Multiple SIGs per spot?

ian commented

2025-10-19 11:27:41 +00:00

Owner

POTA comments sometimes include WWFF or WAB, and cluster spots can contain multiple SIG in their comments. Currently, Spothole will use up to one SIG from DX Cluster comments, and will not find "bonus" SIGs from comments of spots that already come from an xOTA service.

Not sure how best to improve this at the moment as we are limited to one SIG per spot by our API spec.

Allowing multiple SIGs per spot could be done, but it's opening a can of worms, e.g. if we get a real WWFF spot close in time to a POTA one, should we then try to merge spots in complex ways?

How would Field Spotter deal with merged/multiple-SIG spots?

POTA comments sometimes include WWFF or WAB, and cluster spots can contain multiple SIG in their comments. Currently, Spothole will use up to one SIG from DX Cluster comments, and will not find "bonus" SIGs from comments of spots that already come from an xOTA service. Not sure how best to improve this at the moment as we are limited to one SIG per spot by our API spec. Allowing multiple SIGs per spot could be done, but it's opening a can of worms, e.g. if we get a real WWFF spot close in time to a POTA one, should we then try to merge spots in complex ways? How would Field Spotter deal with merged/multiple-SIG spots?

ian added the

enhancement

maybe

labels

2025-10-19 11:27:41 +00:00

ian referenced this issue from a commit

2025-11-02 15:45:25 +00:00

Refactor looking up SIG reference details into a common location, taking it out of the individual spot providers. This means we can now look up references properly from Cluster spot comments, etc. Closes #74 as there is no longer any duplication of these lookups. Works towards #54 as sig_refs now specify their sig internally.

ian referenced this issue from a commit

2025-11-02 16:18:38 +00:00

Move checks for multiple references in comments out of POTA and DX Cluster classes into the main infer_missing() function for spots. #54

ian commented

2025-11-02 16:19:07 +00:00

Author

Owner

As of today, we do now specify which SIG the reference is for in each sig_info object, so a spot with multiple SIGs is now possible.

There's still a single top-level SIG for the spot, much like there is a single top-level lat/lon/grid, based on whatever the first SIG reference was. This maintains backwards-compatibility with Field Spotter for now, as FS doesn't understand multiple references, let alone multiple SIGs, per spot.

We also should probably keep the single top-level SIG to cover the case where we get e.g. a cluster comment that just says "POTA" with no ref. That allows us to still tag it as POTA without providing a valid sig_ref.

I'm going to close this issue and create a new one for spot merging generally.

As of today, we do now specify which SIG the reference is for in each sig_info object, so a spot with multiple SIGs is now possible. There's still a single top-level SIG for the spot, much like there is a single top-level lat/lon/grid, based on whatever the first SIG reference was. This maintains backwards-compatibility with Field Spotter for now, as FS doesn't understand multiple references, let alone multiple SIGs, per spot. We also should probably keep the single top-level SIG to cover the case where we get e.g. a cluster comment that just says "POTA" with no ref. That allows us to still tag it as POTA without providing a valid sig_ref. I'm going to close this issue and create a new one for spot merging generally.

ian closed this issue

2025-11-02 16:19:07 +00:00

ian added this to the 1.0 milestone

2025-11-09 07:28:41 +00:00

Rows
Columns

Multiple SIGs per spot? #54