50 mile radius?

Discussion in 'QRZ Operating Awards' started by N6JSO, Dec 17, 2021.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
  1. N6JSO

    N6JSO Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I mostly operate portable (POTA activations, Rover contest entries, etc.), so my QSOs have been made from many different locations. I always make sure my gridsquare and county are correct in the log. Most of the QRZ awards require the contacts to be made within 50 miles of a given point. When checking eligibility for the award, there doesn't seem to be any way to filter contacts by my location, so I can't tell if I'm eligible. Also when submitting the application for the award, there doesn't seem to be any way to specify which contacts should be used and which should be ignored. Am I missing something?

    Alternately, if the website doesn't support being able to narrow down the eligible QSOs when applying for the award, can I suggest that the 50-mile rule be removed? It seems like the award criteria should align with what's supported by the tool.

    -John N6JSO
  2. KC1ACY

    KC1ACY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I came to the forum to post basically this exact question. I am moderately sure that the tool is counting everything in the log instead of checking for the 50-mile rule, and it may have tricked me into thinking I met certain award criteria when I did not.

    I would also strongly suggest that the rule be removed if it cannot be validated automatically. However, given the rule was not in the original rule definition announcement, I'm guessing there is a reason it was introduced. So if that's the case then the tool should be improved to actually implement this criteria if it has a good reason to be in there.
    N6JSO likes this.
  3. KP4SX

    KP4SX Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The 50-mile radius is taken from the ARRL WAS award rules.
  4. W1DQ

    W1DQ Logbook Administrator Volunteer Moderator Volunteer DX Helper Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    The POTA website has tools for determining their Awards.
  5. N6JSO

    N6JSO Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Sure, that may have been the inspiration, but the QRZ awards are different awards from the ARRL awards; they don't have to follow the same rules. And ARRL has tools in LotW to filter your contacts by location, so you can submit just the ones that qualify when you apply for the ARRL award via LotW. ARRL's tools support the ARRL award rules, but the QRZ tools don't support QRZ's award rules.
  6. N6JSO

    N6JSO Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Sorry if my message was unclear; I'm not talking about POTA awards, I'm talking about the QRZ.com awards. (I just mentioned POTA because that happens to be one of the reasons my contacts are from so many different locations, but even if POTA didn't exist, I'd still be doing plenty of portable/mobile operation.)
  7. N2EY

    N2EY Ham Member QRZ Page

    The ARRL WAS award rules say "locations, no two of which are more than 50 miles apart". That's less than a 50 mile radius, which would accept two locations 99 miles apart.
  8. W7UUU

    W7UUU Principal Moderator Lifetime Member 133 Administrator Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    I think the point is "it's an honor system"

    If you want to cheat - go ahead. It's YOUR award.

    No one gets hurt but you

  9. N6JSO

    N6JSO Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The point is that I don't want to cheat (or I wouldn't have started this thread), but the QRZ system makes it almost impossible not to cheat because you can't tell if you have enough contacts that meet the 50 mile rule, and when you do apply for the award, there's no way to specify which QSOs to use.

    Since it's likely that many people with the awards don't actually meet the 50 mile rule (not due to intentional cheating, just because they hit the button when the site says they qualify), I think the best solution is to drop the 50-mile requirement from the QRZ awards.
  10. N2EY

    N2EY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Or - go for the ARRL award.

Share This Page