I didn't think it necessary to make the point that the software
could easily ignore the "Independent County" entries in the
county field and not include them in any totals.
I have over two hundred empty county fields to "research".
The count would be much less if I could know the IC's and
focus on the actual unknowns and/or choose what adjacent
county to use them for.
73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 2 08:26:58 2005
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Reisert AD1C)
Date: Sat Apr 2 08:28:21 2005
Subject: [Dx4win] County question - More
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 11:58 AM 4/1/2005, Ken Kopp - KOPP wrote:
>There are a number of counties in the US whose names appear
>in more than one state, and these "repeats" are handled OK in
>DX4WIN. Wouldn't it be just as easy to include a county named
>"Independent City" in the DX4WIN county list for states that have
>these entities? This would enable us to take care of the mater at
>the time of entry of the QSO and therefore an empty county field
>would be the only ones waiting for the county to be determined.
I can't speak for Paul, but I don't like this for two reasons:
1. Now there will be more than 3077 entries in the county file. How
will you know when you're done?
2. Independent cities do indeed count for the county they are
in/adjacent to. By doing this, you are treating them like they do not
count at all.
I think DX4WIN is fine the way it is. It is up to the operator to
have the proper documentation in-hand to associate independent cities
with counties. The USACA record book probably has this. N4UJK's
county maps also have the list on the inside cover. An active county
hunter should probably have one of these anyway.
73 - Jim AD1C
--
Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://www.ad1c.us
