Bill W5WVO wrote:
> This has to get a LOT better if ARRL is going to feel any pressure to support
> VUCC. Of course, much of the reason the VHF LOTW participation has been so
> poor is BECAUSE ARRL doesn't support VUCC... so it cuts both ways.
I agree about the dismal support. A year ago I loaded my January VHF+ contest
logs (as a rover -- splitting out the locations was a pain) and found that
tqsl would not accept QSOs on 902mhz! I experimented and discovered that tqsl
would accept 903mhz. The LOTW help desk folks seemed to have never seen that
problem before and told me to submit them as 903, so I went ahead and lied
about the frequency (at least I had the band right).
While custom support for each and every awards program would be a nice thing,
making a bridge between LOTW and existing award program methods of QSL card
checking would make LOTW accessable sooner. This could be as simple as a
document printed from LOTW QSOs. Some sort of digital signature could be
printed on each page as a "cross check" (and maybe something that the card
checker could double check electronicly) to keep someone from writing
themselves some awards. But really there isn't much preventing someone from
doing that with QSL cards right now; I've gotten nasty looks from QSL card
sellers by making a comment about "working a VUCC by standing right here at
the table"! :)
Glen Overby, kc0iyt
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|