Jump to content

Cache placement rocketing!


Recommended Posts

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? :D

Edited by LollyBob
Link to comment

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? :D

 

Just send bob in. :D

Link to comment

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! :D

 

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. :D

Link to comment

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? :)

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

 

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...! :)

Link to comment

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 :)

Link to comment

 

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) :)

Link to comment

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')

Link to comment

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? :laughing:

 

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!

Link to comment

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

Link to comment

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 :blink:

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 by andy_the_rocketeer
Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...