Date   
Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Tom Wylie
 

IU cant see any need for deleting anything. Your log is or should be on your own PC and backed up by whatever method you use. It should be correct and you can edit it and play with it as often as you like.

LOTW is merely a device which allows you to send and receive QSLs (confirmation that a contact took place) and nothing more. Even if you do not collect awards such as DXCC or WAS, there are plenty of people who do and seek an electronic confirmation. This is 2020 after all. No need to print and send paper cards especially now when most postal services are screwed up. If you submit a log to LOTW and you have stated the QSOs were all on CW for example (when they should be on SSB) what will happen. As far as YOU are concerned - absolutely nothing. However, someone who NEEDS a confirmation for an award will never get a confirmation as there is no match. However, when you notice you have made a mistake and reload your log as SSB, then they will get a confirmation as details will then match.

What amuses me is how could you submit an entire ADIF file with the wrong mode (for example) in the first place. If you are using a proprietory logging programme in the first place and it is properly connected to your rig, and your PC is connected to the atomic clock (remembering you log should be in UTC (GMT), then everythbing should be correct, time, frequency, mode etc.

If your ADIF file is the result of a contest, surely when setting it up, and you tell your software which contest you are entering like CQWW CW, or WPX SSB, then your contest logger will produce the correct ADIF? Or is my simple thinking flawed. If you are set up for CQWW CW and your logger is logging 59 05 then that should give you a clue, but to work that particular contest your radio must be in CW mode. So I dont really get it why anybody can submit an entire log in the wrong mode.
If you are not confident to mess about with ADIF - then dont.

Use the small programme by Rick N2AML and a few keystrokes will send your log to LOTW after your initial setup. No messing about with TQSL or ADIF or anything.......you can also set it to upload also to Eqsl and Clublog if you are so inclined.

Your official station log is on your own PC not what you send to LOTW..... BTW if you loose you OWN log on your OWN PC, like hard disk failure etc, you can download your log from LOTW, but it will be as you sent it complete will all your wrong QSOs.


Tom
GM4FDM

On 28/05/2020 13:52, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
It is entirely likely that a defective logger is recording the
transceiver mode (USB) instead of operating mode from a stand-
alone digital program and sending the transceiver mode to tQSL/LotW.
73,
   ... Joe, W4TV
On 2020-05-28 7:09 AM, Rick Murphy wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:40 AM EI8KF <ei8kf@...> wrote:

Personally I think the deletion of duplicates is a good idea especially as
for some strange reason LoTW treats PSK63 QSO's as both SSB and PSK63
thereby creating a duplicate and unnecessary duplicate in the system.

I don't believe that's true. PSK63 isn't treated as SSB or Phone.
This is, however, another mode like "FT4" - it's supposed to be emitted in
ADIF files as <MODE:3>PSK <SUBMODE:5>PSK63

TQSL will accommodate defective loggers that emit <MODE:5>PSK63 and upload
them properly, so you or your logger are making these "duplicate" (they're
not!) QSOs.


Whe I first started using LoTW and had uploaded my logbook to the system I
couldn't understand why LoTW showed more QSO's than I actually had in my
logbook. I did some digging around and discovered the above issue whereby a
single QSO was being teated as two QSO's in the LoTW system!
You need to create a single PSK63 QSO and export it from your logger. Then
inspect the ADIF. What does it say?


When I enquired if these duplicate and in my opinion incorrectly labelled
'SSB' QSO's could be deleted from the system I was told 'no'!. And just to
make matters muddier all other PSK QSO's, be they PSK31 or PSK125, were
correctly managed in the system without creating a duplicate QSO..!!
OK, I just tried this.  Uploaded a single PSK63 QSO.
Here's the ADIF:
<CALL:6>WA1SPT
    <BAND:3>20M
    <MODE:3>PSK<SUBMODE:5>PSK63
    <SUBMODE:5>PSK63
    <QSO_DATE:8>20200401
    <TIME_ON:6>040100
<EOR>
  And on Logbook:

2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Processing file: 20200528110417.12939
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: User file:  psk63.tq8
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Certificate found for K1MU - UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (291)
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Successfully processed 1 QSO record in
0.092838 seconds
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: No errors encountered

That's only one QSO. Then looking at my most recent QSOs, I see only one on
April Fool's day:

Details <https://lotw.arrl.org/lotwuser/qsodetail?qso=1185677110> K1MU
WA1SPT 2020-04-01 04:01:00 20M PSK63
So, your problem is coming from somewhere else, not TQSL or LoTW. Could you
please mention what logging program you're using here?
73,
     -Rick

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

It is entirely likely that a defective logger is recording the
transceiver mode (USB) instead of operating mode from a stand-
alone digital program and sending the transceiver mode to tQSL/LotW.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2020-05-28 7:09 AM, Rick Murphy wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:40 AM EI8KF <ei8kf@...> wrote:

Personally I think the deletion of duplicates is a good idea especially as
for some strange reason LoTW treats PSK63 QSO's as both SSB and PSK63
thereby creating a duplicate and unnecessary duplicate in the system.
I don't believe that's true. PSK63 isn't treated as SSB or Phone.
This is, however, another mode like "FT4" - it's supposed to be emitted in
ADIF files as <MODE:3>PSK <SUBMODE:5>PSK63
TQSL will accommodate defective loggers that emit <MODE:5>PSK63 and upload
them properly, so you or your logger are making these "duplicate" (they're
not!) QSOs.

Whe I first started using LoTW and had uploaded my logbook to the system I
couldn't understand why LoTW showed more QSO's than I actually had in my
logbook. I did some digging around and discovered the above issue whereby a
single QSO was being teated as two QSO's in the LoTW system!
You need to create a single PSK63 QSO and export it from your logger. Then
inspect the ADIF. What does it say?

When I enquired if these duplicate and in my opinion incorrectly labelled
'SSB' QSO's could be deleted from the system I was told 'no'!. And just to
make matters muddier all other PSK QSO's, be they PSK31 or PSK125, were
correctly managed in the system without creating a duplicate QSO..!!
OK, I just tried this. Uploaded a single PSK63 QSO.
Here's the ADIF:
<CALL:6>WA1SPT
<BAND:3>20M
<MODE:3>PSK<SUBMODE:5>PSK63
<SUBMODE:5>PSK63
<QSO_DATE:8>20200401
<TIME_ON:6>040100
<EOR>
And on Logbook:
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Processing file: 20200528110417.12939
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: User file: psk63.tq8
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Certificate found for K1MU - UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (291)
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Successfully processed 1 QSO record in
0.092838 seconds
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: No errors encountered
That's only one QSO. Then looking at my most recent QSOs, I see only one on
April Fool's day:
Details <https://lotw.arrl.org/lotwuser/qsodetail?qso=1185677110> K1MU
WA1SPT 2020-04-01 04:01:00 20M PSK63
So, your problem is coming from somewhere else, not TQSL or LoTW. Could you
please mention what logging program you're using here?
73,
-Rick

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Rick Murphy
 

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:40 AM EI8KF <ei8kf@...> wrote:
Personally I think the deletion of duplicates is a good idea especially as for some strange reason LoTW treats PSK63 QSO's as both SSB and PSK63 thereby creating a duplicate and unnecessary duplicate in the system.

I don't believe that's true. PSK63 isn't treated as SSB or Phone.
This is, however, another mode like "FT4" - it's supposed to be emitted in ADIF files as <MODE:3>PSK <SUBMODE:5>PSK63

TQSL will accommodate defective loggers that emit <MODE:5>PSK63 and upload them properly, so you or your logger are making these "duplicate" (they're not!) QSOs.
 
Whe I first started using LoTW and had uploaded my logbook to the system I couldn't understand why LoTW showed more QSO's than I actually had in my logbook. I did some digging around and discovered the above issue whereby a single QSO was being teated as two QSO's in the LoTW system!

You need to create a single PSK63 QSO and export it from your logger. Then inspect the ADIF. What does it say?
 
When I enquired if these duplicate and in my opinion incorrectly labelled 'SSB' QSO's could be deleted from the system I was told 'no'!. And just to make matters muddier all other PSK QSO's, be they PSK31 or PSK125, were correctly managed in the system without creating a duplicate QSO..!!

OK, I just tried this.  Uploaded a single PSK63 QSO.
Here's the ADIF:
<CALL:6>WA1SPT
   <BAND:3>20M
   <MODE:3>PSK<SUBMODE:5>PSK63
   <SUBMODE:5>PSK63
   <QSO_DATE:8>20200401
   <TIME_ON:6>040100
<EOR>
 And on Logbook:

2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Processing file: 20200528110417.12939
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: User file:  psk63.tq8
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Certificate found for K1MU - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (291)
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: Successfully processed 1 QSO record in 0.092838 seconds
2020-05-28 11:05:07 LOTW_QSO: No errors encountered
That's only one QSO. Then looking at my most recent QSOs, I see only one on April Fool's day:

DetailsK1MUWA1SPT2020-04-01 04:01:0020MPSK63 
So, your problem is coming from somewhere else, not TQSL or LoTW. Could you please mention what logging program you're using here?
73,
    -Rick
--
Rick Murphy, CISSP-ISSAP, K1MU/4, Annandale VA USA

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

EI8KF
 

Personally I think the deletion of duplicates is a good idea especially as for some strange reason LoTW treats PSK63 QSO's as both SSB and PSK63 thereby creating a duplicate and unnecessary duplicate in the system. Whe I first started using LoTW and had uploaded my logbook to the system I couldn't understand why LoTW showed more QSO's than I actually had in my logbook. I did some digging around and discovered the above issue whereby a single QSO was being teated as two QSO's in the LoTW system!
When I enquired if these duplicate and in my opinion incorrectly labelled 'SSB' QSO's could be deleted from the system I was told 'no'!. And just to make matters muddier all other PSK QSO's, be they PSK31 or PSK125, were correctly managed in the system without creating a duplicate QSO..!!

Andrew
EI8KF

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Rick Murphy
 

Let's be clear here.
These are not duplicates. They are incorrect, bogus QSOs that an operator certified were correct when they were not, where a separate valid QSO has different data.

Fixing this on the Logbook side isn't simple, especially when the volume of incorrect QSOs is in the tens of thousands. That's a significant programming effort to write something to allow an operator to specify arbitrary ways that the QSOs are to be selected to be marked as "invalid".

If people kept their original log (ADIF) files, perhaps a simple "mark everything in this log as invalid" would work, but I doubt that people have retained their broken uploads. Maybe a feature that allows you to select an upload from the "Your Activity" page on the LoTW site and marks all of the QSOs for a given upload as invalid? Then you need a way for a station to find when a bad QSO was uploaded so they can invalidate it.

Finally, there's the QSL problem. If a bogus QSO resulted in a QSL, what should be done?

There's a lot of discussion here as it's not a simple problem to fix.
73,
    -Rick





On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 5:29 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below

Invalid flag would be very nice if you can't delete bad qsos.  I uploaded a DX contest log with 2500 qsos only to find that I had mistakenly set the contest log to cw when it should have been ssb.  Changed logging program and re-uploaded all identical 2500 qsos set as ssb. So now LOTW shows both sets.  Would there be any way to "mass flag" such as all cw qsos from x date to y date? 

+ There is currently no design because there are currently no developers available to create it, and then implement, document, and test it. And when developers do become available, I doubt that ARRL management will consider hiding duplicates to be the top priority task.

         73,

                    Dave, AA6YQ






--
Rick Murphy, CISSP-ISSAP, K1MU/4, Annandale VA USA

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Invalid flag would be very nice if you can't delete bad qsos. I uploaded a DX contest log with 2500 qsos only to find that I had mistakenly set the contest log to cw when it should have been ssb. Changed logging program and re-uploaded all identical 2500 qsos set as ssb. So now LOTW shows both sets. Would there be any way to "mass flag" such as all cw qsos from x date to y date?

+ There is currently no design because there are currently no developers available to create it, and then implement, document, and test it. And when developers do become available, I doubt that ARRL management will consider hiding duplicates to be the top priority task.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Abrams, Saul (DHSES)
 

Invalid flag would be very nice if you can't delete bad qsos. I uploaded a DX contest log with 2500 qsos only to find that I had mistakenly set the contest log to cw when it should have been ssb. Changed logging program and re-uploaded all identical 2500 qsos set as ssb. So now LOTW shows both sets. Would there be any way to "mass flag" such as all cw qsos from x date to y date? Thanks for all your efforts. 73 Saul K2XA

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ via groups.arrl.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 2:53 PM
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] Please allow Deleting Duplicates

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.

+ AA6YQ comments below

Lots of issues with allowing any deletions, and storage is VERY cheap.

+ Because storage is VERY cheap as you say, Larry, "deletions" aren't likely to be what would be implemented. Instead, users would be given the ability to tag an unconfirmed QSO as "invalid". By default, all LoTW displays and queries would hide QSOs you've marked as invalid, but you'd still have the ability to access and change them to "valid" if desired -- like when a P5DX QSO you marked as invalid is matched by your QSO partner!

73,

Dave, AA6YQ







--
73. Saul K2XA

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Lots of issues with allowing any deletions, and storage is VERY cheap.

+ Because storage is VERY cheap as you say, Larry, "deletions" aren't likely to be what would be implemented. Instead, users would be given the ability to tag an unconfirmed QSO as "invalid". By default, all LoTW displays and queries would hide QSOs you've marked as invalid, but you'd still have the ability to access and change them to "valid" if desired -- like when a P5DX QSO you marked as invalid is matched by your QSO partner!

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Bruce Bohannon WA1YZN
 

Hello All, I'm now getting confirmations for contacts in LOTW from contacts made back in 2014 and earlier. This is happening from stations outside of the US and inside the US. So I am happy with the way it is setup.

Bruce WA1YZN

On 5/27/2020 09:18, Dave Cole wrote:
Hi Steve,

Deleting unconfirmed entries, is a very bad idea...  What happens when the only station to do say North Korea removes his unconfirmed contacts, a few years before I upload my log...  I don't get a confirm for a worked country.  I suspect, rightfully so, that the ARRL does not want to be responsible for contact removal, and log cleanup.  Storage is cheap, and easy now days...

Respectfully, if you have that many errors in your log, then something else is terribly amiss, not LoTW...

73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources

On 5/26/20 10:51 PM, n6rsh wrote:
Hi,

  Could someone explain to me why we can't delete duplicate/corrupt NON CONFIRMED entries? For example my LOTW logbook shows 37,000+ contacts but my PERSONAL logbook has only 27,700+ contacts. Thats nearly 10,000 corrupt and mostly duplicate entries. And I'm not the only one. Deleting unwanted unconfirmed entries could reduce clutter and improve storage capacity in the LOTW servers. Why can't we do this?

Steve - N6RSH

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Dave Cole
 

Hi Steve,

Deleting unconfirmed entries, is a very bad idea... What happens when the only station to do say North Korea removes his unconfirmed contacts, a few years before I upload my log... I don't get a confirm for a worked country. I suspect, rightfully so, that the ARRL does not want to be responsible for contact removal, and log cleanup. Storage is cheap, and easy now days...

Respectfully, if you have that many errors in your log, then something else is terribly amiss, not LoTW...

73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources

On 5/26/20 10:51 PM, n6rsh wrote:
Hi,
 Could someone explain to me why we can't delete duplicate/corrupt NON CONFIRMED entries? For example my LOTW logbook shows 37,000+ contacts but my PERSONAL logbook has only 27,700+ contacts. Thats nearly 10,000 corrupt and mostly duplicate entries. And I'm not the only one. Deleting unwanted unconfirmed entries could reduce clutter and improve storage capacity in the LOTW servers. Why can't we do this?
Steve - N6RSH

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Larry Banks
 

Lots of issues with allowing any deletions, and storage is VERY cheap.

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ

 

From: n6rsh
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 1:51
Subject: [ARRL-LoTW] Please allow Deleting Duplicates
 
Hi,

Could someone explain to me why we can't delete duplicate/corrupt NON CONFIRMED entries? For example my LOTW logbook shows 37,000+ contacts but my PERSONAL logbook has only 27,700+ contacts. Thats nearly 10,000 corrupt and mostly duplicate entries. And I'm not the only one. Deleting unwanted unconfirmed entries could reduce clutter and improve storage capacity in the LOTW servers. Why can't we do this?

Steve - N6RSH

Re: Please allow Deleting Duplicates

Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Could someone explain to me why we can't delete duplicate/corrupt NON CONFIRMED entries? For example my LOTW logbook shows 37,000+ contacts but my PERSONAL logbook has only 27,700+ contacts. Thats nearly 10,000 corrupt and mostly duplicate entries. And I'm not the only one. Deleting unwanted unconfirmed entries could reduce clutter and improve storage capacity in the LOTW servers. Why can't we do this?

+ The software developers that were working on LoTW were assigned to other projects at the ARRL.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Please allow Deleting Duplicates

n6rsh
 

Hi,

 Could someone explain to me why we can't delete duplicate/corrupt NON CONFIRMED entries? For example my LOTW logbook shows 37,000+ contacts but my PERSONAL logbook has only 27,700+ contacts. Thats nearly 10,000 corrupt and mostly duplicate entries. And I'm not the only one. Deleting unwanted unconfirmed entries could reduce clutter and improve storage capacity in the LOTW servers. Why can't we do this?

Steve - N6RSH

Re: Callsign certificate for former call/portable

Rick Murphy
 

This is one of those cases where the "right" thing to do depends.

If you choose "former personal callsign" then you can use your existing Callsign Certificate to validate the request for the new call. That streamlines the processing as you're accountable for that request. That makes it easier.

It also means that those QSOs are grouped together on Logbook as a single "Account" so they're treated as being all for one operator. If you have held multiple callsigns, then it usually makes sense for those to be in the same LoTW group so what's been suggested is usually right.  However, if it's for a call that you don't want to lump together with everything else in a single LotW login, then you should not choose the "portable modifier" option. 

I'm going to change that to "My former personal callsign or a portable modifier for my current or former callsign" but that'll take a while to bake into something visible.
73,
    -Rick


On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:56 PM Steve K8JQ <stevejq@...> wrote:
Thanks for the advice Joe. Plowing ahead :-)

Steve, K8JQ



On 5/26/2020 3:06 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> It seems to me that the most appropriate option available in the
> "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window is "My former personal
> callsign or a portable modifier for my current callsign". Is that the
> option to use?

Yes.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2020-05-26 12:31 PM, Steve K8JQ wrote:
I need a call sign certificate for my "former personal call sign with a portable modifier" to use the terms found in TQSL's "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window. This specific situation is not available in that window.

It seems to me that the most appropriate option available in the "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window is "My former personal callsign or a portable modifier for my current callsign". Is that the option to use?

Thanks.

Steve, K8JQ








--
Rick Murphy, CISSP-ISSAP, K1MU/4, Annandale VA USA

Re: Callsign certificate for former call/portable

Steve K8JQ
 

Thanks for the advice Joe. Plowing ahead :-)

Steve, K8JQ



On 5/26/2020 3:06 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> It seems to me that the most appropriate option available in the
> "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window is "My former personal
> callsign or a portable modifier for my current callsign". Is that the
> option to use?

Yes.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2020-05-26 12:31 PM, Steve K8JQ wrote:
I need a call sign certificate for my "former personal call sign with a portable modifier" to use the terms found in TQSL's "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window. This specific situation is not available in that window.

It seems to me that the most appropriate option available in the "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window is "My former personal callsign or a portable modifier for my current callsign". Is that the option to use?

Thanks.

Steve, K8JQ






Re: Requesting a certificate as a QSL Manager

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

Any thoughts? Is the described procedure correct?
ARRL Offices are *closed* due to COVID 19 and state government orders
in Connecticut. Approval of DXCC credentials for those entities that
require special documentation and subsequent issuance of a "certificate"
for LotW are delayed due to the closure (inability of key persons to
access records, etc. remotely).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2020-05-26 12:58 PM, Emanuele De Bernardi wrote:
Hello guys
here is Emanuel, IK2RGT
My friend Renato, IZ0HLY is the qsl manager of ZA/IZ7PMQ that is currently in Durazzo, Albania, for work, operating mainly during free time
Renato ask for my help obtaining a certificate for ZA/IZ7PMQ in order to upload the whole log
So we made these steps:
1 - we have charged the current personal certificate of IZ7PMQ via the IZ7PMQ.p12 file and we had the typical gold ribbon in TQSL
2 - we send via email all the documents of ZA/IZ7PMQ operation (license, identity document and licence permit in ZA) to the ARRL
3 - requested the ZA/IZ7PMQ via TQSL by signing this request with the current valid certificate of IZ7PMQ, by choosing the "My former personal callsing or a portable modifier for my current callsign" option
The procedure was ok with the automatic response from LOTW received few minutes after
We have now the awaiting certificate red icon on Tqsl for ZA/IZ7PMQ
The certificate was requested 5 days ago but we are still waiting the typical message containing the credentials of lotw access and the .tq6 file
We are now thinking that maybe we made some errors
Any thoughts? Is the described procedure correct?
Thanks in advance
73's de Emanuel IK2RGT - W7RGT

Re: Callsign certificate for former call/portable

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

It seems to me that the most appropriate option available in the
"Request a new Callsign Certificate" window is "My former personal
callsign or a portable modifier for my current callsign". Is that the
option to use?
Yes.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2020-05-26 12:31 PM, Steve K8JQ wrote:
I need a call sign certificate for my "former personal call sign with a portable modifier" to use the terms found in TQSL's "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window. This specific situation is not available in that window.
It seems to me that the most appropriate option available in the "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window is "My former personal callsign or a portable modifier for my current callsign". Is that the option to use?
Thanks.
Steve, K8JQ

Requesting a certificate as a QSL Manager

Emanuele De Bernardi
 

Hello guys
here is Emanuel, IK2RGT

My friend Renato, IZ0HLY is the qsl manager of ZA/IZ7PMQ that is currently in Durazzo, Albania, for work, operating mainly during free time

Renato ask for my help obtaining a certificate for ZA/IZ7PMQ in order to upload the whole log
So we made these steps:
1 - we have charged the current personal certificate of IZ7PMQ via the IZ7PMQ.p12 file and we had the typical gold ribbon in TQSL
2 - we send via email all the documents of ZA/IZ7PMQ operation (license, identity document and licence permit in ZA) to the ARRL
3 - requested the ZA/IZ7PMQ via TQSL by signing this request with the current valid certificate of IZ7PMQ, by choosing the "My former personal callsing or a portable modifier for my current callsign" option

The procedure was ok with the automatic response from LOTW received few minutes after
We have now the awaiting certificate red icon on Tqsl for ZA/IZ7PMQ

The certificate was requested 5 days ago but we are still waiting the typical message containing the credentials of lotw access and the .tq6 file

We are now thinking that maybe we made some errors

Any thoughts? Is the described procedure correct?

Thanks in advance
73's de Emanuel IK2RGT - W7RGT

Callsign certificate for former call/portable

Steve K8JQ
 

I need a call sign certificate for my "former personal call sign with a portable modifier" to use the terms found in TQSL's "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window. This specific situation is not available in that window.

It seems to me that the most appropriate option available in the "Request a new Callsign Certificate" window is "My former personal callsign or a portable modifier for my current callsign". Is that the option to use?

Thanks.

Steve, K8JQ

Re: Correcting QSOs uploaded with wrong Station Location

Tim Shoppa
 

I've found that leaving rarely-used or only-once-used locations in TQSL makes it too easy to accidentally select the wrong one. So if any of the locations are just occasional or one-off's it's usually better to create the location, do the upload, then delete the location from TQSL so you don't accidentally click on it.

Now if you operate 50/50 between two different locations all the time then you probably want to leave them in but make extra specific effort to select the correct one.

Tim N3QE

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:35 AM Steve K8JQ <stevejq@...> wrote:
Thanks for the advice Rick. I resubmitted and it seems to have worked OK.

Steve, K8JQ


On 5/25/2020 8:03 PM, Rick Murphy wrote:
Why change the station location? Re-submit the QSOs choosing a proper station location.

TQSL will tell you that the QSOs are changing details, which they are.  Choose to upload anyway and the QSO details will be updated.

NOTE: As stated the QSO details (date, time, mode, callsign, band) must match exactly.  Uploading a QSO with time set to "0102" is not the same as re-uploading it with time "010203".

If you've got a bunch of QSOs to upload this way (switching between different locations) then if your ADIF file contains the QTH details (MY_COUNTY, MY_GRID) then you can configure TQSL to fix this dynamically. 
73,
    -Rick

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 6:18 PM Steve K8JQ <stevejq@...> wrote:
I have several Station Locations configured in TQSL. Sadly, I uploaded QSOs with StationLocationA only to discover later that I should have used StationLocationB. Different county, different grid. I have more QSOs to upload for which both station locations will be needed.

This ARRL web page Correcting Errors in Submitted QSOs has this paragraph:

If the Station Location with which you upload a QSO is either missing information (e.g. your Grid Square) or contains incorrect information (e.g. an incorrect US State), correct the Station Location, and use it to resubmit the QSO to LoTW. The resubmitted QSO's callsign, band, mode, date, time, and station callsign must exactly match those elements of the QSO to be corrected; if so, LoTW will update the QSO with the information from your Station Location. If your QSO has already been confirmed, your QSO partner's confirmation will be updated with the information from your submitted Station Location. Thus one must be particularly careful to submit or resubmit QSOs with the correct Station Location.

So I plan to
- in TQSL change StationLocationA to match StationLocationB
- resubmit the QSOs in question to LotW
- change StationLocationA back to its original state for use in future uploads

When resubmitting via an ADIF file and TQSL, is there anything I need to do to avoid the QSOs being rejected as duplicates?

Before implementing these actions, and perhaps digging the hole deeper, I wanted to run it by the knowledgeable people on this forum. Is this the way to go about correcting the erroneous LotW upload?

73,

Steve, K8JQ


--
Rick Murphy, CISSP-ISSAP, K1MU/4, Annandale VA USA