On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 4:12:45 AM UTC-5, Spike wrote:

That's space wave on 10m.

Not in the UK! Even the flatlands of Norfolk and Lincolnshire have
enough surface topography to make space-wave unlikely.

It's very unlikely to be surface wave at that frequency.
If they are able to communicate over that land on 10m, they almost
surely are using the space wave.
If not purely direct within the normal radio horizon, by refraction or
reflection or both. And you are not stating how high the antennas are
mounted, which would be a large factor also.
I hope you are not trying to tell me that no one in that area can
receive any VHF or UHF TV or radio transmissions.. :/



Well, not everyone does. I know many on 160m who favor verticals.
Not only for ground wave, but better DX.

Not in the UK... We have a progressive licensing system here, in which
most people never progress at all. The level they qualify at is more
concerned with how to fit mains plugs - something that isn't required
here as moulded plugs have been compulsory for 20 years. These people
tend to buy the one aerial they've heard of, the G5RV.

I'm fairly sure not everyone in the UK depends solely on the GR5V as a
160m antenna. :/


The ground wave is pretty good on 160m if using a vertical.
Nearly as good as on the MW AM broadcast band, being the two bands
are right next door to each other, so to speak.

I'm a big fan of 160m ground wave/surface wave.

It can be handy. I like listening to AM broadcast in the daytime which
at any real distance is surface wave. One thing that is handy about it,
is you can often totally null it out to receive stations on the same
frequency, but in different directions if using a small loop, etc..
I've made a few recordings which I posted here in the past demonstrating
that. I could make most AM-BC stations via surface wave flat out vanish
if I felt so compelled. And then another one would be listenable in
it's place. With a wire or vertical, it would just be a jumble of two
or more stations all being received at once.