name). I've seen this on a handful of QSOs I've uploaded in the past few weeks.
Anyone know how this is handled?
Assuming your log has all the necessary fields for a satellite QSO (all of the QSLs I've gotten from you are showing as satellite QSOs, so I don't think your logs are missing anything), there is only one way to fix this - the other station has to upload the QSO record(s) again, this time making sure those additional ADIF fields are in their log. As long as the other QSO details like date, time, your call, etc. are the same, the new upload replaces what was originally uploaded.
If the other station's log has the satellite-related fields, then an e-mail to
lotw-help @ arrl.org is necessary. There could be
errors in how ARRL's database queries run to match up QSO records and make QSLs. ARRL will not fix problems with other stations' log uploads, and everything has to be in there correctly in order to use the resulting QSLs toward awards.
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (3)
-
Bill Dzurilla -
Marvin Tamez -
Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)