开云体育

The ARRL's WAC award does not treat Antarctica as a continent:



Are there other awards that do?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

At 06:45 PM 1/22/2006, Dave Bernstein wrote:

The ARRL's WAC award does not treat Antarctica as a continent:



Are there other awards that do?

IOTA for one.


--
Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, <jjreisert@...>,

True, though since it has a dedicated tag the IOTA award does not
depend on having Antarctica in the CONT enumeration.

I note that LotW's CONFIG.XML does include AN in its CONT
enumeration.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In adifdev@..., Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@a...>
wrote:

At 06:45 PM 1/22/2006, Dave Bernstein wrote:

The ARRL's WAC award does not treat Antarctica as a continent:



Are there other awards that do?

IOTA for one.


--
Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, <jjreisert@a...>,

Dave Bernstein wrote:

The ARRL's WAC award does not treat Antarctica as a continent:

Are there other awards that do?

It is used in the IARU HF World Championships contest.

-- Jon

CQWW and WAE use different country lists than DXCC yet we use the
DXCC country list in ADIF. I believe DXCC predates CQWW and WAE. WAC
probably predates IARU contests (WAC actually sponsored by IARU as I
recall). I suppose one rationale for the enumerated values could
be "seniority".

73, Larry W6NWS

The DXCC list, both the printed one and the ones at <>, designates two entities as being in "AN": 13 (Antarctica) & 199 (Peter I).

It would be interesting to know exactly how contacts with those two entities are counted (or not) under the WAC rules.

73,
Mike K1MK

At 06:45 PM 1/22/06, Dave Bernstein wrote:

The ARRL's WAC award does not treat Antarctica as a continent:



Are there other awards that do?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In adifdev@..., "lx1no" <lx1no@y...> wrote:

Hi,

How about adding AN to the enum list for tag CONT?



73 Norby

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...

But there's more to life than awards - so for completeness why not offer it as an option? The Logwin countries file correctly lists some countries as being in Antartica.

Simon Brown
---

If someone does not consider Antarctica as a seperate continent, just
enter "antarctica continent" into google and start reading

There's no valid reason to ignore this.


ARRL does treat it as a continent Have a look at
contests/results/10-meter-contest-records-dx.html, for example, or
.

There are plently of examples. So, please, add it to the enum list.

73 Norby

lx1no wrote:

There are plently of examples. So, please, add it to the enum list.

I agree with Norby. As long as Antartica is treated as a continental value somewhere -- and it is -- it should be included in the enumeration. The fact that a particular award takes no notice of it is of no importance to this discussion.

If you want a reference:


-- Jon

I would support this.

Are you suggesting this addition for 2.1.8, or are you suggesting that
I add it to 2.1.7? If the latter, I think we'd need to extend the
2.1.7 acceptance poll, as this change is more than simply correcting a
factual error.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In adifdev@..., "lx1no" <lx1no@y...> wrote:

If someone does not consider Antarctica as a seperate continent,

just

enter "antarctica continent" into google and start reading

There's no valid reason to ignore this.


ARRL does treat it as a continent Have a look at
contests/results/10-meter-contest-records-dx.html, for example, or
.

There are plently of examples. So, please, add it to the enum list.

73 Norby

At 04:05 AM 1/23/06, you wrote:

If someone does not consider Antarctica as a seperate continent, just
enter "antarctica continent" into google and start reading

The nice thing about standards are so many to choose from. :-(

I hesitate not over the validity of Antarctica as a distinct continental area. There are the geographer's definitions of the continents (and multiple ones of those) and there's also the Antarctic Treaty in the case of AN. More relevant in an amateur radio context is that there appears to be an IARU (WAC) definition, an ARRL contest definition (if it is really different from the IARU definition), a CQWW contest definition and an IOTA definition (although as Dave said, IOTA already has it's own field).

The concern is with multiple, conflicting definitions for which locales constitute which continent, not just the "Antarctic continent," an importing application needs to know which set of continental boundaries were used it the assignment of CONT.

The current situation is not ideal; the definition for CONT doesn't specify the set of boundaries to which the value of the field refers. However, there is an implication with six continental areas in the enumeration, that it is the continental boundaries as they are defined in the WAC rules that are to be used in assigning the value of CONT. Adding AN to the enumeration, without also specifying which set of continental boundaries were used, greatly increases the ambiguity of what CONT refers to.

There's no valid reason to ignore this.

No, please don't ignore it. But if it is agreed that a station's continent can legitimately be considered to be multi-valued (geography, IARU/WAC, ARRL, IOTA, etc.), then about the worst thing we can consider doing is to have those multiple, conflicting values all represented by the value of CONT.

This is a case where a spec defined field should be provided for each set of continental boundaries in use.

Perhaps one means of resolving this is to add a WAC field which would have a value determined according to the WAC rules and then let CONT be the continent as determined by an unspecified set of geographic or other rules.

There are plently of examples.

Please provide some. Further examples may either reveal additional conflicts and ambiguities, or show this is something much simpler such as AN being identical with CE9/KC4 & 3Y.

73.
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...

Good points, Mike. We clearly can't shoehorn the resolution of this
into 5.1.7, so lets consider it a 5.1.8 issue.

I would prefer to avoid the redundancy of WAC and CONT tags.

If we stick with one tag, how about this for the definition of
Antartica:

1. any location physically on continental Antarctica

2. any island whose IOTA tag begins with AN

Contests that use a different definition would have to use lat/lon,
grid squares, or callsigns to make a determination.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


--- In adifdev@..., Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@a...> wrote:

At 04:05 AM 1/23/06, you wrote:

If someone does not consider Antarctica as a seperate continent,

just

enter "antarctica continent" into google and start reading

The nice thing about standards are so many to choose from. :-(

I hesitate not over the validity of Antarctica as a distinct
continental area. There are the geographer's definitions of the
continents (and multiple ones of those) and there's also the
Antarctic Treaty in the case of AN. More relevant in an amateur

radio

context is that there appears to be an IARU (WAC) definition, an

ARRL

contest definition (if it is really different from the IARU
definition), a CQWW contest definition and an IOTA definition
(although as Dave said, IOTA already has it's own field).

The concern is with multiple, conflicting definitions for which
locales constitute which continent, not just the "Antarctic
continent," an importing application needs to know which set of
continental boundaries were used it the assignment of CONT.

The current situation is not ideal; the definition for CONT

doesn't

specify the set of boundaries to which the value of the field

refers.

However, there is an implication with six continental areas in the
enumeration, that it is the continental boundaries as they are
defined in the WAC rules that are to be used in assigning the

value

of CONT. Adding AN to the enumeration, without also specifying

which

set of continental boundaries were used, greatly increases the
ambiguity of what CONT refers to.

There's no valid reason to ignore this.

No, please don't ignore it. But if it is agreed that a station's
continent can legitimately be considered to be multi-valued
(geography, IARU/WAC, ARRL, IOTA, etc.), then about the worst

thing

we can consider doing is to have those multiple, conflicting

values

all represented by the value of CONT.

This is a case where a spec defined field should be provided for

each

set of continental boundaries in use.

Perhaps one means of resolving this is to add a WAC field which

would

have a value determined according to the WAC rules and then let

CONT

be the continent as determined by an unspecified set of geographic

or

other rules.

There are plently of examples.

Please provide some. Further examples may either reveal additional
conflicts and ambiguities, or show this is something much simpler
such as AN being identical with CE9/KC4 & 3Y.

73.
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@a...

2. any island whose IOTA tag begins with AN

There is going to be some conflict here. Most (all?) awards programs consider South (Georgia, Orkney, Sandwich, Shetlands) as South America. Bouvet, Heard, Peter 1 and Macquarie may not be AN either (I think Heard is AF, don't remember the rest).

Ref. No.NameMain PrefixAN-001 Graham Land West (Adelaide Island) group Various AN-002 Bouvet Island 3Y AN-003 Heard Island VK0 AN-004 Peter 1 Island 3Y AN-005 Macquarie Island VK0 AN-006 Graham Land West (Biscoe Islands) group Various AN-007 South Georgia Island VP8 AN-008 South Orkney Islands Various AN-009 South Sandwich Islands VP8 AN-010 South Shetland Islands Various AN-011 Ross Island group Various AN-012 Graham Land West (Palmer Archipelago) group Various AN-013 Trinity Peninsula group Various AN-014 Berkner Island Various AN-015 Queen Maud Land (Prince Harald etc) group Various AN-016 Antarctica Various AN-017 Adelie Land group Various AN-018 Palmer Land West (Alexander Island) group Various

-- Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, jjreisert@...,

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Bernstein <aa6yq@...>
To: adifdev@...
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 2:29:46 PM
Subject: [adifdev] Re: Add Antarctica as a continent?

Good points, Mike. We clearly can't shoehorn the resolution of this
into 5.1.7, so lets consider it a 5.1.8 issue.

I would prefer to avoid the redundancy of WAC and CONT tags.

If we stick with one tag, how about this for the definition of
Antartica:

1. any location physically on continental Antarctica

2. any island whose IOTA tag begins with AN

Contests that use a different definition would have to use lat/lon,
grid squares, or callsigns to make a determination.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Why do we need to define Antarctica? It's up to the user what they want to store here.

Simon Brown
---

At 02:13 PM 1/23/06, Simon Brown wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keane K1MK" <k1mk@...>

Perhaps one means of resolving this is to add a WAC field which would
have a value determined according to the WAC rules and then let CONT
be the continent as determined by an unspecified set of geographic or
other rules.

Can't the WAC value be determined automagically from the DXCC #?

No, not in all cases.

The WAC boundaries split J2, TA, 7O & 8Q between two continents. In the case of TA, you can recover the continent from the digit in the prefix. But that's not true for the others.

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...

At 05:04 AM 1/23/06, Jon Bloom wrote:

As long as Antartica is treated as a continental
value somewhere -- and it is -- it should be included in the
enumeration.

I disagree, strongly.

The lowest common denominator approach is absolutely antithetical with interchanging semantic values rather than just exchanging a set of lexical symbols.

One of the major themes of ADIF 2 is to improve upon ADIF 1 in the area of semantic exchange.

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...

I'm moving to the moon, it'll be a lot easier. ADIF_CHEESE_FLAVOUR in 2.1.8 please.

Simon Brown
---

At 03:00 PM 1/23/06, Simon Brown wrote:

Why do we need to define Antarctica?

We need a definition because this is a specification for a datat interchange format. For the spec defined fields some thought and effort is given to trying to facilitate semantic interchange.

It's up to the user what they want to store here.

If you want a user to decide the meaning of what is stored in a field then that's what an application defined fields were created for.

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...

ADIF's for interchange - so let's use AN for Antarctica and not tell the user where it is (or isn't).

If our user enters AN in the Lobook1 then we send it as AN to Logbook2. That's what ADIF's for. If Bill Gates decides to relocate Antarctica to the moon then that's not our problem.

Simon 'plot lost' Brown
---