I expect the definition was made with Scarborough Rocks in mind. It has what looks like four surface poiints within a short distance, I wouldn't erect a flag on them let along the scaffolding to hold

I couldn't open the file attached, but there are plenty of still and video shots of the Shoal, Rocks, and dxpedition stations on the rocks to get a sense of the topology. Two that I found

4. An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020) The Weekly DX (2001-2020)

+ AA6YQ comments below Per DXCC rules: 5. Deletion Criteria a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. + Were these criteria in

Per DXCC rules: 5. Deletion Criteria a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of: The Daily DX

+ AA6YQ comments below + Actual evidence - pictures of the "operating rocks" at high tide in 1994 and data on changes in sea level since then - would indicate that the "operating rocks" are still

I have to admit that my understanding that BS7 is under water are references to that effect by other hams. But I agree it should be confirmed. But even if it was not currently under water, is it

If memory serves me correctly, China had no official Amateur Radio until the ARRL and others demonstrated Amateur Radio to it's people and the country started licensing them. I am of the opinion that

I have 345 countries confirmed, and need three. One is covered with water, and is considered to be lost to sea rise due to global warming. But even if it did arise above sea level, hostilities

Regarding all the conjecture concerning Scarborough: I propose we request that ARRL finance an immediate expedition for “Truthful Verification” of the existence and conditionality of the Reef

+ more AA6YQ comments below + Referring to the definition of "island" in <http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules> + either this requirement "For the purposes of this award, it must consist of connected land,

Just for fun, I looked it up on Google Earth. Not sure if the attachment will go through, but I am attaching the .kmz file. If you move your cursor around on the island, most of it is below sea level

+ AA6YQ comments below I am not sure that it can proven that it is above or below water. + The traditional approach would be to visit the rocks in a boat at high tide on a calm day, and measure

* more AA6YQ comments below I didn’t state that it was underwater. I only stated that *if* it was underwater it should be removed. This is a conditional statement, not a declaration. * If a DXCC

Me too Dave. The question however is "Why is BS7 still on the active entity list when it does not meet a physical requirement to be on that list? Even if someone goes legally and sets up, it is

See ** below On 10/29/2020 4:23 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote: **Dave/Ria, it doesn't matter if it is underwater now or not. When it was last activated, with all the scaffolding,

I am not sure that it can proven that it is above or below water. That is a straw-man's argument. It sounds like the rule change was because of BS7, which makes it a bit shady doesn't

I didn’t state that it was underwater. I only stated that *if* it was underwater it should be removed. This is a conditional statement, not a declaration. 73 Ria N2RJ

Me too Dave. The question however is "Why is BS7 still on the active entity list when it does not meet a physical requirement to be on that list? Even if someone goes legally and sets

+ AA6YQ comments below Difficult is one thing. Impossible is another. If it is truly under water with no hope of any future operation ever being able to comply with the rules when activating it,