Re: assuming LoTW confirmations "count" for IOTA might not be a good idea
* AA6YQ comments below
+ LoTW has all the information that IOTA says it need to accept LoTW
confirmations: callsign, mode, and band. See this IOTA document:
I am afraid that is not the case.
The fields specified in the PDF document (callsign, band and mode) are
not mandatory, they simply allow the user to search for a specific
operation and/or for QSOs made on specific bands and/or modes.
The information IOTA needs to accept paperless QSLs for IOTA credit are:
DX callsign, island name, IOTA reference, date & time of the first QSO,
and date & time of the last QSO.
* All of which is highly likely to be included in the logged QSO.
Operations whose DXCC Entity in its entirety matches only one IOTA Group
(e.g. EA8, EA6, OY, ZD7, ZD8, D6, T33, VK9N, VK9L, HC8, P4, VP9, ZF and
many, many others) are not a problem, as they are identified by their
unique DXCC Entity Code.
When the DXCC Entity includes two or more IOTA Groups, investigations are
needed. This is what the IOTA Operations Manager is doing in order to
allow LoTW Matching for thousands of other activities. The island name is
* If "Island Name" is mandatory, IOTA will have to specify an ADIF field for that data item.
As for the use of LoTW, "ARRL Director of Operations Norm Fusaro, W3IZ,
points out that LoTW has, for years, allowed award sponsors access to a
utility that lets them verify contacts in LoTW.
* That's never been announced.
'The IOTA folks have
begun using this utility, but still check the QSOs against known IOTA
operations,' he explained, noting that applicants cannot apply for IOTA
awards through LoTW".
* If that was true, it would not be necessary for users to supply their LoTW username and password to IOTA - as the recent IOTA announcement states.
* IOTA's announcement has been a sequence of inconsistencies. Not quite a "goat rodeo", but getting there.