[Logic] Identifying LoTW Contacts in LOGic ???

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 06:13:01 -0400

They can't operate on the assumption that EVERYBODY has access to the
internet... At least not yet...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill VanAlstyne
> Sent: September 11, 2003 21:44
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Re: [Logic] Identifying LoTW Contacts in LOGic ???
> 
> 
> A newbie question about LoTW: Once ARRL activates LoTW, will 
> they still accept old-fashioned paper QSLs, or a combination 
> of paper QSLs and LoTW matches, for their awards? Or will 
> LoTW be mandatory? Maybe (based on the below) we don't know this yet?
> 
> Bill / W5WVO
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Arthur Tan" <[email protected]>
> To: "LOGic reflector" <[email protected]>
> Sent: 11 September, 2003 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [Logic] Identifying LoTW Contacts in LOGic ???
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > The ways I'm thinking about tracking LoTW contacts is to either (or
> > both) put a unique identifier e.g. LOTW: in the comment field or 
> > create a True/False (type:logical) userfield called "LOTW" on the 
> > logform, and then modifying the AWARDS report to update 
> these fields. 
> > But as Jim says, we still have to wait until the league unveils how 
> > DXCC (WAS too?) award tracking will be accomplished.  I've 
> heard that 
> > the ARRL is shooting for next Monday, September 15th as an official 
> > release date.  We'll see what happens...
> >
> > 73, Art AB4RL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From Jim Brannigan <[email protected]> on Sep 05, 2003:
> >
> > > I agree.
> >
> > > But until the ARRL releases their proposals on award tracking we 
> > > will be in limbo. Will awards be automatically conferred or 
> > > incremented? How do we indicate submissions that are part 
> paper and 
> > > part LoTW? Will the ARRL maintain an "AWARDS progress" 
> file that is 
> > > viewable?
> >
> > > More questions, few answers.
> >
> > > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I see no need of having separate S,R,& F designations for LoTW & 
> > > eQSL.  I'm willing to accept the fact that having 
> submitted the SAME 
> > > ADIF file of my entire log to BOTH LoTW and eQSL that a 
> "Submitted 
> > > Flag" is unnecessary.  The same goes for a "Received 
> Flag". So we're 
> > > left with just a "Fulfilled Flag" to indicate a match on 
> that QSO. 
> > > This should make programming a little easier.
> >
> > > My next thought (or nightmare) is having to enter each match 
> > > manually.  I can see a real need for LoTW to export a list of 
> > > "Matching Contacts" and LOGic being able to read it and 
> update the 
> > > log status.
> >
> > > I seem to have more questions than answers.
> >
> > > Your thoughts Guys and Gals.
> >
> > > 73
> > > Bob, K1VU
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LOGic mailing list
> > [email protected] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/logic
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LOGic mailing list
> [email protected] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/logic
> 