May I suggest that that apply to 160, 80 & 40 It may already be there for 80 & 40 , but I beleive they are also LSB defined bands.
73's Rich K5SF >From: "Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Sergei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"'DXbase Reflector'" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes >found >Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:32:31 -0400 > >Hi Sergei, > >Yes, I see what you mean. Sorry about that. > >We have made a change in the code for the Non DXB Import utility for DXbase >2005 so that if the ADIF file contains a value of SSB for the mode and 160m >for the band, we will default to LSB instead of the USB that was previously >coded. > >Thanks for pointing this out. The updated file is available from the >support page of the DXbase website. > >Regards, >Jack > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sergei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'Jack'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'DXbase Reflector'" ><[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:51 PM >Subject: RE: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes >found > > > > Jack, > > > > One thing seems to be DXbase problem. The Non-DXbase Import always put > > USB instead of LSB on 160m band QSO. I always correct the DXbase log > > after import WL contest logs. Why? > > > > Regards, > > Sergei UX1UA aka UV5U,EN1U > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack > > Sent: Wednesday, 16 June, 2004 18:58 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; DXbase Reflector > > Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes > > found > > > > > > Bill, > > > > I've been watching your many posts to the DXbase Reflector about your > > LoTW saga. I hope that you are directing all of these data integrity > > issues to the LoTW folks since none of the issues you speak about are > > DXbase problems. They all involve invalid data coming from the LoTW data > > source. In fact, it's only because DXbase incorporates a rigorous set > > of validations that these issues are being detected and allowing you the > > opportunity to realize that LoTW is injecting errors into some of your > > QSO database. > > > > 1. Invalid IOTA formats. > > 2. Invalid Mode designations. > > 3. Canadian provinces in the US State field. > > 4. Invalid grid designators. > > 5. Invalid zone information. > > > > We, along with the makers of several other logging software products, > > voiced our strong concern to the LoTW development team long ago that it > > was critical for them to apply the ADIF standards and to implement some > > data integrity checks. It's pretty obvious that our concerns have not > > been addressed in the current deployment of the LoTW process. As time > > goes by, data integrity problems will no doubt have a detrimental impact > > on the entire LoTW effort for the ARRL since they are ultimately going > > to have to face the fact that the LoTW database is full of erroneous > > data. The LoTW process may well be the most secure and tamper proof > > system ever known to mankind, but if the data it protects is prone to > > error.... > > > > We do not mind folks using the DXbase Reflector to make others aware of > > LoTW data integrity issues originated by LoTW, but please be careful > > that you do not imply that these are deficiencies in DXbase because they > > are not. Maybe there ought to be a reflector for LoTW where folks can > > go and voice their issues to whomever is representing the LoTW system to > > the public. We have lots of prospective customers review the DXbase > > Reflector archives and we don't want them to walk away with a feeling > > that these are DXbase issues when they are LoTW database problems. > > > > I would be very interested to know what the LoTW folks have told you > > about these issues and what their plan is for addressing them. > > > > Thanks, > > Jack > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "William H. Hein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "DXbase Reflector" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:47 AM > > Subject: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes found > > > > > > As I scan thru my log book, I am finding lots of these (dupe QSOs > > created during a LoTW import procedure), all seemingly from the 1995 CQ > > WW 160m SSB contest, where I made a big effort (over 1000 QSOs). Just > > noticed that the original loggings all have the exact frequency noted > > (note frequency, not band which is 160 in both cases) and the mode as > > LSB. The dupe QSOs, and there are at least a few dozen of them, don't > > have the frequency field filled in and are all listed as USB. > > > > Perhaps this LSB vs. USB thing is the key? The imported QSOs are all > > noted as USB, which is of course wrong. And LoTW does not distinguish > > between USB and LSB, listing all SSB QSOs as simply SSB (is this an ADIF > > standard?). > > > > 73, > > Bill NT1Y > > > > > > __ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Dxbase mailing list >[email protected] >http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase
