+PopUpPirate Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 In April of this year, there were 100 caches within 10 miles of my postcode. Today, there are 200 within 10 miles! So the number of caches has doubled within 6 months! Just think how many caches will be set within 10 miles of YOU, this time next year! Quote Link to comment
+LollyBob Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 (edited) In April of this year, there were 100 caches within 10 miles of my postcode. Today, there are 200 within 10 miles! So the number of caches has doubled within 6 months! Just think how many caches will be set within 10 miles of YOU, this time next year! And how many more cows and horses will I have to avoid? Edited October 30, 2006 by LollyBob Quote Link to comment
+Write and Mane Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Lucky you, we only have 38 Caches within 10 Miles. 19 of these are ours, and we only have 2 left to do. Should we, archive our caches and move house? Quote Link to comment
+wizard1974uk Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 In April of this year, there were 100 caches within 10 miles of my postcode. Today, there are 200 within 10 miles! So the number of caches has doubled within 6 months! Just think how many caches will be set within 10 miles of YOU, this time next year! And how many more cows and horses will I have to avoid? Just send bob in. Quote Link to comment
+Tiger-Eyes Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 11 caches within 10 miles 5 of which I set only 1 not done and that is an impossible puzzle (well impossible for me) It's taking a LONG time to reach those milestones maybe it's time to move Quote Link to comment
+KiwiGary Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 (edited) Well thats not the case around here, the only new ones near Milton Keynes have been placed by me. So I can't claim a find Come on MK Cachers.... See ya...Gary Edited October 30, 2006 by KiwiGary Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 All my local placers, me included, have slowed right down in recent months. Some are even clearing out some older caches so the numbers around here may actually be dropping... So it's not the same story everywhere. Quote Link to comment
+housefamily Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 All my local placers, me included, have slowed right down in recent months. Some are even clearing out some older caches so the numbers around here may actually be dropping... So it's not the same story everywhere. I agree. There was a time when new caches were being placed almost every day! But don't worry Paul. I'm about to place 6 more 'Round Aylesbury Walk' caches - including the long awaited bonus cache. Well, when I get a free minute to finish off the boxes. Quote Link to comment
+The Other Stu Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Watch this space.... gonna put LB on the map shortly [] 8 built and raring to go (if only I had the time.......) Quote Link to comment
+The Bongtwashes Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Well thats not the case around here, the only new ones near Milton Keynes have been placed by me. So I can't claim a find Come on MK Cachers.... See ya...Gary Perhaps you should try moving Quote Link to comment
+The Bongtwashes Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 (edited) Watch this space.... gonna put LB on the map shortly [] 8 built and raring to go (if only I had the time.......) Any advance warning would be appreciated. (before KiwiGary gets FTF on them ) Edited October 30, 2006 by The Bongtwashes Quote Link to comment
+Team S-J Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Don't worry most of them won't be worth visiting and those that are are probably micro's. Disillusioned of Bromsgrove Quote Link to comment
+housefamily Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Any advance warning would be appreciated. (before KiwiGary gets FTF on them ) The only good thing about KiwiGary leaving the country!!! Quote Link to comment
+Jonovich Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 It's a mad rush to make the GC code rollover to seven characters Some folks have a book running on when it will happen... Jon Quote Link to comment
andy_the_rocketeer Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But my Garmin only accepts 6 character waypoints (I think?) Oh and there's 164 caches whose listed waypoint is within 10miles of my place (well 16km, with the next being an extra 200metres away). If someone digs up the last thread on cache density, I'll compare the 2 figures. Quote Link to comment
+Jonovich Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But my Garmin only accepts 6 character waypoints (I think?) Oh dear, that's a shame, you won't be compatible then and will have to just stick to all the six characters caches I'm sure you'll be able to apply a filter to remove all the new caches from your PQ's & searches. Jon Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But my Garmin only accepts 6 character waypoints (I think?) Oh and there's 164 caches whose listed waypoint is within 10miles of my place (well 16km, with the next being an extra 200metres away). If someone digs up the last thread on cache density, I'll compare the 2 figures. if you're using GSAK to upload, then you can use the %drop2 code to remove the GC part, asits only really 4 digits (soon to be 5) that are relevent... However, for all of us who use things like S1, S2, CP etc as a prefix or suffix for the child waypoints, that IS going to be a problem. Even more so if GC.com has a mix of 6 and 7 digit codes, or will they be sensible and add a 'filling' character to the existing ones? Quote Link to comment
Edgemaster Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 207 within 10miles of me, of which I've found 57, and placed 1. I really need to get out a bit more! But, I am saving most of CLondon for one sweep. Quote Link to comment
andy_the_rocketeer Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 if you're using GSAK to upload, then you can use the %drop2 code to remove the GC part, asits only really 4 digits (soon to be 5) that are relevent... I don't use GSAK. Removing the GC bit then makes caching waypoints all over the place in the various pages within the waypoint menu, rather than all under G. I'll spend about 5 seconds to write a Linux/bash conversion script for the .LOC file. In fact sed -e "s/\"GC/\"/g" geocaching.loc > geocaching.loc should do the trick. Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I don't use GSAK. Removing the GC bit then makes caching waypoints all over the place in the various pages within the waypoint menu, rather than all under G. I'll spend about 5 seconds to write a Linux/bash conversion script for the .LOC file. In fact sed -e "s/\"GC/\"/g" geocaching.loc > geocaching.loc should do the trick. i actually prefer them spread out rather than all under 'G'! I'll leave you to the fancy linux code then...! Quote Link to comment
+macroderma Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But my Garmin only accepts 6 character waypoints (I think?) Oh and there's 164 caches whose listed waypoint is within 10miles of my place (well 16km, with the next being an extra 200metres away). If someone digs up the last thread on cache density, I'll compare the 2 figures. if you're using GSAK to upload, then you can use the %drop2 code to remove the GC part, asits only really 4 digits (soon to be 5) that are relevent... However, for all of us who use things like S1, S2, CP etc as a prefix or suffix for the child waypoints, that IS going to be a problem. Even more so if GC.com has a mix of 6 and 7 digit codes, or will they be sensible and add a 'filling' character to the existing ones? I must admit I wondered what they would do - there are GCZ*** Caches already Has there been an announcement somewhere? A filling charcter is easy - just use '+' More to the point - are TPTB going to increase the number of PQs? I already use 28 to maintain my GSAK database Quote Link to comment
barryhunter Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Has there been an announcement somewhere? There was a long discussion in the 'Website Forum', IIRC the basis would be to drop the C to begin with, or maybe the site would do nothing and let others decide how to change to to work with 6char waypoints. More to the point - are TPTB going to increase the number of PQs? I already use 28 to maintain my GSAK database Doubt it, remember nobody makes offline databases, its not a 'supported use' or some such. (no don't get me started) Quote Link to comment
Master Mariner Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 My old maths are a bit rusty but if the four characters after "GC" are alphanumeric, that is contain the letters A-Z and numbers 0-9 then I think there is 36 x 36 x 36 x 36 or 1,679,616 possible combinations. Are there a million plus caches worldwide or are my assumptions wrong? Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Some combinations of letters have been blocked to avoid anyone having to look for GCNUTS... or similar Quote Link to comment
barryhunter Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 There are 327930 active caches worldwide. -- http://www.geocaching.com/ There are already 2,955 archived caches in the UK -- http://stats.geocacheuk.com/ I wouldnt be surprised if many US states have a much higher recycle rate. Then I imagine there are many codes 'wasted' where the code is allocacted to a cache that never makes the light of day (even intentionally, like people creating a dummy private cache for storing TB) In the UK the latest cache is GCZ52C so it can't be far off rolling over... (10 * 36 * 36 = 12,960 more 'caches') Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 My old maths are a bit rusty but if the four characters after "GC" are alphanumeric, that is contain the letters A-Z and numbers 0-9 then I think there is 36 x 36 x 36 x 36 or 1,679,616 possible combinations. Are there a million plus caches worldwide or are my assumptions wrong? dunno how many there are, but don't forget it includes every archived, unpublished, or just 'dummy' caches(that reviewers have never seen) ever... so possibly not far off! Quote Link to comment
+Kitty Hawk Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Some combinations of letters have been blocked to avoid anyone having to look for GCNUTS... or similar Allergies I suppose Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Some combinations of letters have been blocked to avoid anyone having to look for GCNUTS... or similar Allergies I supposeOr anagrams... Quote Link to comment
+ClydeE Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 if you're using GSAK to upload, then you can use the %drop2 code to remove the GC part, asits only really 4 digits (soon to be 5) that are relevent... I don't use GSAK. Removing the GC bit then makes caching waypoints all over the place in the various pages within the waypoint menu, rather than all under G. I'll spend about 5 seconds to write a Linux/bash conversion script for the .LOC file. In fact sed -e "s/\"GC/\"/g" geocaching.loc > geocaching.loc should do the trick. And if you did still want them under "G" then just use the special tag of "G%drop2" This would group all waypoints under G, yet still keep the waypoint name to 6 characters, even when the gc.com waypoints go past GCZZZZ Quote Link to comment
andy_the_rocketeer Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) And if you did still want them under "G" then just use the special tag of "G%drop2" This would group all waypoints under G, yet still keep the waypoint name to 6 characters, even when the gc.com waypoints go past GCZZZZ 2 slight problems there... Edit: fixed the logic GCCCxxx would map to GCCxxx (ie look like an existing 6char ID) Probably not a major issue, as the chance of doing 2 caches with the same last 3 characters is going to be rather remote, and would need to be consistent to convert all existing 6digit codes to G+4digits. 2nd problem is, I don't use GSAK and don't use windows either. Although I'm sure someone can make use of this tweak. Anyone know if more recent GPS devices (eg 60CSx) have a more reasonable waypoint name length? Was tempted to upgrade, but need a real justification first, cos the Etrex has all the basic functionality that I need, for 3 different hobbies. Edited November 1, 2006 by andy_the_rocketeer Quote Link to comment
+stora Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 IIRC the 60csx supports a Waypoint Char$ of 14 letters. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.