Rich, 80 and 40 were already handled properly. We just didn't include 160, but it is handled in the patch.
Regards, Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Detweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Many, many more Dxbase LoTW import-related dupes found > 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 > > >
