Topics

assuming LoTW confirmations "count" for IOTA might not be a good idea


Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

DXKeeper 15.5.9 made its homework all right. But the results do not reflect the actual situation. See the attachement.

If a QSO is confirmed by LoTW , it means that it MIGHT be also confirmed for IOTA . There are a few factors to be taken into consideration.

Contacts with operations where the DXCC Entity in its entirety matches only one IOTA Group (e.g. EA6, ZD8, D6, etc.) will be allowed credit. There are about 100 such Entities, which of course are identified by their unique DXCC Entity Code regardless of the callsign. It is only in these cases that confirmed by LoTW equals to confirmed for IOTA .

Then there are thousands of other operations/callsigns that need to be processed by the IOTA Operations Manager, and added to the Accepted Activations listing. This exercise will take quite an amount of time over the next few months. That means that initially many matches will not be available for credit. In these cases confirmed by LoTW means hopefully confirmed for IOTA, sooner or later, but who knows if and when .

Finally there are those cases when the operators request a delay for QSO matching purposes: confirmed by LoTW means not confirmed for IOTA for the time being, maybe in the next few weeks/months, or maybe never .

Under such circumstances, I suspect that extending DXKeeper to consider QSOs confirmed via LoTW as confirmed for IOTA might be confusing or even mystifying and misleading.

73, and thank you for a great piece of software.

Valeria, IK1ADH


+ Thanks, Valeria! I'm taking the liberty of posting your response to the DXLab Group so I can solicit comments on the wisdom of considering LoTW confirmations as "counting" for IOTA.

+ Note to DXLab users: DXKeeper 15.5.9 has not yet been publicly released.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


BILL KENNAMER
 

Actually, it probably better to use Club Log for IOTA. They’re already doing it, they know what counts for what IOTA, and dates of operation. I don’t think that LOTW would have that information unless it was uploaded by the user.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 7:39 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:

+ AA6YQ comments below

DXKeeper 15.5.9 made its homework all right. But the results do not reflect the actual situation. See the attachement.

If a QSO is  confirmed by LoTW , it means that it  MIGHT be also confirmed for IOTA . There are a few factors to be taken into consideration.

Contacts with operations where the DXCC Entity in its entirety matches only one IOTA Group (e.g. EA6, ZD8, D6, etc.) will be allowed credit. There are about 100 such Entities, which of course are identified by their unique DXCC Entity Code regardless of the callsign. It is only in these cases that  confirmed by LoTW  equals to  confirmed for IOTA .

Then there are thousands of other operations/callsigns that need to be processed by the IOTA Operations Manager, and added to the Accepted Activations listing. This exercise will take quite an amount of time over the next few months. That means that initially many matches will not be available for credit. In these cases  confirmed by LoTW  means  hopefully confirmed for IOTA, sooner or later, but who knows if and when .

Finally there are those cases when the operators request a delay for QSO matching purposes:  confirmed by LoTW  means  not confirmed for IOTA for the time being, maybe in the next few weeks/months, or maybe never .

Under such circumstances, I suspect that extending DXKeeper to consider QSOs confirmed via LoTW as confirmed for IOTA might be confusing or even mystifying and misleading.

73, and thank you for a great piece of software.

Valeria, IK1ADH


+ Thanks, Valeria! I'm taking the liberty of posting your response to the DXLab Group so I can solicit comments on the wisdom of considering LoTW confirmations as "counting" for IOTA.

+ Note to DXLab users: DXKeeper 15.5.9 has not yet been publicly released.

          73,

              Dave, AA6YQ




Joe Subich, W4TV
 

On 2020-05-20 8:39 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:

+ Thanks, Valeria! I'm taking the liberty of posting your response to
the DXLab Group so I can solicit comments on the wisdom of
considering LoTW confirmations as "counting" for IOTA.
The case of stations that "request a delay for QSO matching purposes"
is no difference than potential DXCC "counters" that have not submitted
the necessary documentation.

Seems unnecessary to me for DXKeeper to *not* count LotW confirmations
where the IOTA reference is known - either by "unique" DXCC (e.g. DXCC
database) or the operator's entry in a callbook (e.g. QRZ).

If one submits an application and a QSQ is rejected, the user can always
set IOTAvfy=I.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2020-05-20 8:39 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below
DXKeeper 15.5.9 made its homework all right. But the results do not reflect the actual situation. See the attachement.
If a QSO is confirmed by LoTW , it means that it MIGHT be also confirmed for IOTA . There are a few factors to be taken into consideration.
Contacts with operations where the DXCC Entity in its entirety matches only one IOTA Group (e.g. EA6, ZD8, D6, etc.) will be allowed credit. There are about 100 such Entities, which of course are identified by their unique DXCC Entity Code regardless of the callsign. It is only in these cases that confirmed by LoTW equals to confirmed for IOTA .
Then there are thousands of other operations/callsigns that need to be processed by the IOTA Operations Manager, and added to the Accepted Activations listing. This exercise will take quite an amount of time over the next few months. That means that initially many matches will not be available for credit. In these cases confirmed by LoTW means hopefully confirmed for IOTA, sooner or later, but who knows if and when .
Finally there are those cases when the operators request a delay for QSO matching purposes: confirmed by LoTW means not confirmed for IOTA for the time being, maybe in the next few weeks/months, or maybe never .
Under such circumstances, I suspect that extending DXKeeper to consider QSOs confirmed via LoTW as confirmed for IOTA might be confusing or even mystifying and misleading.
73, and thank you for a great piece of software.
Valeria, IK1ADH
+ Thanks, Valeria! I'm taking the liberty of posting your response to the DXLab Group so I can solicit comments on the wisdom of considering LoTW confirmations as "counting" for IOTA.
+ Note to DXLab users: DXKeeper 15.5.9 has not yet been publicly released.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ


Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 06:27 PM, BILL KENNAMER wrote:

Actually, it probably better to use Club Log for IOTA. They’re already doing it, they know what counts for what IOTA, and dates of operation. I don’t think that LOTW would have that information unless it was uploaded by the user

+ LoTW has all the information that IOTA says it need to accept LoTW confirmations: callsign, mode, and band. See this IOTA document:

<https://www.iota-world.org/info/lotw_qso_matching-en.pdf>

       73,

              Dave, AA6YQ

 

 

 


g4wjs
 

On 21/05/2020 03:59, Dave AA6YQ wrote:

+ AA6YQ comments below

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 06:27 PM, BILL KENNAMER wrote:

Actually, it probably better to use Club Log for IOTA. They’re already doing it, they know what counts for what IOTA, and dates of operation. I don’t think that LOTW would have that information unless it was uploaded by the user

+ LoTW has all the information that IOTA says it need to accept LoTW confirmations: callsign, mode, and band. See this IOTA document:

<https://www.iota-world.org/info/lotw_qso_matching-en.pdf>

       73,

              Dave, AA6YQ

Hi Dave,

those requirements may be enough for IOTA to consider a QSL as a confirmation but I'm not sure just those attributes will be enough for an accepted IOTA confirmation. For example their requirements for paper cards are much stricter in that the IOTA reference must be printed on the original card, i.e. writing it on afterwards is not acceptable, the information must be provided by the DX station. See https://www.iota-world.org/islands-on-the-air/qsl-card-requirements.html . I would be surprised if LoTW matches would be acceptable without an IOTA reference from the DX station.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


--
73

Bill

G4WJS.


IK1ADH
 

Hello Dave,

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave AA6YQ
To: DXLab@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [DXLab] assuming LoTW confirmations "count" for IOTA might not
be a good idea


+ AA6YQ comments below
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 06:27 PM, BILL KENNAMER wrote:
Actually, it probably better to use Club Log for IOTA. They’re already doing
it, they know what counts for what IOTA, and dates of operation. I don’t
think that LOTW would have that information unless it was uploaded by the
user

+ LoTW has all the information that IOTA says it need to accept LoTW
confirmations: callsign, mode, and band. See this IOTA document:
https://www.iota-world.org/info/lotw_qso_matching-en.pdf

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.

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
mandatory.

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. '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". (Source: ARRL)

73

Valeria, IK1ADH




73,

Dave, AA6YQ


Carl - WC4H
 

Hi Bill.

Below is the last paragraph of the page dave sited.  Seems to indicate that they do accept "LoTW matched QSOs" and then credit them to your IOTA Award account.

"Once IOTA Management has accepted the LoTW matched QSOs and any others in your application that are supported by QSL cards, it will credit the QSOs to your IOTA Award account. It will also issue any awards or certificates for which you have applied and qualified. "

73.
Carl - WC4H


Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

those requirements may be enough for IOTA to consider a QSL as a confirmation but I'm not sure just those attributes will be enough for an accepted IOTA confirmation. For example their requirements for paper cards are much stricter in that the IOTA reference must be printed on the original card, i.e. writing it on afterwards is not acceptable, the information must be provided by the DX station. See https://www.iota-world.org/islands-on-the-air/qsl-card-requirements.html . I would be surprised if LoTW matches would be acceptable without an IOTA reference from the DX station.

+ DXLab's realtime award tracking for IOTA requires each QSO to specify an IOTA tag. The question is whether IOTA will require your QSO partner to have specified an IOTA tag in the "Station Location" used to submit your QSO.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


Dave AA6YQ
 

* 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:
https://www.iota-world.org/info/lotw_qso_matching-en.pdf

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
mandatory.

* 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.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


g4wjs
 

On 21/05/2020 21:18, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below

those requirements may be enough for IOTA to consider a QSL as a confirmation but I'm not sure just those attributes will be enough for an accepted IOTA confirmation. For example their requirements for paper cards are much stricter in that the IOTA reference must be printed on the original card, i.e. writing it on afterwards is not acceptable, the information must be provided by the DX station. Seehttps://www.iota-world.org/islands-on-the-air/qsl-card-requirements.html . I would be surprised if LoTW matches would be acceptable without an IOTA reference from the DX station.

+ DXLab's realtime award tracking for IOTA requires each QSO to specify an IOTA tag. The question is whether IOTA will require your QSO partner to have specified an IOTA tag in the "Station Location" used to submit your QSO.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ
Hi Dave,

that does seem to be unconfirmed so far but I'll bet that is exactly what they will require. They are very strict on that with paper QSLs and I doubt that will change. Is all too common for island stations not to include their IOTA reference on QSLs and I have no doubt many also do not include it in their LoTW Station Locations. A similar situation exists for a great deal of US stations who do not specify their grid square on QSLs which makes them invalid for European grid based awards, particularly for hard earned contacts on 6m.

73
bill
G4WJS.



--
73

Bill

G4WJS.


Dave AA6YQ
 

* more AA6YQ comments below

those requirements may be enough for IOTA to consider a QSL as a confirmation but I'm not sure just those attributes will be enough for an accepted IOTA confirmation. For example their requirements for paper cards are much stricter in that the IOTA reference must be printed on the original card, i.e. writing it on afterwards is not acceptable, the information must be provided by the DX station. Seehttps://www.iota-world.org/islands-on-the-air/qsl-card-requirements.html . I would be surprised if LoTW matches would be acceptable without an IOTA reference from the DX station.

+ DXLab's realtime award tracking for IOTA requires each QSO to specify an IOTA tag. The question is whether IOTA will require your QSO partner to have specified an IOTA tag in the "Station Location" used to submit your QSO.
that does seem to be unconfirmed so far but I'll bet that is exactly what they will require. They are very strict on that with paper QSLs and I doubt that will change. Is all too common for island stations not to include their IOTA reference on QSLs and I have no doubt many also do not include it in their LoTW Station Locations. A similar situation exists for a great deal of US stations who do not specify their grid square on QSLs which makes them invalid for European grid based awards, particularly for hard earned contacts on 6m.

* The good news is that it's relatively easy to send an email message to a QSO partner asking them to more fully (or accurately) populate a "Station Location" and resubmit your QSO to LoTW. I've had success with this on several occasions.

* The dark side of this capability is that a user can resubmit QSOs with a "Station Location" that contains inaccurate location information, depriving you of a grid or state confirmation that you previously possessed.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ