Hi All,
I had thought this was all common knowledge and "settled law" for at
least a decade. It is not a "new standard" :)
It is correct that it is not something to worry about or expend any time
or energy on.
LOTW is one reason why it matters. Many of us submit our logs to LOTW.
And LOTW will not map "PHONE" modes to the "DATA" mode group and will
reject QSO matches if one partner's QSO is recorded in the phone group
and the other partner's QSO is recorded in the data group. Data modes
accepted for LOTW include more than two dozen sub-modes but as would be
expected, PHONE modes are not among those modes.
LOTW mode mapping is described here:
https://lotw.arrl.org/lotw-help/frequently-asked-questions/#modes
The fundamental issue is that the Cabrillo Specification, which is used
by the ARRL as well as other organizations (e.g. CQ, DARC) for the
purposes of contest log scoring, includes only one data mode, "RY".
This specification was not developed by the ARRL and is not determined
by "fiat" from the ARRL.
The Cabrillo specification was developed by N5KO and is administered by
the WWROF, which is independent of the ARRL. See:
http://wwrof.org/cabrillo/
Logging programs COULD be written so as to allow the user to enter the
exact data mode used for each contact, be it JT65C, MSK144, JT4G or
whatever, and then have the software automatically map those modes to
"RY" when generating the Cabrillo file. Most logging program developers
have not chosen to do that.
And the Cabrillo specification mode definitions could be broadened, but
they have not been.
Additionally, entering all digital contacts in the log as phone modes
deprives one of the ability to go back over one's logs and determine
which contacts were and were not digital. The "RY" designation is
imperfect to be sure, but far superior in this respect to the "PH" or
"USB" designations.
In summary, there are very good reasons not to log every digital contact
as a phone mode. And it is not the ARRL's fault that "RY" is the only
mode choice given by many contest logging programs.
73,
Roger Rehr
W3SZ
On 1/29/2017 2:59 PM, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
> Hello All....I have been using PH for WSJT contacts in my log files
> sent to the ARRL for as long as I have been sending them. What WSJT
> does is to inject tones into the microphone connector(essentially).
> These tones follow the same path that speech would follow in the rig.
> For me, that makes it PH. None of my logs has ever been questioned or
> rejected.
>
> In any case, the ARRL's VHF contests are not mode specific. In other
> words, the mode does not matter....you get to work the other station
> only once in any case. The robot does not match my PH against my
> contact's RY or CW.
>
> I would rather that the ARRL not, by fiat, create a "standard" for
> WSJT type contacts. These contacts are clearly NOT RTTY. I don't
> want to have to edit my log files to change all the PH to {new
> standard} for just the WSJT contacts. Since MODE does not matter,
> spending a lot of time worrying about it us just wasted time and energy.
>
> If someone else wants to use RY, go for it, but I will stay with PH
> unless I am forced to change. Since mode does not matter, why bother?
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
>
>
> On 1/28/2017 10:07 PM, Sean Waite wrote:
>> It most certainly does help, thanks. Exactly what I was looking for.
>>
>> Sean WA1TE
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 18:38 Roger Rehr W3SZ <w3sz73@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is an answer and Jay is 100% correct. :)
>>>
>>> I was told long ago that RY is standard. There is good documentation
>>> for this and so RY is what I have been doing for years to log digital
>>> contacts for Cabrillo logs.
>>>
>>> Here are some references, listed as first reference then quotation:
>>>
>>> http://qsl.net/w3km/cab_template.htm
>>> Most sponsors use `RY` for all non-CW digital modes.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~becher/ShackPrimer/N1MM%20Logger%20Documents%202011-02-03_merged[1].pdf
>>>
>>> <https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~becher/ShackPrimer/N1MM%20Logger%20Documents%202011-02-03_merged%5B1%5D.pdf>
>>>
>>> page 174: Note: The Cabrillo standard only supports one mode
>>> designator
>>> for digital modes: RY.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/Tutorials/Submitting%20An%20Electronic%20Contest%20Log.pdf
>>>
>>> The next item is the mode used . The standard abbreviations are PH for
>>> an SSB or AM QSO, CW for CW, FM for FM, and RY for RTTY/digital modes
>>>
>>> Hope that helps!
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Roger Rehr
>>> W3SZ
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2017 4:50 PM, Sean Waite wrote:
>>>> Sounds like there is no real answer, with some people doing PH or RY
>>>>
>>>> As long as there is no official whatever for it, I guess we can use
>>>> whatever makes sense. Probably RY, though PH is reasonable as well.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sean WA1TE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 16:26 Keith Morehouse <w9rm@calmesapartners.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> RY will do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay W9RM
>>>>> DM58 CO
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith J Morehouse
>>>>> Managing Partner
>>>>> Calmesa Partners G.P.
>>>>> Olathe, CO
>>>>> I
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Sean Waite <waisean@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do we put for Mode in a cabrillo file when you've made an
>>>>>> MSK144
>>>>>> contact? The only options in the QSO standard seem to be CW, PH,
>>>>>> FM or
>>>>> RY.
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Sean WA1TE
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>>>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|