Sub-sector definition issues in several FIR's

[Adrian2k]

There are some FIR's that have their sub sectors not defined correctly for it to be displayed on VATSpy.

Some examples are:

vatspy-data-project/VATSpy.dat

Lines 18101 to 18105 in 3adc1e4

	LOVV-C|Wien||LOVV-C
	LOVV-B|Wien||LOVV-B
	LOVV-N|Wien||LOVV-N
	LOVV-E|Wien||LOVV-E
	LOVV-W|Wien||LOVV-W

This should be coded as follows:

LOVV-C|Wien|LOVV_C|LOVV-C
LOVV-B|Wien|LOVV_B|LOVV-B
LOVV-N|Wien|LOVV_N|LOVV-N
LOVV-E|Wien|LOVV_E|LOVV-E
LOVV-W|Wien|LOWW_W|LOVV-W

vatspy-data-project/VATSpy.dat

Lines 17956 to 17960 in 3adc1e4

	EPWW-N|Warszawa|EPWW-N|EPWW
	EPWW-S|Warszawa|EPWW-S|EPWW
	EPWW-W|Warszawa|EPWW-W|EPWW
	EPWW-SW|Warszawa (if West offline)|EPWW-SW|EPWW
	EPWW-NW|Warszawa (if West offline)|EPWW-NW|EPWW

Should be coded as follows:

EPWW-N|Warszawa|EPWW_N|EPWW
EPWW-S|Warszawa|EPWW_S|EPWW
EPWW-W|Warszawa|EPWW_W|EPWW
EPWW-SW|Warszawa (if West offline)|EPWW_SW|EPWW
EPWW-NW|Warszawa (if West offline)|EPWW_NW|EPWW

Note: Some FIR's such as LGGG and LCCC uses logons with a hyphen, such as LGGG-S_CTR - in these cases there is no change required.

[Adrian2k]

Tried resolving this, but PR only resulted in conflicts and I do not have time digging into this any deeper atm.

Been looking into the issue more deeply, and found more discrepancies.
Note the following below does not highlight all cases, just some cases.

If anyone wants to look more deeply into this and submit a PR they are welcome to do so.

Subsectors missing underscore definitions

LOVV has already fixed their entries, no input is needed

Poland + UBBA_S to be converted to underscore prefixes.
ORBB, RKRR, RKDA, missing prefix, they use underscore prefixes.

New Zealand, Greece, Cyprus, Pakistan - They do not use underscore with their logons, so existing data is correct.

Multiple FIRs starting with Z have incorrect prefix definitions.

For example:

ZBHH|Hohhot ACC - Beijing|ZBHH|
ZHCC|Zhengzhou ACC - Wuhan|ZHCC|
ZHHH|Wuhan ACC - Wuhan|ZHHH|
ZHWH|Wuhan|ZHWH|
ZGHA|Changsha ACC - Guangzhou|ZGHA|
ZGNN|Nanning ACC - Guangzhou|ZGNN|
ZGGG|Guangzhou ACC - Guangzhou|ZGGG|
ZGZU|Guangzhou|ZGZU|
ZJSA|Sanya|ZJSA|

This should be:

ZBHH|Hohhot ACC - Beijing||ZBHH
ZHCC|Zhengzhou ACC - Wuhan||ZHCC
ZHHH|Wuhan ACC - Wuhan||ZHHH
ZHWH|Wuhan||ZHWH
ZGHA|Changsha ACC - Guangzhou||ZGHA
ZGNN|Nanning ACC - Guangzhou||ZGNN
ZGGG|Guangzhou ACC - Guangzhou||ZGGG
ZGZU|Guangzhou||ZGZU
ZJSA|Sanya||ZJSA

Also got FIRs that have their FIR name in the prefix, not required.

EGVV|Swanwick Military|EGVV|EGVV
EGGX|Shanwick Oceanic|EGGX|EGGX

LGGG|Athina-(Above FL325)|LGGG-U|LGGG
LGGG-E|Athina-(RDS sector)|LGGG-E|LGGG-E
LGGG-W|Athina-(KRK sector)|LGGG-W|LGGG-W
LGGG-S|Athina-(MIL sector)|LGGG-S|LGGG-S
LGGG-K|Athina-(KFN sector)|LGGG-K|LGGG-K
LGGG-P|Athina-(PLH sector|LGGG-P|LGGG-P
LGGG-H|Athina-(KAV sector)|LGGG-H|LGGG-H

Technically it should not be required to have the FIR name in the prefix place.
Have not verified that sectors will be working in these scenarios without them being defined like this.
If sectors work without this definition, then they could be converted to lowercase so the sectors will display even if the VACC changes to underscore logons instead.

Duplicate prefixes

Some FIRs have multiple entries with the same prefix

LIMM|Milano||LIMM
LIPP|Padova|LIMM|LIPP
(LIMM already has its own FIR)

LLPT|Tel Aviv North|PLUTO|LLPT
LLPL|Pluto|PLUTO|LLLL
(Who uses PLUTO - why does the last entry have both LLPL and LLLL)