Re: ADIF import for Rovers


Joe Subich, W4TV
 

+ When running the USACA progress report, QSOs with independent cities would be reported as errors, enabling the user to change each of them to an adjacent county.
All instances of a given independent city would need to be changed
at the same time. USCA rules only allow a one time selection for
each independent city (one can not use multiple QSOs for different
adjacent counties).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-03-18 1:26 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below
Yes, it is best that N1MM+ export *ALL DATA* in ADIF standard format rather than APP_N1MM_EXCHANGE# as it does presently. Unfortunately, with State QSO Parties one has the additional complexity of handling exchanges that are, themselves, not ADIF compliant - specifically "independent cities" in Virginia, Maryland, and Nevada which are not included in the ADIF enumerated counties.
+ The USACA award rules for independent cities state that they "count" for adjacent counties. One way to handle this would be to add the independent city names to the County selectors for Virginia, Maryland, and Nevada.
+ When running the USACA progress report, QSOs with independent cities would be reported as errors, enabling the user to change each of them to an adjacent county.
+ When exporting an ADIF or tab-delimited file, a QSO whose County item specifies an independent city would not include a CNTY field in its exported ADIF record, as required for ADIF compliance.
+ Better ideas?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ

Join DXLab@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.