Re: WAS FT4 confirmation
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
Joe .... thanks for the info. Your planned proposal re using SUBMODEs lookstoggle quoted messageShow quoted text
like a good way to handle the problem.
We'll have to wait and see how this gets sorted out. There is no telling
how far the proliferation of "modes" and/or sub-modes will go.
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf
Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
While the "it's all data" attitude works for DXCC, WAZ, WPX and VUCC
(which does not care about mode at all), it's still a problem for WAS
and the (random) multiplicity of endorsements supported by that award.
I am preparing to propose to the ADIF group that Mode/Submode be
restructured to recognize only CW, AM, FM, FSK (MFSK), PSK and
Pulse *or* CW, PHONE, RTTY, and DATA as modes with all other
descriptions being SUBMODE. At the same time, the Secretary of ADIF
will be given the authority to add any proposed submode to the list
on a provisional basis upon submission by the sponsor of the proposed
It would be the responsibility of the sponsor of proposed submode to
document the modulation (e.g, GMSK, 4-FSK, 8-FSK, BPSK, QPSK, 8PSK,
64AM, etc.) data encoding (ITA5, ASCII, VARICODE, etc.) and error
correction/FEC as well as how the proposed submode differs from
previously enumerated (existing) submodes.
"Flattening" MODE to those basic modes used by the majority of awards
and treating all variations of the common mode families the same
should eliminate the ego driven arguments as to what constitutes a
unique mode, allow logging software to maintain a single list of
"tokens" to display to the user (the submodes), permit award
sponsors to more easily classify new "submodes" as they appear,
and avoid issues with uploading "new" submodes.
... Joe, W4TV
On 2019-09-18 1:19 PM, Wes Attaway (N5WA) wrote:
I agree, at least for now, these QSOs are all "digital" as far as LOTWmodes.