Page 1 of 1

US-CA Award and Digital Mode

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 10:50
by EC1DQ
Hi all!

I have a problem with the US-CA Award and FT8 (not with CW or SSB, just DIGITAL & MIX). At the the end of the Digital US-CA list, appear several ***NOT FOUND QSOS which contain a string on the country box like follows (this is an example): LA,RAPIDES // RAPIDES in the state box will appear something like (again another example): LA // Louisiana. This are new QSOs, weren't imported from other logbooks. As you can see, there isn't a difference between the names of the county and it appears exactly with that name at the County Award database in LOG4OM. I executed the instructions that G4POP sent to correct this problem when Updating the US Counties award, but it doesn't work. I checked the US-CA county database and the name matches and of course the state too. If I manually correct each QSO it will remain ok until I make a LOTW update.

So I am kinda lost... Is there anyone having the same problem or do you have any clue to find the solution?

Thanks!

John

Re: US-CA Award and Digital Mode

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 12:49
by K7PT
This is a LOTW issue and every time you update from LOTW it will revert to the issue you describe.

LOTW is not conforming to the ADIF standards.

Re: US-CA Award and Digital Mode

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 12:53
by EC1DQ
Thank you Chuck... Hope the LoTW will do something abt it.

73's, John

Re: US-CA Award and Digital Mode

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 13:06
by G4POP
A search of the forum reveals all see --- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3201

Re: US-CA Award and Digital Mode

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 13:32
by EC1DQ
Yeah, thanks, Terry!

I made searches for FT8, US-CA, etc... but never as an LoTW Issue... Well, as we say in Spain, the ball is now on the LoTW roof, so they have the chance to rectify.

Nice weekend for you, guys!

John

Re: US-CA Award and Digital Mode

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 14:26
by w9mdb
The comments LOTW is putting in actually are within the ADIF standard.

Log4OM is not parsing the field correctly. Every ADIF field contains a length and the length for <STATE:2> is correct followed by a comment which is supposed to be allowed.

de Mike W9MD