At 18:50 9/05/00 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 05:21:32PM +0000, Wilbert Knol wrote:
>> The sub-entities thing would be useful, but it doesn't always work.
E.g. in the
>> US I understand the prefix no longer indicates the State. The same is
true in
>> ZL... a ZL4 *could* now be in ZL1. Perhaps an additional field
(boolean) to
>> indicate the sub-entity is meaningful... I will have a look tonight to
see how
>> CT handles that.
>
>OK. I've heard that the US is quite a mess. However, I think that the
>prefix lookup would just offer a default prefix, and that we could override
>it on a QSO-by-QSO basis (or callsign-by-callsign basis).
>
>Would we want to store sub-entities that were not meaningful?
>
>I think for the ZL4 example we might do
>
>ZL = New Zealand, with general co-ordinates of ZL
>ZL1 = blah, with more specific co-ordinates, zone etc
>ZL2 = blah, with more specific co-ordinates, zone etc
>...
>with no record for ZL4 (so the program would fall back to the ZL record).
Any ZL can now be in any ZL sub-entity, and this has been the case for a
number of years. Until recently (~18 months ago) I had a ZL3 call (ZL3LH),
and was living here in ZL2 for more than 10 years before changing to my
"vanity" call of ZL2DEX.
A more thorough investigation might reveal more such anomalies....
Cheers
Dexter
--
ICQ # 3325183
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dexy/
