I agree with Pete about the LOTW problem. I look up the grid and counties and put them in my log, then when the confirmations come thru LOTW, they are usually shown as the operator’s home QTH.
This also happens a lot on the state QSO parties, a mobile will be
out giving QSOs in, for instance, Florida. When the confirmations
come in, they all show his home QTH. I also have noticed with SOTA contacts, a lot of the summits are on a county line, or you can’t exactly tell what county they are in, depending on what side of the hill the station is on. It’s all good, though.
Fully agree, totally crazy. A waste of time and energy.
I only eQSL in these days and I consider even that quite a waste of time and energy.
But I don’t have anymore a different account for each SOTA activation with its corresponding Locator. My eQSL account for SOTA activations has my home QTH locator and the eQSL picture doesn’t mention it but includes a text referring to the database and sotawatch to find out summit ref. and activation details.
BTW, I think I should update the URLs to the new ones…
73,
John operating as GX0OOO often makes a list. IIRC after a CQ or QRZ he will say “I heard G8xxx, M0xxx and GM3xxx, are there any more?” and after a few repeats he says “I have heard the following stations, I will work them in this order” and reads out the list. After working through the list he repeats the process until he has worked all callers.
The use of the ARRL’s LotW logging system is not a requirement of the SOTA award scheme. That is my point. Some operators may chose to use it in addition to the SOTA database. Others may chose to use one of the logging systems that were around long before LotW came on the scene. I understand the ARRL sometimes require the use of LotW to apply for their awards or to enter their contests.
None of that is a SOTA requirement however. If you need a logged contact with a particular state or DXCC entity and you have worked a SOTA activator there, then email him or her and ask if they use LotW and would be kind enough to log that contact into that ARRL system - most will obligue if they already have access to the system or can be bothered to jump through the required hoops to get access.
I have an account on LotW but never use it. If someone asked me however to enter a particular SOTA contact in there, so that they could claim an ARRL award, I would do so, in order to be helpful. However as noted above the requirement to set up a new location for every SOTA summit activated, will put a block in the way for many people.
A logging requirement does not belong in a code of conduct.
I enjoyed working Roy and it was always a pleasure to make contact but gosh I hated the off frequency technique! 9 times out of 10, I’d be using my MTR with audio specially tailored for CW, calling just a shade out of sync resulted in a raspy or no tone being received. I understand the theory, but personally I prefer clever timing rather than frequency shifting for getting through a pile up.
Blockquote
I think it is. If I have confirmed contacts with 49 states and only need State X for WAS, then a SOTA Activator from State X is on vacation in State Y and activates a summit in State Y. I make a contact with him/her in State Y but they use there home location when uploading to LOTW. Now I can apply for WAS while only working 49 States. Is this acceptable practice to the SOTA community? The MT should put out a statement to all SOTA Activators to use the location parameters for the Summit location activated, not their home location, if they are going to upload to LOTW. I have many erroneous LOTW confirmations all from SOTA Activators. We need to do better. Amateur Radio deserves better.
Jeff K6QCB
Although, for WAS (IIRC), if you are within a radius of 50 miles of your home QTH, it is considered your home QTH. So, if you’re working a peak within that radius, it should be ok to upload to LOTW as your home QTH.
Yes, but ARRL LoTW (I am a regular uploader with over 20 logbooks) relates to DXCC, WAS, WPX, CQ Awards and has nothing to do with SOTA or IOTA or COTA or whatever OTA we enjoy. So as long as I ensure the correct DXCC Country is identified and the call is marked /P then I am covered in LOTW hihi…
73 Phil G4OBK/P, OK8CDX/P, VK2/G4OBK/P, DL/G4OBK/P etc
ED
I had written a long response to your and other posts but before posting it I decided it was best not to. I will say this though. You are the only one who used the word requirement. We should do it right or not at all. We can help those who want to do it right but don’t know they are doing it wrong by information. Those that don’t care and can’t be bothered because it is inconvenient can’t be help. We will have to deal with the problems they cause. All that I am asking is to get the word out to as many as possible where the biggest problem exists, here. Maybe a post explaining how LOTW works pinned to the top the the reflector for an extended period of time will help. Whether it is in the purview of SOTA or not it is in the purview of Amateur Radio without which there would be no SOTA. I don’t know what else I can do, but I’ve tried because I care about Amateur Radio.
I have bit different take on callers and some have pointed it out already. If everyone only called once, at the same time, I wouldn’t be able to pull out a full call. As an activator, I figure I’m in charge, so I take charge. I call the first chaser whose full call I can copy, and work them, whether its the first or second time they call. If there is QRM I call that station until I complete the QSO, without exception. The pile-up usually catches on to what is going on and fall into line. The only time I can’t work a station with a full call is when everyone calls just once, at the same time and I can only catch a single letter. Often, when that happens, it’s the second call that gets in the log. There is a professional way, if you will, to call the second time and it be entirely appropriate in my opinion. A well timed second call, i.e., the pile has called and the operator hasn’t answered, is not continuous calling in my opinion, it’s good operating and actually speeds along the pile-up. If there isn’t a second call I’m forced to send a ? and then everyone repeats the same behavior, they call once and I don’t get a call which necessitates another ? and so on. It happens on every activation.
The other piece of this, and it’s the responsibility of the activator, is to be able to immediately go back to the first full call you hear. If you take a bit of time to decode the call, log it first, etc… the pileup thinks you haven’t heard anyone and so they call again. I try to answer the calling station as soon as their finger is off the key. I can finish logging them when they send me their report.
There are a couple of things that are bothersome to me, the first is when someone calls who really can’t hear me and calls randomly, often on top of a station I’m working and the second thing is those calling who really can’t copy CW and I mean, not even their own call. I have noticed lately that two stations are working me at the same time when I only called one. So someone doesn’t even recognize their call when it’s sent. This is happening more and more frequently.
All this said SOTA pile-ups are relatively well behaved in my opinion.
HNY to the SOTA Community and may there be many more pile-ups to manage:-)
Hi Jeff, I’m not a member of the MT and can’t speak for SOTA (or even LOTW). However I do write and audit policies and procedures for a living. My advice would be to avoid duplication of such procedures across multiple (unconnected) sites. LOTW own and are responsible for their own procedures and should be regarded as the definitive source of advice. Any other organisations should simply refer their users to LOTW for advice on how to use LOTW (if they wish). That way we avoid potentially conflicting advice, when procedures are updated.
Best wishes,
The Perl script worked for me at least once on Windows 10 WSL (Ubuntu), but is not the most intuitive program to use. No internationalization support for this one and I have not followed the ADIF development recently. The TQSL application seems to take county too now. The station location is part of the electronic log signing procedure and you need to check this information carefully before submitting the signed log file. Here is my info for the geeks (if any).
The nature of SOTA encourages Hams to go out and operate portable away from their home stations. This has created the circumstance and opportunity for the improper use of LOTW by not using the location of the portable operation. When remote stations came about there was a lot of talk about their proper use. I think we all agree that it is not good practice to be in California and operate a remote station in New York claiming you are in California. It is the same to operate portable and claim you are at home in LOTW. Since the nature of SOTA creates the opportunity for this practice we should be responsible Amateur Radio Operators and promote good practices by educating our fellow Hams. It is always easier to say it is someone else’s responsibility but we should do what is right not what is easy. We can do this not by requirement or by discouraging the use of LOTW but by pointing out that LOTW requires station locations to be properly identified and referring them to the LOTW website for more information. I don’t know why there is more concern for someone giving their call sign twice but not about claiming they are in AZ when they are in CA (as an example) in LOTW. We are either for good Amateur Radio Practices or not.
Well, Jeff, as I see it you have taken the correct step in drawing the SOTA communities attention to this problem. It is difficult to see what action the MT can or should do, but you could also draw it to the attention of the Facebook groups and NASOTA. Beyond that, proper policing of the use of LOTW is the responsibility of those running it and it is up to them to make sure that their users are aware of this opportunity for mis-use, and take steps to enforce their rules.
