Activators who use LOTW to confirm their QSOs need to make sure that they have correctly setup the park location in their LOTW account before uploading their log. Otherwise there is the potential that the hunter's logging software will "correct" the location for the POTA QSO to the home QTH of the activator.
I discovered this by accident when my Log4OM software automatically processed an LOTW confirmation file and changed the location of an already recorded POTA activation from NY to the activator's home QTH of VA. Further research found a total of about 30 POTA QSOs in my log that no longer showed the correct state for the worked park because of bad LOTW information.
If an activator doesn't want to go to the hassle of setting up the park location in LOTW (understandable!), it would be better to not use LOTW at all.
73,
Paul - N8XMS
LOTW confirmations of POTA activations
Re: LOTW confirmations of POTA activations
Paul,
Newly re-licensed this month last year, this is a question I've wondered about.
In 2024 I've made 150 POTA activations so far (and a few "mini-" activations: less than ten QSO's). Adding a LOTW location for each park seemed tedious. So I've defaulted to creating special "POTA" locations in my LOTW config, each consisting of the first four grid indicators (e.g., FM29) and the state (e.g., I've activated FM29 in NJ, PA, DE, and MD: so I have four separate entries for FM29 in my LOTW config). I leave the county blank because FM29 is a huge area and I almost never look up what county I'm operating in when visiting parks. Does this seem like a reasonable compromise? Do you advise otherwise?
And, to be clear, what is the perceived harm in a LOTW entry that gets "corrected" (really, corrupted) by someone else's client? Is it that their award claims might be skewed?
Thanks for speaking to this.
I'll note that you and I have a couple of QSL's in LOTW, including one just over a week ago when I made a rove to sweep up some parks in far North Jersey. Thanks!
73 de Todd W2TEF
Newly re-licensed this month last year, this is a question I've wondered about.
In 2024 I've made 150 POTA activations so far (and a few "mini-" activations: less than ten QSO's). Adding a LOTW location for each park seemed tedious. So I've defaulted to creating special "POTA" locations in my LOTW config, each consisting of the first four grid indicators (e.g., FM29) and the state (e.g., I've activated FM29 in NJ, PA, DE, and MD: so I have four separate entries for FM29 in my LOTW config). I leave the county blank because FM29 is a huge area and I almost never look up what county I'm operating in when visiting parks. Does this seem like a reasonable compromise? Do you advise otherwise?
And, to be clear, what is the perceived harm in a LOTW entry that gets "corrected" (really, corrupted) by someone else's client? Is it that their award claims might be skewed?
Thanks for speaking to this.
I'll note that you and I have a couple of QSL's in LOTW, including one just over a week ago when I made a rove to sweep up some parks in far North Jersey. Thanks!
73 de Todd W2TEF