Page 1 of 1

Problem Downloading LOTW File

Posted: 01 Mar 2015, 22:56
by we2s
I am a rather new user of LOTW. I have no problem uploading QSOs from Log4OM 1.20.0.0 to LOTW following the explicit directions in the User Guide and G4POP's YouTube video. But when I try downloading from LOTW, the "LOTW Recd Status" of QSOs which are shown as confirmed on LOTW does not change from "N' to "Y" in my Log4OM log. I have tried both unchecking the "Download by date range" box and checking the box but selecting a date well before I started using LOTW.

The trace when the box is unchecked is:

3/1/2015 9:17:47 PM: Begin ADIF generation request
3/1/2015 9:17:47 PM: Login we2s
3/1/2015 9:17:47 PM: ADIF request accepted
3/1/2015 9:17:47 PM: ADIF document downloaded
3/1/2015 9:17:47 PM: ADIF document parsed: 0 qso found.

Any suggestions as to what I may be doing wrong would be appreciated.

WE2S, Jim

Re: Problem Downloading LOTW File

Posted: 01 Mar 2015, 23:01
by G4POP
Either your LOTW user name, station location or password have not been correctly entered in the Log4om options/external logs tab

Re: Problem Downloading LOTW File

Posted: 01 Mar 2015, 23:36
by G4POP
G4POP wrote:Either your LOTW user name, station location or password have not been correctly entered in the Log4om options/external logs tab

Just to clarify the situations!

The upload is done by using the TQSL.exe which contains the correct user name, password and station location

The download relies on the same information being entered correctly by the user in the Log4om options

That is why uploads often work ok but downloads do not

Re: Problem Downloading LOTW File

Posted: 02 Mar 2015, 03:05
by we2s
Problem solved.

Thanks very much for your help--the explanation is appreciated.

And thanks to you and the entire team for all the work you have put into this program.

WE2S

Re: Problem Downloading LOTW File

Posted: 07 Mar 2015, 13:28
by HB9BRJ
As Log4OM and LoTW newbie I found it quite difficult to get things working. Let me report my observations:

I'm a SOTA activator. My TQSL configuration shows 4 "Callsign Certificates" and 50+ "Station Locations". On the Log4OM side I'm using one single database with individual profiles per certificate. One of my certificates has got a limited time range: HB7 prefix was valid only in 1979. By "accident" (the LoTW upload protocol mentioned one of the QSOs was outside the time range of the certificate) I concluded that:
  • TQSL Station Locations are unique: If you want to attach the same location to several callsigns (certificates) you have to give them separate names. If you don't, the already existing location is deleted without informing the user. That's what happened to me but I didn't notice.
  • The primary "switch" when uploading is the Station Location. Log4OM calls it "Station ID". It is taken from the running Log4OM User Profile but can be changed ad hoc before doing an upload.
  • TQSL looks up the corresponding callsign (certificate) from the Station Location, not from "My call (opt)" in the Log4OM profile and not from the "Station callsign" of the Log4OM QSO itself. By mistakenly specifying a wrong location before the upload, your own callsign used in all of the uploaded QSOs is changed to match the callsign (TQSL certificate) of the chosen location! You can upload again using the correct location, but I haven't yet found a way to get rid of the erroneous uploads in the LoTW database attached to the wrong callsign.
  • As long as LoTW username and password are present in the running Log4OM profile, the upload takes all selected QSO records, assigns them to the station location (taken from profile or entered ad hoc) and uploads them. There is no need to switch profiles when uploading QSOs from several locations, but uploads must be split by location.
  • For LoTW downloads on the other hand I noticed that username and password are sufficient. I have not yet confirmed that if you do specify a station location in the profile, the download is limited to QSOs made from that location.
These are my findings. In case you experts out there think the above is incorrect, please respond so we all can learn!

73, Markus