locked QSO sequence #QSO_practices


chas cartmel
 

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie

G4EST

www.g4est.me.uk

Stay safe out there

 


This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com


Sam Birnbaum
 

Some ops disable tx1.

73,

Sam W2JDB


On Thursday, September 30, 2021, 05:50:23 AM EDT, chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:


Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie

G4EST

www.g4est.me.uk

Stay safe out there

 


This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com




Tom Melvin
 

Afternoon

Personally hate the idea - mind you I do collect squares - the supplied ‘procedure’ works well and for the sake of a period is it worth it.

Tom
GM8MJV

On 30 Sep 2021, at 10:46, chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie
G4EST
Stay safe out there

 


This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com





Bill Somerville
 

Tom,

if you take that view then you will miss out on any QSOs with stations who are using non-standard callsigns. In general grid squares are only exchanged for aerial pointing assistance or if required as part of a contest exchange. Unless required by the exchange format the information can normally be readily obtained post QSO if you need it, and for awards, in most cases, it would need to be confirmed on a QSL anyway.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 30/09/2021 14:26, Tom Melvin wrote:
Afternoon

Personally hate the idea - mind you I do collect squares - the supplied ‘procedure’ works well and for the sake of a period is it worth it.

Tom
GM8MJV

On 30 Sep 2021, at 10:46, chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie
G4EST



WB5JJJ - George
 

Disabling Tx1 should not be an option on 6m and above where grid squares are wanted/needed for a many of those of us that are chasing FFMA and other awards that require them "up there".  So at least, don't allow the disable of Tx1 or starting with Tx2 at all on 6m and up.  I try really hard to not automatically answer any calls that don't use Tx1 on 6m PERIOD.  It would be fitting as I can always hope, that my state is their last holdout for WAS on 6m.  If you are just after faster contact counts, use FT4 and Tx1.  Everybody will be much happier.  

I know that some will disagree with me on this, but that's fine.  

--
73's
George - WB5JJJ
Hamshack Holine #4969


 

Personally I would rather see the gridsquare, but not fussed if I don’t. eQSL.cc or LotW normally provide it soon enough and failing those a quick look up on QRZ.com.

 

73 Phil GM3ZZA

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Bill Somerville
Sent: 30 September 2021 15:04
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices

 

Tom,

 

if you take that view then you will miss out on any QSOs with stations who are using non-standard callsigns. In general grid squares are only exchanged for aerial pointing assistance or if required as part of a contest exchange. Unless required by the exchange format the information can normally be readily obtained post QSO if you need it, and for awards, in most cases, it would need to be confirmed on a QSL anyway.

 

73
Bill
G4WJS.

 

On 30/09/2021 14:26, Tom Melvin wrote:

Afternoon

 

Personally hate the idea - mind you I do collect squares - the supplied ‘procedure’ works well and for the sake of a period is it worth it.

 

Tom

GM8MJV



On 30 Sep 2021, at 10:46, chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

 

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie

G4EST

 

 


--
73 Phil GM3ZZA


chas cartmel
 

I agree, the sender does not know if the ‘CQer’ collects squares so leaving this data out could be an issue. Bad practice in my opinion anyway.
I log the data anyway as you never know if the ‘collecting squares’ bug might bite so can get off to a flying start.




73 Charlie

G4EST

www.g4est.me.uk

Stay safe out there

 

 

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tom Melvin
Sent: 30 September 2021 14:26
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices

 

Afternoon

 

Personally hate the idea - mind you I do collect squares - the supplied ‘procedure’ works well and for the sake of a period is it worth it.

 

Tom

GM8MJV



On 30 Sep 2021, at 10:46, chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

 

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie

G4EST

Stay safe out there

 

 

This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.

For more info visit www.bullguard.com



 


This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com


Jeff Townsend
 

And if the person is operating from somewhere other than home the grid becomes a lot more important.

On Sep 30, 2021, at 10:10 AM, chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

I agree, the sender does not know if the ‘CQer’ collects squares so leaving this data out could be an issue. Bad practice in my opinion anyway.
I log the data anyway as you never know if the ‘collecting squares’ bug might bite so can get off to a flying start.



73 Charlie
G4EST
Stay safe out there
 
 
 
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tom Melvin
Sent: 30 September 2021 14:26
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices
 
Afternoon
 
Personally hate the idea - mind you I do collect squares - the supplied ‘procedure’ works well and for the sake of a period is it worth it.
 
Tom
GM8MJV


On 30 Sep 2021, at 10:46, chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:
 
<image001.gif>
Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?
 
73 Charlie
G4EST
Stay safe out there
 
 
This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com



 

This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com




Jeff Townsend
WB8LYJ





Andy GD0TEP
 

 

 

All well and good throwing a report at you (and this is where arguments start) he sends you a report, so you acknowledge that and send one back.. he should then (in my book) acknowledge that h got it with a RRR or RR73

 

I’ve no wish to resurrect what would appear to be a dead horse.. But if I’m calling CQ and you come back to it with a report, at last follow it up with an RRR to complete.

 

73

Andy

http://gd0tep.com

 

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of chas cartmel
Sent: 30 September 2021 09:47
To: WSJTX@groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices

 

 

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie

G4EST

www.g4est.me.uk

Stay safe out there

 

 

This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.

For more info visit www.bullguard.com


Jim Brown
 

On 9/30/2021 9:31 AM, Jeff Townsend wrote:
And if the person is operating from somewhere other than home the grid becomes a lot more important.
When 6M opens to JA, virtually all JA stations call with signal report, so that more QSOs can be made during the opening. I learn their grid from LOTW. At first, many omitted their grid from LOTW, but after a few seasons, nearly all include it.

There's been a Russian operating /MM in the Pacific CQing with no grid. I've worked him several times in pursuit of rare CQ Fields, and his grid is in LOTW a few days later.

73, Jim K9YC


Paul Turner
 

And some rare stations ask on their QRZ page for callers to NOT include their grid so they can work as many as possible. Openings on the VHF bands can be fleeting. Plenty of time when the band is closed to find out grid squares if required.

73, Paul G4IJE.

-----Original Message-----
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jim
Brown
Sent: 30 September 2021 19:29
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices

On 9/30/2021 9:31 AM, Jeff Townsend wrote:
And if the person is operating from somewhere other than home the grid
becomes a lot more important.
When 6M opens to JA, virtually all JA stations call with signal report, so that
more QSOs can be made during the opening. I learn their grid from LOTW. At
first, many omitted their grid from LOTW, but after a few seasons, nearly all
include it.

There's been a Russian operating /MM in the Pacific CQing with no grid.
I've worked him several times in pursuit of rare CQ Fields, and his grid is in
LOTW a few days later.

73, Jim K9YC


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Jim Brown
 

On 9/30/2021 11:59 AM, Paul Turner wrote:
Openings on the VHF bands can be fleeting. Plenty of time when the band is closed to find out grid squares if required.
YES! Also on 10M and 160M.

73, Jim


Bob Abernethy
 

My experience has been DX stations on the receiving end of a pile up prefer it.

BA

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 2:50 AM chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie

G4EST

www.g4est.me.uk

Stay safe out there

 


This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com




Tom Melvin
 

Thanks for comments Bill

I will stick with the comments of 6m and up should send grid.

The other issue not seen is contests - the phrase ‘ all data must be transmitted on air’ - looking up QRZ does not really count :-)  QRZ is often wrong - I adjudicate some VHF FT8 contests and the number of points lost due to missing/wrong locators is rather high.

And; you should not substantially alter the contest log prior to submission - editing a pile of locators hmmm

Anyhow, there are circumstances Special Event calls, JA’s and those that want to save a period - so it’s up to individuals - personally I don’t like it. However there is damm all I can do about it, developers are not going to alter software at this stage of the game.

It just need to make education high on the list pointing out, for some people receiving no grid can be a PITA.

Have fun on the bands and enjoy

Tom
GM8MJV


On 30 Sep 2021, at 20:12, Bob Abernethy <winston.rothschild@...> wrote:

My experience has been DX stations on the receiving end of a pile up prefer it.

BA

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 2:50 AM chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:
Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie
G4EST
Stay safe out there

 


This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com








Bill Somerville
 

Tom,

it seems to me that you thanked me for my comments then completely ignored what I stated! A couple of points to clarify what I stated:

1) non-standard calls cannot send Tx6 or Tx2 messages containing a grid square - the protocol has no room for that information.

2) the supported contest modes that require exchange of grid squares or locators on air do that for all participants (with the caveat that non-standard calls other than standard calls signing /P or /R cannot participate).

I will add that the facility to reply to a CQ call with a Tx2 message along with the facility to replace an RRR response with an RR73 response were both added with some reluctance due to the huge number of stations doing exactly that on the HF bands by modifying the messages sent manually.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 01/10/2021 08:15, Tom Melvin wrote:
Thanks for comments Bill

I will stick with the comments of 6m and up should send grid.

The other issue not seen is contests - the phrase ‘ all data must be transmitted on air’ - looking up QRZ does not really count :-)  QRZ is often wrong - I adjudicate some VHF FT8 contests and the number of points lost due to missing/wrong locators is rather high.

And; you should not substantially alter the contest log prior to submission - editing a pile of locators hmmm

Anyhow, there are circumstances Special Event calls, JA’s and those that want to save a period - so it’s up to individuals - personally I don’t like it. However there is damm all I can do about it, developers are not going to alter software at this stage of the game.

It just need to make education high on the list pointing out, for some people receiving no grid can be a PITA.

Have fun on the bands and enjoy

Tom
GM8MJV


On 30 Sep 2021, at 20:12, Bob Abernethy <winston.rothschild@...> wrote:

My experience has been DX stations on the receiving end of a pile up prefer it.

BA

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 2:50 AM chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:
Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie
G4EST



Ralf Schlatterbeck
 

On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:06:35AM +0100, Bill Somerville wrote:
Tom,

it seems to me that you thanked me for my comments then completely ignored
what I stated! A couple of points to clarify what I stated:

1) non-standard calls cannot send Tx6 or Tx2 messages containing a grid
square - the protocol has no room for that information.
Sorry for chiming into the middle of this, but wouldn't it be possible
for the non-standard call to send an EU-VHF message (i3=5) with two
hashes for the callsigns and a locator with length 6 (and probably
sequence number s11=0)? That would be especially interesting for /MM
stations etc.
To my knowledge the current sequencing would not allow to send this, but
would it constitute a protocol violation? E.g. when sent at the end of
the call?

Especially in Europe, where operating under your own callsign with the
country prefix (I've worked e.g. as DL/OE3RSU and 9A/OE3RSU) is very
common it would also be nice to occasionally (not in every QSO) send
your own locator to let people know where in the country you're
operating.

Ralf OE3RSU
--
Dr. Ralf Schlatterbeck Tel: +43/2243/26465-16
Open Source Consulting www: www.runtux.com
Reichergasse 131, A-3411 Weidling email: office@runtux.com


Tom Melvin
 

Hi Bill

No sorry never ignored your comments - definitely not on purpose  would I.

Yes I know there are issues with Special event calls, did mention that - impossible to send grid in CQ and needs to be freehand.

Contest mode - there was an issue a while back where the reports were changing willie nilly - and logging would take the previous details (think if you switched QSO partners mid QSO) - yes I know both of those have now been fixed.  However, there were so many problems with report issues (this was also the time where the were some Looong gaps between versions). The RSGB activity contest (6m and up) suggested users don’t use Contest Mode - normal mode worked a lot better, some Eu contests then followed suit. This was to avoid the string of complaints - it was the 1st few contests - things have stabilised and quite a bit of UK and Eu activity on these contests.

There is nothing now (as far as I can tell) from reverting back to using Eu contest mode - is that nag message still there ‘you should be in contest mode’?. Except users have got in the habit of using Normal Mode. Add in, on 6m in particular all it takes is a nice Es opening to coincide with a contest and all goes to pot - yes it has happening - people prefer to work the DX than contest stations - contest mode gets switched off to stop the nag message (it was there at the time).

I would take a guess it will take a while (at least a year?)  to get the - is there such a thing as average user - don't want to upset anyone - but getting someone to read the docs (even read contest rules!!) can be - shall we say be problematic.  Change now a long term process. 

The only way I can see this changing is to make contest mode ’transparent’ to the user - if someone calling CQ TEST then the remote system responds with grid/serial number without any action being taken, someone with a vanilla CQ is answered by contest station - full grid and pseudo number sent without originator doing anything. This all assumes a) there is interest, b) a spare bit exists to be used and c)  Someone willing to code it as I doubt in roadmap.

I do see where HF station want to save time - they want to break the 10K FT8 QSO Count! - some DX may want to give as many stations as possible that Prefix.  On the other side there is 6m (even 10m station to open up) and up where quantity is not the driver.

So sorry again if you thought I was ignoring your comments - I wasn’t - you and the others do a good job.

Regards

Tom
GM8MJV



On 1 Oct 2021, at 11:06, Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:

Tom,

it seems to me that you thanked me for my comments then completely ignored what I stated! A couple of points to clarify what I stated:

1) non-standard calls cannot send Tx6 or Tx2 messages containing a grid square - the protocol has no room for that information.

2) the supported contest modes that require exchange of grid squares or locators on air do that for all participants (with the caveat that non-standard calls other than standard calls signing /P or /R cannot participate).

I will add that the facility to reply to a CQ call with a Tx2 message along with the facility to replace an RRR response with an RR73 response were both added with some reluctance due to the huge number of stations doing exactly that on the HF bands by modifying the messages sent manually.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 01/10/2021 08:15, Tom Melvin wrote:
Thanks for comments Bill

I will stick with the comments of 6m and up should send grid.

The other issue not seen is contests - the phrase ‘ all data must be transmitted on air’ - looking up QRZ does not really count :-)  QRZ is often wrong - I adjudicate some VHF FT8 contests and the number of points lost due to missing/wrong locators is rather high.

And; you should not substantially alter the contest log prior to submission - editing a pile of locators hmmm

Anyhow, there are circumstances Special Event calls, JA’s and those that want to save a period - so it’s up to individuals - personally I don’t like it. However there is damm all I can do about it, developers are not going to alter software at this stage of the game.

It just need to make education high on the list pointing out, for some people receiving no grid can be a PITA.

Have fun on the bands and enjoy

Tom
GM8MJV


On 30 Sep 2021, at 20:12, Bob Abernethy <winston.rothschild@...> wrote:

My experience has been DX stations on the receiving end of a pile up prefer it.

BA

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 2:50 AM chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:
Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?
 
73 Charlie
G4EST







chas cartmel
 

I opened a can of worms what I posted this issue a few days back.

It seems that the developers ignoring the protocol in the official documentation succumbed to pressure from the users to allow the disabling of the TX1 response. Also a slight to the protocol designers who were basically told you got it wrong.

Can I therefore ask that a corresponding action be taken to disable the auto sequencing response to replies to CQ calls where the grid square if not included (TX1)?
Seems only fair.


73 Charlie

G4EST

www.g4est.me.uk

Stay safe out there

 




 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tom Melvin
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:04
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices

 

Hi Bill

 

No sorry never ignored your comments - definitely not on purpose  would I.

 

Yes I know there are issues with Special event calls, did mention that - impossible to send grid in CQ and needs to be freehand.

 

Contest mode - there was an issue a while back where the reports were changing willie nilly - and logging would take the previous details (think if you switched QSO partners mid QSO) - yes I know both of those have now been fixed.  However, there were so many problems with report issues (this was also the time where the were some Looong gaps between versions). The RSGB activity contest (6m and up) suggested users don’t use Contest Mode - normal mode worked a lot better, some Eu contests then followed suit. This was to avoid the string of complaints - it was the 1st few contests - things have stabilised and quite a bit of UK and Eu activity on these contests.

 

There is nothing now (as far as I can tell) from reverting back to using Eu contest mode - is that nag message still there ‘you should be in contest mode’?. Except users have got in the habit of using Normal Mode. Add in, on 6m in particular all it takes is a nice Es opening to coincide with a contest and all goes to pot - yes it has happening - people prefer to work the DX than contest stations - contest mode gets switched off to stop the nag message (it was there at the time).

 

I would take a guess it will take a while (at least a year?)  to get the - is there such a thing as average user - don't want to upset anyone - but getting someone to read the docs (even read contest rules!!) can be - shall we say be problematic.  Change now a long term process. 

 

The only way I can see this changing is to make contest mode ’transparent’ to the user - if someone calling CQ TEST then the remote system responds with grid/serial number without any action being taken, someone with a vanilla CQ is answered by contest station - full grid and pseudo number sent without originator doing anything. This all assumes a) there is interest, b) a spare bit exists to be used and c)  Someone willing to code it as I doubt in roadmap.

 

I do see where HF station want to save time - they want to break the 10K FT8 QSO Count! - some DX may want to give as many stations as possible that Prefix.  On the other side there is 6m (even 10m station to open up) and up where quantity is not the driver.

 

So sorry again if you thought I was ignoring your comments - I wasn’t - you and the others do a good job.

 

Regards

 

Tom

GM8MJV

 

 



On 1 Oct 2021, at 11:06, Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:

 

Tom,

 

it seems to me that you thanked me for my comments then completely ignored what I stated! A couple of points to clarify what I stated:

 

1) non-standard calls cannot send Tx6 or Tx2 messages containing a grid square - the protocol has no room for that information.

 

2) the supported contest modes that require exchange of grid squares or locators on air do that for all participants (with the caveat that non-standard calls other than standard calls signing /P or /R cannot participate).

 

I will add that the facility to reply to a CQ call with a Tx2 message along with the facility to replace an RRR response with an RR73 response were both added with some reluctance due to the huge number of stations doing exactly that on the HF bands by modifying the messages sent manually.

 

73
Bill
G4WJS.

 

On 01/10/2021 08:15, Tom Melvin wrote:

Thanks for comments Bill

 

I will stick with the comments of 6m and up should send grid.

 

The other issue not seen is contests - the phrase ‘ all data must be transmitted on air’ - looking up QRZ does not really count :-)  QRZ is often wrong - I adjudicate some VHF FT8 contests and the number of points lost due to missing/wrong locators is rather high.

 

And; you should not substantially alter the contest log prior to submission - editing a pile of locators hmmm

 

Anyhow, there are circumstances Special Event calls, JA’s and those that want to save a period - so it’s up to individuals - personally I don’t like it. However there is damm all I can do about it, developers are not going to alter software at this stage of the game.

 

It just need to make education high on the list pointing out, for some people receiving no grid can be a PITA.

 

Have fun on the bands and enjoy

 

Tom

GM8MJV

 



On 30 Sep 2021, at 20:12, Bob Abernethy <winston.rothschild@...> wrote:

 

My experience has been DX stations on the receiving end of a pile up prefer it.

 

BA

 

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 2:50 AM chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie

G4EST

 



 


This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com


Bill Somerville
 

Charlie,

you are confusing the message protocols and the order of messages exchanged in QSOs, they are very different things. No changes were needed to the protocols to enable the application to automatically select the Tx2 message when replying to a CQ call, nor to select an RR73 grid square message when replying to an R+report message or equivalent.

Why do you take the view that a reply to a CQ call without a grid square should be ignored by the software? A lot of work was put into the current 77-bit payload protocols to support non-standard calls, why do you think that is of no value to you? I should point out that often the most desirable QSO partners may have non-standard calls.

Your proposal is not fair, in fact it is grossly unfair to those users who have to use non-standard callsigns!

If operators reply to your CQ calls with no grid (enforced or otherwise), then please understand that is their choice. You can choose to ignore them and work a different station, but the software itself is not going to support automation of such censorship.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 01/10/2021 13:40, chas cartmel wrote:

I opened a can of worms what I posted this issue a few days back.

It seems that the developers ignoring the protocol in the official documentation succumbed to pressure from the users to allow the disabling of the TX1 response. Also a slight to the protocol designers who were basically told you got it wrong.

Can I therefore ask that a corresponding action be taken to disable the auto sequencing response to replies to CQ calls where the grid square if not included (TX1)?
Seems only fair.


73 Charlie

G4EST

www.g4est.me.uk

Stay safe out there

 




 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tom Melvin
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:04
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices

 

Hi Bill

 

No sorry never ignored your comments - definitely not on purpose  would I.

 

Yes I know there are issues with Special event calls, did mention that - impossible to send grid in CQ and needs to be freehand.

 

Contest mode - there was an issue a while back where the reports were changing willie nilly - and logging would take the previous details (think if you switched QSO partners mid QSO) - yes I know both of those have now been fixed.  However, there were so many problems with report issues (this was also the time where the were some Looong gaps between versions). The RSGB activity contest (6m and up) suggested users don’t use Contest Mode - normal mode worked a lot better, some Eu contests then followed suit. This was to avoid the string of complaints - it was the 1st few contests - things have stabilised and quite a bit of UK and Eu activity on these contests.

 

There is nothing now (as far as I can tell) from reverting back to using Eu contest mode - is that nag message still there ‘you should be in contest mode’?. Except users have got in the habit of using Normal Mode. Add in, on 6m in particular all it takes is a nice Es opening to coincide with a contest and all goes to pot - yes it has happening - people prefer to work the DX than contest stations - contest mode gets switched off to stop the nag message (it was there at the time).

 

I would take a guess it will take a while (at least a year?)  to get the - is there such a thing as average user - don't want to upset anyone - but getting someone to read the docs (even read contest rules!!) can be - shall we say be problematic.  Change now a long term process. 

 

The only way I can see this changing is to make contest mode ’transparent’ to the user - if someone calling CQ TEST then the remote system responds with grid/serial number without any action being taken, someone with a vanilla CQ is answered by contest station - full grid and pseudo number sent without originator doing anything. This all assumes a) there is interest, b) a spare bit exists to be used and c)  Someone willing to code it as I doubt in roadmap.

 

I do see where HF station want to save time - they want to break the 10K FT8 QSO Count! - some DX may want to give as many stations as possible that Prefix.  On the other side there is 6m (even 10m station to open up) and up where quantity is not the driver.

 

So sorry again if you thought I was ignoring your comments - I wasn’t - you and the others do a good job.

 

Regards

 

Tom

GM8MJV

 

 



On 1 Oct 2021, at 11:06, Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:

 

Tom,

 

it seems to me that you thanked me for my comments then completely ignored what I stated! A couple of points to clarify what I stated:

 

1) non-standard calls cannot send Tx6 or Tx2 messages containing a grid square - the protocol has no room for that information.

 

2) the supported contest modes that require exchange of grid squares or locators on air do that for all participants (with the caveat that non-standard calls other than standard calls signing /P or /R cannot participate).

 

I will add that the facility to reply to a CQ call with a Tx2 message along with the facility to replace an RRR response with an RR73 response were both added with some reluctance due to the huge number of stations doing exactly that on the HF bands by modifying the messages sent manually.

 

73
Bill
G4WJS.

 

On 01/10/2021 08:15, Tom Melvin wrote:

Thanks for comments Bill

 

I will stick with the comments of 6m and up should send grid.

 

The other issue not seen is contests - the phrase ‘ all data must be transmitted on air’ - looking up QRZ does not really count :-)  QRZ is often wrong - I adjudicate some VHF FT8 contests and the number of points lost due to missing/wrong locators is rather high.

 

And; you should not substantially alter the contest log prior to submission - editing a pile of locators hmmm

 

Anyhow, there are circumstances Special Event calls, JA’s and those that want to save a period - so it’s up to individuals - personally I don’t like it. However there is damm all I can do about it, developers are not going to alter software at this stage of the game.

 

It just need to make education high on the list pointing out, for some people receiving no grid can be a PITA.

 

Have fun on the bands and enjoy

 

Tom

GM8MJV

 



On 30 Sep 2021, at 20:12, Bob Abernethy <winston.rothschild@...> wrote:

 

My experience has been DX stations on the receiving end of a pile up prefer it.

 

BA

 

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 2:50 AM chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J

Thoughts?

 

73 Charlie

G4EST



Bill Somerville
 

On 01/10/2021 12:02, Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:06:35AM +0100, Bill Somerville wrote:
Tom,

it seems to me that you thanked me for my comments then completely ignored
what I stated! A couple of points to clarify what I stated:

1) non-standard calls cannot send Tx6 or Tx2 messages containing a grid
square - the protocol has no room for that information.
Sorry for chiming into the middle of this, but wouldn't it be possible
for the non-standard call to send an EU-VHF message (i3=5) with two
hashes for the callsigns and a locator with length 6 (and probably
sequence number s11=0)? That would be especially interesting for /MM
stations etc.
To my knowledge the current sequencing would not allow to send this, but
would it constitute a protocol violation? E.g. when sent at the end of
the call?

Especially in Europe, where operating under your own callsign with the
country prefix (I've worked e.g. as DL/OE3RSU and 9A/OE3RSU) is very
common it would also be nice to occasionally (not in every QSO) send
your own locator to let people know where in the country you're
operating.

Ralf OE3RSU

Hi Ralph,

there is nothing stopping you from entering a message like the following into the Tx5 field:

<G4WJS> <DL/OE3RSU> 590000 JN75mm

It will be transmitted, and if the receiving station has previously copied both callsigns un-hashed, then it will be received exactly as entered.

As to what the receiver will think the 590000 part means is probably debatable, but at least it achieves your intent of relaying your location information with grid locator accuracy.

73
Bill
G4WJS.