On 6/23/19 9:32 AM, Reino Talarmo wrote:
190622_095330 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 1480 HB9CGH DJ0OT -04
190622_095400 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 1480 HB9CGH R 550001 JN58TC
Some observations: <rst_sent:2>55 and <rst_rcvd:2>55 were not exchanged in
the QSO and they are typical FONE reports. According to the ADIF specs, I
consider <STATE:6>JN36RW as not valid.
The sent report was exchanged first as the -04, which is equivalent to 55
and your sent it again as the first part of 550001.
Many thanks, Reino !
Yes, you are right. Unfortunately the S/N is not included in the ADIF
log entry. I'm surprised to see the unusual RS only report related to a
digital mode. But finally, what can we say about the tone here ? Hi hi..
I suggest to include the exchanges like 550001 in the appropriate fields
of the ADIF records, which are probably the STX_STRING and SRX_STRING
fields. Some programs generate the cabrillo log starting with the ADIF log.
Perhaps you have not included in your mail a message from HB9CGH such as:
190622_095345 7.074 Rx FT8 -04 1479 DJ0OT 5500nn JN36RW, which contains the
received report and locator.
You are right again. Here it is:
190622_095345 7.074 Rx FT8 -1 1.8 1479 DJ0OT 550006 JN36RW
The STATE value ie. locator is from that kind exchange of HB9CGH.
But such an information is not valid for a HB9 station, according to the
ADIF specs, which say:
"the code for the contacted station's Primary Administrative Subdivision
(e.g. US State, JA Island, VE Province)". Here, the 2 letter canton
abbreviation code would be appropriate.
Best wishes,
Claude (DJ0OT)
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
