CQ and ITU Zone data sometimes wrong
Posted: 02 Nov 2019, 09:58
Frankly, I am rather disappointed about Log4OM. Main reason I am using it is to get accurate data about CQ and ITU zones for my QSO data imported where these information are missing, but where QRA locator information is very accurate. During import, correction of DXCC names seems to work nice. But the CQ zones were not correctly found. Log4OM detected 35 instead of 40 worked (according to ClubLog, and SH5). The same for ITU zones. 49 detected instead of 63 worked (according to SH5). Very frustrating!
Why are ClubLog and SH5 able to detect the CQ zones correctly (coming from the same adif raw data file), and SH is even able to detect the ITU zones correctly, but Log4OM is not able to do so?
After a deeper look to me it seems that for analysis Log4OM is only using the principal prefixes and not the troe (and accurate) QRA Locators. Means, that CQZ data generated by Log4OM is at least partly wrong, and likely ITUZ data is nothing more than house numbers.Very frustrating...
Is there any improvement planned for this issue?
73 de Uwe, DG2YCB
Why are ClubLog and SH5 able to detect the CQ zones correctly (coming from the same adif raw data file), and SH is even able to detect the ITU zones correctly, but Log4OM is not able to do so?
After a deeper look to me it seems that for analysis Log4OM is only using the principal prefixes and not the troe (and accurate) QRA Locators. Means, that CQZ data generated by Log4OM is at least partly wrong, and likely ITUZ data is nothing more than house numbers.Very frustrating...
Is there any improvement planned for this issue?
73 de Uwe, DG2YCB