Date   
API output of APP_LoTW_CREDIT_GRANTED

Don Rhodes - KB2YSI
 

When / how does this get included in the API output? 

--

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Wes Attaway (N5WA)
 

Joe .... thanks for the info. Your planned proposal re using SUBMODEs looks
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
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
-------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf
Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 4:11 PM
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


Wes,

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
submode.

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.

73,

... 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 LOTW
totals are concerned. This goes for RTTY, FT8, FT4 and whatever.



I think you should just keep your own totals for all these different
modes.





-------------------

Wes Attaway (N5WA)

(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA

Computer/Cellphone Forensics

AttawayForensics.com <http://www.attawayforensics.com>

-------------------

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

Wes,

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
submode.

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.

73,

... 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 LOTW
totals are concerned. This goes for RTTY, FT8, FT4 and whatever.
I think you should just keep your own totals for all these different modes.
-------------------
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com <http://www.attawayforensics.com>
-------------------

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Wes Attaway (N5WA)
 

OK, I guess I was thinking about DXCC totals and not really about WAS. I
was unaware that WAS allowed so many different mode endorsements.

Thanks for the clarification.

-------------------
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
-------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf
Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:56 PM
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

+ AA6YQ comments below

I agree, at least for now, these QSOs are all "digital" as far as LOTW
totals are concerned. This goes for RTTY, FT8, FT4 and
whatever.

+ That's not correct. Mode-specific WAS endorsements -- like those offered
for FT8 and FT4 -- require both participants of a QSO to
submit their QSO with the exact mode correctly specified.

+ That some application developers can't correctly implement mode
representations that were agreed upon more than 6 years ago is
unfortunate, particularly when some of them sow additional confusion by
blaming LoTW or ADIF.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

I agree, at least for now, these QSOs are all "digital" as far as LOTW totals are concerned. This goes for RTTY, FT8, FT4 and
whatever.

+ That's not correct. Mode-specific WAS endorsements -- like those offered for FT8 and FT4 -- require both participants of a QSO to
submit their QSO with the exact mode correctly specified.

+ That some application developers can't correctly implement mode representations that were agreed upon more than 6 years ago is
unfortunate, particularly when some of them sow additional confusion by blaming LoTW or ADIF.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Phil Cooper
 

Hi all,

 

Wes, yes, I agree that this is true, but IF you wish to chase WAS on FT4, it is a problem.

Out of the many FT4 contacts I have made, a good percentage of US stations have uploaded as DATA, MFSK, or RTTY, and so my WAS FT4 totals are suffering.

 

The issue is that (as was mentioned elsewhere) that the paid-for programs have not yet got into gear with FT4, whilst most - if not all - free programs have been updated to handle the new mode correctly.

 

73 de Phil GU0SUP

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" <wesattaway@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September, 2019 18:19
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

I agree, at least for now, these QSOs are all “digital” as far as LOTW totals are concerned.  This goes for RTTY, FT8, FT4 and whatever.

 

I think you should just keep your own totals for all these different modes.

 

 

   -------------------

Wes Attaway (N5WA)

(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA

Computer/Cellphone Forensics

   -------------------


From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of roamer
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:33 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Wholehearted agree, Don! 

Dean, K7N


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of DON GAIKINS via Groups.Arrl.Org <dgaikins=sbcglobal.net@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29:18 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new
digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the
last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done
with it!
Don W0VM


On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
> It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
> I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.
>
> As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
> To: ARRL-LoTW@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
>
>
> There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
> the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
> <https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
> for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
> next two interim (developmental) versions.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> + AA6YQ comments below
>>
>> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>>
>> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>
>>             73,
>>
>>                     Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Wes Attaway (N5WA)
 

I agree, at least for now, these QSOs are all “digital” as far as LOTW totals are concerned.  This goes for RTTY, FT8, FT4 and whatever.

 

I think you should just keep your own totals for all these different modes.

 

 

   -------------------

Wes Attaway (N5WA)

(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA

Computer/Cellphone Forensics

   -------------------


From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of roamer
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:33 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Wholehearted agree, Don! 

Dean, K7N


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of DON GAIKINS via Groups.Arrl.Org <dgaikins=sbcglobal.net@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29:18 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new
digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the
last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done
with it!
Don W0VM


On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
> It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
> I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.
>
> As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
> To: ARRL-LoTW@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
>
>
> There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
> the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
> <https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
> for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
> next two interim (developmental) versions.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> + AA6YQ comments below
>>
>> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>>
>> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>
>>             73,
>>
>>                     Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Gilbert Baron <w0mn00@...>
 

I hope we do. You are wrong. The free programs for the most part have done it and it is really a cheat that paid for have not.

It does you no good if you have a program that does, it is the other end that is falling down on the job . OTOH those users should not  be expected to learn a new program to fix this. The producers of the programs that are defective should obviously fix them.

 

Outlook Laptop Gil W0MN

Hierro Candente Batir de Repente

44.08226N 92.51265 W en34rb

 

From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> On Behalf Of roamer
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:33
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Wholehearted agree, Don! 

Dean, K7N


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of DON GAIKINS via Groups.Arrl.Org <dgaikins=sbcglobal.net@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29:18 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new
digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the
last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done
with it!
Don W0VM


On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
> It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
> I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.
>
> As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
> To: ARRL-LoTW@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
>
>
> There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
> the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
> <https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
> for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
> next two interim (developmental) versions.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> + AA6YQ comments below
>>
>> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>>
>> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>
>>             73,
>>
>>                     Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

roamer
 

Wholehearted agree, Don! 
Dean, K7N


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of DON GAIKINS via Groups.Arrl.Org <dgaikins=sbcglobal.net@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29:18 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
 
Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new
digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the
last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done
with it!
Don W0VM


On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
> It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
> I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.
>
> As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
> To: ARRL-LoTW@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
>
>
> There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
> the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
> <https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
> for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
> next two interim (developmental) versions.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> + AA6YQ comments below
>>
>> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>>
>> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>
>>             73,
>>
>>                     Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

DON GAIKINS
 

Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done with it!
Don W0VM

On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.

As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!

73 de Phil GU0SUP

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below

Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??

+ To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4

73,

Dave, AA6YQ




Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

g3ybo
 

Hi Phil

Same with HRD

73

Roger


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org <pcooper=suremail.gg@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 10:11:14 PM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
 
It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.

As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!

73 de Phil GU0SUP

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> + AA6YQ comments below
>
> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>
> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>
>            73,
>
>                    Dave, AA6YQ
>







Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Phil Cooper
 

It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.

As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!

73 de Phil GU0SUP

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below

Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??

+ To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Charlie Young - K0LAF
 

From the last HRD newsletter:  "While we're proceeding with beta testing for this release, I've asked the team to look at the issue related to matching FT4 confirmations from LOTW in HRD Logbook."

It's not clear from this if they intend to include the fix in the 6.7 release or if it will come in a later version.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:04 PM Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@...> wrote:

There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> + AA6YQ comments below
>
> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>
> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>
>            73,
>
>                    Dave, AA6YQ
>






--
Charlie, KØLAF

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below
Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
+ To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
73,
Dave, AA6YQ

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??

+ To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Gilbert Baron <w0mn00@...>
 

Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. 😊

Outlook Laptop Gil W0MN
Hierro Candente Batir de Repente
44.08226N 92.51265 W en34rb

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 07:29
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


On 2019-09-17 3:05 AM, cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
>
Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK
> even if it is a submode.

No, it was not a good idea for certain logging software providers to
ignore the ADIF specifications that they agreed to six years ago.

It is not a good idea for users to continue to use old versions of
logging software that did not support newer (sub)modes.

Properly classifying FT4 as as a form of MFSK only identified broken
or improperly written software.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 3:05 AM, cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
Hi Rick,

yes it shows on *QSO Details* if you click on *QSL* it shows Data(Data). Same story with the QSL record of NZ4CW. I did not know this . Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK even if it is a submode.

Thanks for your help.

73 Walter

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

On 2019-09-17 3:05 AM, cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:

Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK even if it is a submode.
No, it was not a good idea for certain logging software providers to
ignore the ADIF specifications that they agreed to six years ago.

It is not a good idea for users to continue to use old versions of
logging software that did not support newer (sub)modes.

Properly classifying FT4 as as a form of MFSK only identified broken
or improperly written software.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 3:05 AM, cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
Hi Rick,
yes it shows on *QSO Details* if you click on *QSL* it shows Data(Data). Same story with the QSL record of NZ4CW.  I did not know this . Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK even if it is a submode.
Thanks for your help.
73 Walter

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

cwkwfan@...
 

Hi Rick,

yes it shows on QSO Details if you click on QSL it shows Data(Data). Same story with the QSL record of NZ4CW.  I did not know this . Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK even if it is a submode.

Thanks for your help.

73 Walter

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Rick Murphy
 

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:25 PM cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org
<cwkwfan=googlemail.com@...> wrote:

Hi Steve,

I think you may be correct . W6O did upload it with an incorrect mapping in his TQSL configuration.
That's actually quite unlikely.
You can't define a FT4 to DATA mapping if you have a current
configuration file that defines FT4.
If you created one in the past, TQSL will delete it.

The likely cause here is someone following the bad advice to map FT4 to MFSK.

But I cant see it in QSO Details . All my confirmed contacts show also FT4(Data).
This has been covered before (and I've gotten it wrong before as well)
- choose the QSL in your account. It says "FT4(DATA)". That's what YOU
uploaded with.
Click on the "QSL" link at the bottom - the call changes to the
station you worked. What is the mode for that? Probably "DATA (DATA)"

Hope I got this right.

And I think there is normally no "Mixed Mode" if you operate FT4. Even if you upload it correctly and the other station did upload it as "Data " there should be a correct match for WAS. I saw there was already a thread in the forum discussing "WAS FT8 vs. FT4 " and the submode problem.
Yes, but a DATA QSL is not valid for a FT4 WAS award.
73,
-Rick
--
Rick Murphy, CISSP-ISSAP, K1MU/4, Annandale VA USA

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

cwkwfan@...
 

Hi Steve,

I think you may be correct . W6O did upload it with an incorrect mapping in his TQSL configuration. But I cant see it in QSO  Details . All my confirmed contacts show also FT4(Data).

And I think there is normally no "Mixed Mode" if you operate  FT4. Even if you upload it correctly and the other station  did upload it as "Data "  there should be a correct match for WAS.  I saw there was   already  a thread in the forum discussing  "WAS FT8 vs. FT4 " and the submode problem.

MO is not really rare and I have to work another station.

Thanks for your reply

73
Walter DK1BN