Log4OM

While LOTW seem to have a "work around" to translate DYNAMIC into DATA, then the QSO modes don't match in Log4OM.

Do I also need to reverse the translation for QSLs received in TQSL?

The whole LOTW/data modes business is a mess, especially given the huge number of different data modes and their sub-modes.

Images attached.

73 Dave

Check out the following thread. Maybe that can help you. I´m personally not a VARA user.

https://forum.log4om.com/viewtopic.php?t=7821

Hi Juergen
The outgoing QSL to LOTW is translated to DATA by the appropriate entry in TQSL. However, in the reverse direction Log4OM rejects the incoming QSL as the modes do not match...

The link to 7821 is for uploading and that works as does the QSL confirmation in LOTW, it's just Log4OM that sees the download QSL as not matching the mode in the log.

73 Dave

Hello Dave,

can you copy the used entry in the modelist ?

VarAC automatically sets the mode to DYNAMIC in Log4OM when it completes a QSO... I have to set TQSL to translate DYNAMIC to DATA as LOTW doesn't accept Vara or DYNAMIC as a mode.

As per my earlier comment, uploading the QSO details as DATA to LOTW works in the outward direction, however it is not a match in Log4OM when I receive a QSL from LOTW.

Despite being told about Vara over a year ago, LOTW still doesn't accept it as a mode.

I appreciate that it's not specifically a Log4OM problem, but the VarAC author (Irad, 4Z1AC), yourselves and ARRL/LOTW all need to talk and sort it out...

Bring back CW all is forgiven

73 Dave

I appreciate that it's not specifically a Log4OM problem, but the VarAC author (Irad, 4Z1AC), yourselves and ARRL/LOTW all need to talk and sort it out...

Dave,

Vara is a recognised ADIF mode and all Logging developers that belong to the ADIIF development group conform to that format, including Log4OM. LOTW also belong to the group but ignore the standards set untill everyone complains.

LOTW steadfastly lags behind software development and unfortunately user then look to software developers to fudge their programs to deal with the shortcomings of LOTW then UN-Fudge their code when LOTW at last wake up.

Its time for user to confront LOTW and demand they get their act together, not developers we can only set the format in conjunction with the ADIF organisation we can force LOTW to change.

Thanks Terry, I am a member of ARRL and regardless of that, they seem to be very slow to respond and I reported the issue to them months ago, as have other VarAC users. Their response was to fudge the issue by translating the mode to DIGITAL in the TQSL (LOTW) app and while that works outgoing, as I mentioned earlier it doesn't work in the download direction.

I will again ask ARRL/LOTW what timescale they have for resolving the matter once and for all.

73 Dave

Hi Dave

For the VarAC QSO's when I have noted the mismatch on the LOTW download, I have manually updated the original QSO in Log4OM QSO manager, as follows.

It is an inconvenient work-a-round, likewise an ARRL member and have been greeted with silence.

Also, if you sync with QRZ.com to LOTW, despite the correct upload, coming back from LOTW it shows as a "new" extra QSO, as a duplicate.

73

Gavin
ZL3GAV

Gavin, it's now a week since I asked the LOTW team and have heard nothing back from them. As an ARRL member I am not impressed with their apparent lack of interest. I will raise the matter directly with the "grown ups" in ARRL.

73 Dave

My Log4OM's modelist.csv contains this line:
VARA HF;VARA HF;DYNAMIC;VARA HF

In TQSL I added a mode mapping from DYNAMIC to DATA.

My Log4OM database includes 117 VARA HF QSOs. 14 of them have "Lotw Yes", so they are confirmed. There was no need to do any manual modification/correction whatsoever.

73, Markus HB9BRJ