Re: [wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
On 9/25/2019 5:12 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: but the 7QP will also have a big number. And there's another wrinkle -- 7QP and NEQP (held the same weekend) have five character abbreviations (two for state, three for county). But there's also the question of whether sponsors of these state QSO parties WANT digital operation. The contest club of which I'm a member, the Northern California Contest Club, sponsors the largest of the state QSO parties, and we rejected RTTY when it was proposed years ago because it would have fundamentally changed the nature of the contest. I'd be very surprised if we would feel differently about adding FT8 of FT4. That doesn't mean that we don't like those modes -- indeed, we regularly win the large club competition for RTTY Roundup, we MAY have won the large club competition for the new CQWW Digi contest; one of our members (W0YK) has won the world several times from P40X RTTY DX contests, and has been a major mover behind bringing FT8 and FT4 to both RTTY RU and the new Digi contest. It's also important to realize that a major element of most state QSO parties is mobiles driving around the state(s) to activate as many counties as possible to make it more fun for out of state participants. There's a bit of that with 7QP and CQP, but many counties are activated by expeditions, set up Field Day style, and, when possible, on county lines. 73, Jim K9YC ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
Re: [wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
>> For non-US QSO parties, similar techniques might work. Consider a QSO party >> with the counties of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as the activated >> counties. :-) For RSGB it’s between 2 to 8 characters along with the obligatory signal report ’59’ :-) As has been pointed out it’s payload size - suspect will have to wait till the next major release FT9? (or FT10, FT11 ….) It’s not a simple task even if limited to USA. Tom 73’s Tom GM8MJV (IO85) On 26 Sep 2019, at 01:12, Bill Frantz wrote: > On 9/25/19 at 3:52 PM, g4...@classdesign.com (Bill Somerville) wrote: > >> On 25/09/2019 23:42, Bill Somerville wrote: >>> whereas the index into a table of 64 values (48 states + 14 provinces + DC >>> + DX) takes a mere 7 bits to store. > > This is actually an interesting problem. We can divide the contesters into > those activating the counties and those trying to contact them. The worst > case I've heard is 252 Texas counties, but the 7QP will also have a big > number. > > One other problem is that some of the state QSO parties take place on the > same weekend, and of course, some people try to make contacts in more than > one QSO party. If the sum of all counties involved is small enough, it might > be possible to support this behavior. > > Lets assume: For the US state QSO parties, each station only activates > counties in one QSO party. (We do need to support rovers.) It will need to > receive locations from all the counties in that QSO party + the other > states/provinces. People sending to it will need to know which table it is > using. > > We can select the table by the weekend data, and starting week before for > testing. There might also be a UI affordance which allows manual selection > for use in closed group testing. (For such testing, I suggest ditching the > radios and just using the built-in audio of several computers in the same > room.) > > For non-US QSO parties, similar techniques might work. Consider a QSO party > with the counties of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as the activated > counties. :-) > > 73 Bill AE6JV > > --- > Bill Frantz| When all else fails: Voice | Periwinkle > (408)356-8506 | and CW. | 16345 Englewood Ave > www.pwpconsult.com | | Los Gatos, CA 95032 > > > > ___ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
Re: [wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
On 9/25/19 at 3:52 PM, g4...@classdesign.com (Bill Somerville) wrote: On 25/09/2019 23:42, Bill Somerville wrote: whereas the index into a table of 64 values (48 states + 14 provinces + DC + DX) takes a mere 7 bits to store. This is actually an interesting problem. We can divide the contesters into those activating the counties and those trying to contact them. The worst case I've heard is 252 Texas counties, but the 7QP will also have a big number. One other problem is that some of the state QSO parties take place on the same weekend, and of course, some people try to make contacts in more than one QSO party. If the sum of all counties involved is small enough, it might be possible to support this behavior. Lets assume: For the US state QSO parties, each station only activates counties in one QSO party. (We do need to support rovers.) It will need to receive locations from all the counties in that QSO party + the other states/provinces. People sending to it will need to know which table it is using. We can select the table by the weekend data, and starting week before for testing. There might also be a UI affordance which allows manual selection for use in closed group testing. (For such testing, I suggest ditching the radios and just using the built-in audio of several computers in the same room.) For non-US QSO parties, similar techniques might work. Consider a QSO party with the counties of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as the activated counties. :-) 73 Bill AE6JV --- Bill Frantz| When all else fails: Voice | Periwinkle (408)356-8506 | and CW. | 16345 Englewood Ave www.pwpconsult.com | | Los Gatos, CA 95032 ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
Re: [wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
> index into a table of 64 values (48 states + 14 provinces + DC + DX) takes a > mere 7 bits to store. Hi Bill, Yes, I initially saw that and it's why I attempted to clone the FD table, substituting the 39 WA counties for 58 ARRL Sections. That table obviously fits, right? I'm guessing it wouldn't be wise to have 50 or 60 other tables for the various QSO parties. Texas' table would be the basic 64 values & 254 counties; a resultant 9 bits requirement? Be gentle. My Reptilian brain is being stretched. 73 John W7CD ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
Re: [wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
On 25/09/2019 23:42, Bill Somerville wrote: whereas the index into a table of 64 values (48 states + 14 provinces + DC + DX) takes a mere 7 bits to store. Oops, not quite correct there. It only takes 6 bits. I should add that the actual storage is more complex as the DX serial numbers must also be allowed and that adds all the permutations of digits between 0001 and 7999 to the possible combinations. Those combined with the state or province index permutations uses up just 13 bits of payload in total. Note that is still less than the 15-bits needed to store any possible up to 3 character alphabetic string. 73 Bill G4WJS. ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
Re: [wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
On 25/09/2019 21:20, John Zantek wrote:
AKA "All I want for Christmas is something big for WSJT-X 2.2"
I just finished the 2019 Washington Salmon Run (our state QSO party), both as a
contestant and a coordinator. My DX Club sponsors the event.
Seewww.wwdxc.org/salmonrun
This year, we were inundated with inquiries of "Can we use FT8 or FT4?", all of which I
had to answer "No, sorry, not this year". I see Nebraska supported WSJT-X for their QSO
party, but it required a totally separate log. Our Board felt the Salmon Run is too big and
popular to create a whole separate category and scoring system, and I didn't want to see the use of
FreeMsg frames being blasted blindly into the ether with unacknowledged County exchanges. I felt
it was just abusive and counter to the vision of WSJT-X's smart design.
I do believe that adding direct support to all the State QSO Parties could be the 'next
big thing' for WSJT-X. Adding FD last year was a step in that direction. So rather than
just ask, I thought "well, what would it require?"
CQ WAQP W7CD CN87
W7CD K7ABC SPO(Spokane County)
K7ABC W7CD R KITS (Kitsap County)
W7CD K7ABC RR73
Thus, I submit a blind start:
// QRegExp message_alphabet {"[- A-Za-z0-9+./?]*"};
QRegularExpression message_alphabet {"[- @A-Za-z0-9+./?#<>]*"};
QRegularExpression WA_QSO_party_exchange {
R"(
(
AL|AZ|AR|CA|CO|CT|DE|FL|GA # 48 contiguous states
|ID|IL|IN|IA|KS|KY|LA|ME|MD
|MA|MI|MN|MS|MO|MT|NE|NV|NH|NJ
|NM|NY|NC|ND|OH|OK|OR|PA|RI|SC
|SD|TN|TX|UT|VT|VA|WA|WV|WI|WY
|NB|NS|QC|ON|MB|SK|AB|BC|NWT|NF # VE provinces
|LB|NU|YT|PEI
|DC # District of Columbia
|DX # anyone else outside WA
|ADA|ASO|BEN|CHE|CLAL|CLAR|COL # 39 WA counties
|COW|DOU|FER|FRA|GAR|GRAN|GRAY
|ISL|JEFF|KING|KITS|KITT|KLI
|LEW|LIN|MAS|OKA|PAC|PEND|PIE
|SAN|SKAG|SKAM|SNO|SPO|STE|THU
|WAH|WAL|SHA|WHI|YAK
)
)", QRegularExpression::CaseInsensitiveOption |
QRegularExpression::ExtendedPatternSyntaxOption};
Of course, it's not just that simple, I knowbut I feel strongly enough
about the subject that I'm willing to try my hand at coding, something I've not
done since my FORTRAN77 and PDP-11 school days.
True, there are some arguments against putting in the effort.
- Texas has 254 Counties. My fingers ache just thinking about it.
- Not every State has a QSO Party. Out west, those states without the support
resources for their own QP (OR, MT, WY, etc) created the 7th Area QSO Party
(7QP), which is wildly popular. It's exchange field requires a field of 5
characters (2-ltr-State + 3-ltr County).
-Instead of a QRegExp for each QP, a matrix of A through Z would
support any 5-ltr combo a particular State QP sponsor might devise. Of course,
that leaves it to the end user to populate them in Settings/Advanced. Texans
would think that insane. 7QP'ers would call it cruel and unusual punishment.
Am I the only Voice in the Wilderness that thinks this would be worth it? WA
is happily willing to shift from 4 letter County abbreviations to 3 letter if
it helps!
73 John W7CD
John,
you are looking at the validation for input of one's state or province
as per the ARRL RTTY Roundup rules, that is a minor part of the picture
and of no relevance to extending the possible messages that can be
encoded with FT4/FT8/MSK144. The far more important part is the way that
this information is compressed into the available 77 bits of message
payload. What you must understand is the possible values of state or
province are effectively stored as an index number, there is no direct
storage of two, or three characters; that would take far more payload
space which simply is not available. One alphabetic character has 26
possibilities, 27 if a blank is allowed. Two characters have 27 x 27
combinations if blanks are allowed, three take 27 x 27 x 27
combinations. 27 x 27 x 27 requires 15-bits to store, whereas the index
into a table of 64 values (48 states + 14 provinces + DC + DX) takes a
mere 7 bits to store.
73
Bill
G4WJS.
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
Re: [wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
And for QSO parties that are NOT in the USA?
RSGB has a couple they introduced this year - doesn’t support FT? yet but it
will come.
Pretty sure the abbreviations used for USA states will not match up with other
countries. The developers, if they are going to support QSO parties, will be
looking at the global picture.
Tom
--
73’s
Tom
GM8MJV (IO85)
On 25 Sep 2019, at 22:19, Ron WV4P wrote:
> As a coordinator for the Tennessee QSO Party we fielded the same questions
> and had to respond the same. MANY wanted to use FT-X Modes. In kind, I don't
> think TN would be any issue swapping to 3 Letter. Ron, WV4P
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 16:08, John Zantek wrote:
> AKA "All I want for Christmas is something big for WSJT-X 2.2"
>
> I just finished the 2019 Washington Salmon Run (our state QSO party), both as
> a contestant and a coordinator. My DX Club sponsors the event. See
> www.wwdxc.org/salmonrun
>
> This year, we were inundated with inquiries of "Can we use FT8 or FT4?", all
> of which I had to answer "No, sorry, not this year". I see Nebraska
> supported WSJT-X for their QSO party, but it required a totally separate log.
> Our Board felt the Salmon Run is too big and popular to create a whole
> separate category and scoring system, and I didn't want to see the use of
> FreeMsg frames being blasted blindly into the ether with unacknowledged
> County exchanges. I felt it was just abusive and counter to the vision of
> WSJT-X's smart design.
>
> I do believe that adding direct support to all the State QSO Parties could be
> the 'next big thing' for WSJT-X. Adding FD last year was a step in that
> direction. So rather than just ask, I thought "well, what would it require?"
>
> CQ WAQP W7CD CN87
>W7CD K7ABC SPO(Spokane County)
> K7ABC W7CD R KITS (Kitsap County)
>W7CD K7ABC RR73
>
> Thus, I submit a blind start:
>
> // QRegExp message_alphabet {"[- A-Za-z0-9+./?]*"};
> QRegularExpression message_alphabet {"[- @A-Za-z0-9+./?#<>]*"};
> QRegularExpression WA_QSO_party_exchange {
> R"(
> (
>AL|AZ|AR|CA|CO|CT|DE|FL|GA # 48 contiguous states
> |ID|IL|IN|IA|KS|KY|LA|ME|MD
> |MA|MI|MN|MS|MO|MT|NE|NV|NH|NJ
> |NM|NY|NC|ND|OH|OK|OR|PA|RI|SC
> |SD|TN|TX|UT|VT|VA|WA|WV|WI|WY
> |NB|NS|QC|ON|MB|SK|AB|BC|NWT|NF # VE provinces
> |LB|NU|YT|PEI
> |DC # District of Columbia
> |DX # anyone else outside WA
> |ADA|ASO|BEN|CHE|CLAL|CLAR|COL # 39 WA counties
> |COW|DOU|FER|FRA|GAR|GRAN|GRAY
> |ISL|JEFF|KING|KITS|KITT|KLI
> |LEW|LIN|MAS|OKA|PAC|PEND|PIE
> |SAN|SKAG|SKAM|SNO|SPO|STE|THU
> |WAH|WAL|SHA|WHI|YAK
> )
> )", QRegularExpression::CaseInsensitiveOption |
> QRegularExpression::ExtendedPatternSyntaxOption};
>
>
> Of course, it's not just that simple, I knowbut I feel strongly enough
> about the subject that I'm willing to try my hand at coding, something I've
> not done since my FORTRAN77 and PDP-11 school days.
>
> True, there are some arguments against putting in the effort.
> - Texas has 254 Counties. My fingers ache just thinking about it.
> - Not every State has a QSO Party. Out west, those states without the
> support resources for their own QP (OR, MT, WY, etc) created the 7th Area QSO
> Party (7QP), which is wildly popular. It's exchange field requires a field
> of 5 characters (2-ltr-State + 3-ltr County).
> -Instead of a QRegExp for each QP, a matrix of A through Z would
> support any 5-ltr combo a particular State QP sponsor might devise. Of
> course, that leaves it to the end user to populate them in Settings/Advanced.
> Texans would think that insane. 7QP'ers would call it cruel and unusual
> punishment.
>
> Am I the only Voice in the Wilderness that thinks this would be worth it? WA
> is happily willing to shift from 4 letter County abbreviations to 3 letter if
> it helps!
>
> 73 John W7CD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
Re: [wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
As a coordinator for the Tennessee QSO Party we fielded the same questions
and had to respond the same. MANY wanted to use FT-X Modes. In kind, I
don't think TN would be any issue swapping to 3 Letter. Ron, WV4P
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 16:08, John Zantek wrote:
> AKA "All I want for Christmas is something big for WSJT-X 2.2"
>
> I just finished the 2019 Washington Salmon Run (our state QSO party), both
> as a contestant and a coordinator. My DX Club sponsors the event. See
> www.wwdxc.org/salmonrun
>
> This year, we were inundated with inquiries of "Can we use FT8 or FT4?",
> all of which I had to answer "No, sorry, not this year". I see Nebraska
> supported WSJT-X for their QSO party, but it required a totally separate
> log. Our Board felt the Salmon Run is too big and popular to create a
> whole separate category and scoring system, and I didn't want to see the
> use of FreeMsg frames being blasted blindly into the ether with
> unacknowledged County exchanges. I felt it was just abusive and counter to
> the vision of WSJT-X's smart design.
>
> I do believe that adding direct support to all the State QSO Parties could
> be the 'next big thing' for WSJT-X. Adding FD last year was a step in that
> direction. So rather than just ask, I thought "well, what would it
> require?"
>
> CQ WAQP W7CD CN87
>W7CD K7ABC SPO(Spokane County)
> K7ABC W7CD R KITS (Kitsap County)
>W7CD K7ABC RR73
>
> Thus, I submit a blind start:
>
> // QRegExp message_alphabet {"[- A-Za-z0-9+./?]*"};
> QRegularExpression message_alphabet {"[- @A-Za-z0-9+./?#<>]*"};
> QRegularExpression WA_QSO_party_exchange {
> R"(
> (
>AL|AZ|AR|CA|CO|CT|DE|FL|GA # 48 contiguous states
> |ID|IL|IN|IA|KS|KY|LA|ME|MD
> |MA|MI|MN|MS|MO|MT|NE|NV|NH|NJ
> |NM|NY|NC|ND|OH|OK|OR|PA|RI|SC
> |SD|TN|TX|UT|VT|VA|WA|WV|WI|WY
> |NB|NS|QC|ON|MB|SK|AB|BC|NWT|NF # VE provinces
> |LB|NU|YT|PEI
> |DC # District of Columbia
> |DX # anyone else outside WA
> |ADA|ASO|BEN|CHE|CLAL|CLAR|COL # 39 WA counties
> |COW|DOU|FER|FRA|GAR|GRAN|GRAY
> |ISL|JEFF|KING|KITS|KITT|KLI
> |LEW|LIN|MAS|OKA|PAC|PEND|PIE
> |SAN|SKAG|SKAM|SNO|SPO|STE|THU
> |WAH|WAL|SHA|WHI|YAK
> )
> )", QRegularExpression::CaseInsensitiveOption |
> QRegularExpression::ExtendedPatternSyntaxOption};
>
>
> Of course, it's not just that simple, I knowbut I feel strongly enough
> about the subject that I'm willing to try my hand at coding, something I've
> not done since my FORTRAN77 and PDP-11 school days.
>
> True, there are some arguments against putting in the effort.
> - Texas has 254 Counties. My fingers ache just thinking about it.
> - Not every State has a QSO Party. Out west, those states without the
> support resources for their own QP (OR, MT, WY, etc) created the 7th Area
> QSO Party (7QP), which is wildly popular. It's exchange field requires a
> field of 5 characters (2-ltr-State + 3-ltr County).
> -Instead of a QRegExp for each QP, a matrix of A through Z would
> support any 5-ltr combo a particular State QP sponsor might devise. Of
> course, that leaves it to the end user to populate them in
> Settings/Advanced. Texans would think that insane. 7QP'ers would call it
> cruel and unusual punishment.
>
> Am I the only Voice in the Wilderness that thinks this would be worth it?
> WA is happily willing to shift from 4 letter County abbreviations to 3
> letter if it helps!
>
> 73 John W7CD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
[wsjt-devel] State QSO Parties
AKA "All I want for Christmas is something big for WSJT-X 2.2"
I just finished the 2019 Washington Salmon Run (our state QSO party), both as a
contestant and a coordinator. My DX Club sponsors the event. See
www.wwdxc.org/salmonrun
This year, we were inundated with inquiries of "Can we use FT8 or FT4?", all of
which I had to answer "No, sorry, not this year". I see Nebraska supported
WSJT-X for their QSO party, but it required a totally separate log. Our Board
felt the Salmon Run is too big and popular to create a whole separate category
and scoring system, and I didn't want to see the use of FreeMsg frames being
blasted blindly into the ether with unacknowledged County exchanges. I felt it
was just abusive and counter to the vision of WSJT-X's smart design.
I do believe that adding direct support to all the State QSO Parties could be
the 'next big thing' for WSJT-X. Adding FD last year was a step in that
direction. So rather than just ask, I thought "well, what would it require?"
CQ WAQP W7CD CN87
W7CD K7ABC SPO(Spokane County)
K7ABC W7CD R KITS (Kitsap County)
W7CD K7ABC RR73
Thus, I submit a blind start:
// QRegExp message_alphabet {"[- A-Za-z0-9+./?]*"};
QRegularExpression message_alphabet {"[- @A-Za-z0-9+./?#<>]*"};
QRegularExpression WA_QSO_party_exchange {
R"(
(
AL|AZ|AR|CA|CO|CT|DE|FL|GA # 48 contiguous states
|ID|IL|IN|IA|KS|KY|LA|ME|MD
|MA|MI|MN|MS|MO|MT|NE|NV|NH|NJ
|NM|NY|NC|ND|OH|OK|OR|PA|RI|SC
|SD|TN|TX|UT|VT|VA|WA|WV|WI|WY
|NB|NS|QC|ON|MB|SK|AB|BC|NWT|NF # VE provinces
|LB|NU|YT|PEI
|DC # District of Columbia
|DX # anyone else outside WA
|ADA|ASO|BEN|CHE|CLAL|CLAR|COL # 39 WA counties
|COW|DOU|FER|FRA|GAR|GRAN|GRAY
|ISL|JEFF|KING|KITS|KITT|KLI
|LEW|LIN|MAS|OKA|PAC|PEND|PIE
|SAN|SKAG|SKAM|SNO|SPO|STE|THU
|WAH|WAL|SHA|WHI|YAK
)
)", QRegularExpression::CaseInsensitiveOption |
QRegularExpression::ExtendedPatternSyntaxOption};
Of course, it's not just that simple, I knowbut I feel strongly enough
about the subject that I'm willing to try my hand at coding, something I've not
done since my FORTRAN77 and PDP-11 school days.
True, there are some arguments against putting in the effort.
- Texas has 254 Counties. My fingers ache just thinking about it.
- Not every State has a QSO Party. Out west, those states without the support
resources for their own QP (OR, MT, WY, etc) created the 7th Area QSO Party
(7QP), which is wildly popular. It's exchange field requires a field of 5
characters (2-ltr-State + 3-ltr County).
-Instead of a QRegExp for each QP, a matrix of A through Z would
support any 5-ltr combo a particular State QP sponsor might devise. Of course,
that leaves it to the end user to populate them in Settings/Advanced. Texans
would think that insane. 7QP'ers would call it cruel and unusual punishment.
Am I the only Voice in the Wilderness that thinks this would be worth it? WA
is happily willing to shift from 4 letter County abbreviations to 3 letter if
it helps!
73 John W7CD
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
