Log4OM

I typically run two clusters in Log4OM. One is dxc.n4zkf.com:7373 (part of the ve7cc group) and hamalert.org:7300 for the specific feeds of POTA & SOTA spots.

I've noticed some spots on the hamalert.org:7300 feed have an emission tag of "digital" when the OM is on the air as CW and in the CW portion of the band.

That same OM's spot will occasionally show up via the dxc.n4zkf.com:7373 cluster and then has a proper emission tag of "cw".

Unless I have the 'digital' filter enabled I do miss those spots that show up with the 'digital' emission tag.

FWIW - I am using the default 291 bandplan file that is not modified in any way.

Is the display of the 'digital' or 'cw' emission tags something applied by Log4OM or is it via some data in the package from the individual clusters?

Just curious as I've seen such for some time when I've been operating and adjusting filters to observe Log4OM operation.

.

Nolan,

If you check the 'Management' tab of the Telnet control window you will see the raw incoming data

See if you see a 'Mode' field, to my knowledge the 'Mode' is not generally sent by the cluster server other than when a spotter includes the mode in the Notes/Comments field.

AFAIK Log4OM defines the mode by checking the spot freq against the bandplan and I also beleive that Log4OM checks for a mode definition in the notes field.

In the case of some spotter servers the server may manipulate the data in a similar manner and in that case relay a mode, although I have never noticed that!

Bear in mind that Hamalert is using spot data, filtering it and forwarding it, so you would need to watch the incoming raw data from Hamalert to check exactly what is there.

Bottom line is that no cluster display is 100% accurate and relies on the user checking.

Terry,

Tnx much for the clarity and suggestions.

I'm not seeing anything in the raw view that would give a hint save for the frequency and (as you noted) that bounces against the bandplan configuration. In my case it is the '291' version.

I did a spot test/simulation this AM and it appeared as "digital" and according to my '291' bandplan that is considered "digital".

I might create a modified '291' and comment out the digital range and extend the cw range and see what happens.

.

Terry,

Here is a section of the 291 bandplan that I've modified (for testing) that shows 40m.

CW & Digital deliniations are noted to their specific frequency range. I've done a few spot simulations and it seems to be working OK.

As the simulated spot appears in the cluster display it is fitting into the proper frequency range for CW or Digital.

However (a few times) I've noted that when Log4OM refreshes the cluster input with new spots 'some' of the spots I simulated get removed from the cluster display. I'm still trying to gather more information when I see that happen. IE: Was it a spot I simulated in the CW range or the Digital range, etc., etc..

This is good for my gray matter 'well health' exercise ...

If/when you get a chance to scan the settings I did for the 40m 291 bandplan does anything stick out to you that might cause other problems with Log4OM scanning of spots, etc..??

.