GCZZZZ and beyond?

[+Midnight Cobra]

What happens after GCZZZZ? My gps won't hold another digit. Does the GC change?

I haven't found anyone approaching this subject, so I'm asking. (It's the new Y2K!)

 

Midnight Cobra

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Then I guess it's time to get an eTrex Legend or Vista with a ten digit waypoint, or something comparable. I somehow suspect Geocaching.com won't be stopping after six digits.

[+Kryten]

The plan is to add another digit to become GCxxxxx. You'll need to strip the leading "GC" on older GPSrs with a six character length limit. "%drop2" in GSAK does the job nicely.

[+Quiggle]

What happens after GCZZZZ? My gps won't hold another digit. Does the GC change?

I haven't found anyone approaching this subject, so I'm asking. (It's the new Y2K!)

It comes up quite often, particularly now that The End Is Near™. Do a search for "GCZZZZ" and you'll see the previous discussions.

[+biosearch]

Does anyone following this thread know which units have six character length limits and which ones have the larger?

[+evelbug]

This may seem overly simple, but why not just change the GC to something else for future waypoints?

[+biosearch]

This may seem overly simple, but why not just change the GC to something else for future waypoints?

 

I have a tendancy to think that the people running the show used to be in the military and so the most difficult and illogical approach is the one taken.... But then I don't know what they are really planning on doing, so...

[+robert]

This may seem overly simple, but why not just change the GC to something else for future waypoints?

It's just as simple to add a character. GC=Geocaching so it makes sense.

 

This may seem overly simple, but why not just change the GC to something else for future waypoints?

 

I have a tendancy to think that the people running the show used to be in the military and so the most difficult and illogical approach is the one taken.... But then I don't know what they are really planning on doing, so...

Using the search string suggested above (as well as prior history when this came up before) it's obvious what they're doing--adding a character. Instead of GC+4 it'll be GC+5. The oldest active cache in Maryland is GC1FD, the oldest in Virginia is GC135. Notice that it's GC+3--caches weren't always GC+4, an extra character was simply added and life went on.

 

[+webscouter.]

Also they won't change the prefix because there are other prefixes being used by the site, IE TB for travel bugs, WM for waymarks, etc

[+Kabuthunk]

It might make sense to just bump it straight up to being an 8-character code instead of 7. That way, it should be good for MUCH longer than jus a 1-digit expansion.

[+Aquacache]

It might make sense to just bump it straight up to being an 8-character code instead of 7. That way, it should be good for MUCH longer than jus a 1-digit expansion.

Cache GCZZZZ will be the 512,400th cache hidden. Adding one digit to the code to get to GCZZZZZ will allow for 28,218,030 caches ... or 27,705,630 more caches. In the last 12 months we've hidden approximately 177,750 caches (it's actually a bit more than that). This means that at the current rate of cache hides, we'll hit cache GCZZZZZ - and run out of numbers again - in just a little under 156 years.

 

You may be right. Maybe we should add two digits instead of just one.

[+biosearch]

It might make sense to just bump it straight up to being an 8-character code instead of 7. That way, it should be good for MUCH longer than jus a 1-digit expansion.

Cache GCZZZZ will be the 512,400th cache hidden. Adding one digit to the code to get to GCZZZZZ will allow for 28,218,030 caches ... or 27,705,630 more caches. In the last 12 months we've hidden approximately 177,750 caches (it's actually a bit more than that). This means that at the current rate of cache hides, we'll hit cache GCZZZZZ - and run out of numbers again - in just a little under 156 years.

 

You may be right. Maybe we should add two digits instead of just one.

 

Well yes, but eventually there will be cache saturation and they will either have to change the limit of 0.1 miles or simply stop approving caches. I wonder what the number total caches for the earth's surface would be (included ocean and water feature space) if there were one for every 0.1 square mile area. And I'm sure that there is someone out there with the knowledge and time to figure it out. I'll just keep wondering...

[+Night Stalker]

Not a problem. By the time we run out again we will be caching on the moon and mars so there will be plenty of room for new caches. Then there is the asteroid belt, but I suspect they would not be approved since they would not always be in the same spot. Of course a whole new set of saterllites will have to be put out in space to handle the new areas.

 

[+Okiebryan]

Well yes, but eventually there will be cache saturation and they will either have to change the limit of 0.1 miles or simply stop approving caches. I wonder what the number total caches for the earth's surface would be (included ocean and water feature space) if there were one for every 0.1 square mile area. And I'm sure that there is someone out there with the knowledge and time to figure it out. I'll just keep wondering...

 

The total surface area of the Earth is 197,000,000 square miles, according to Brittanica.com.

 

At EXACTLY .1 mile separation, which is not possible, there could be 100 caches per square mile.

 

SO that makes the theoretical maximum, including all the oceans, 19,700,000,000. Nineteen billion, seven hundred million caches.

 

I had better get busy.

[+fizzymagic]

The total surface area of the Earth is 197,000,000 square miles, according to Brittanica.com.

 

At EXACTLY .1 mile separation, which is not possible, there could be 100 caches per square mile.

 

SO that makes the theoretical maximum, including all the oceans, 19,700,000,000. Nineteen billion, seven hundred million caches.

Minor nit: the actual number of possible caches is greater, using hexagonal packing. It has a packing density of about 0.9069, which would allow for a maximum of just over 115 per square mile.

[+Okiebryan]

The total surface area of the Earth is 197,000,000 square miles, according to Brittanica.com.

 

At EXACTLY .1 mile separation, which is not possible, there could be 100 caches per square mile.

 

SO that makes the theoretical maximum, including all the oceans, 19,700,000,000. Nineteen billion, seven hundred million caches.

Minor nit: the actual number of possible caches is greater, using hexagonal packing. It has a packing density of about 0.9069, which would allow for a maximum of just over 115 per square mile.

 

[+Moose Mob]

The total surface area of the Earth is 197,000,000 square miles, according to Brittanica.com.

 

At EXACTLY .1 mile separation, which is not possible, there could be 100 caches per square mile.

 

SO that makes the theoretical maximum, including all the oceans, 19,700,000,000. Nineteen billion, seven hundred million caches.

Minor nit: the actual number of possible caches is greater, using hexagonal packing. It has a packing density of about 0.9069, which would allow for a maximum of just over 115 per square mile.

And what would the final GC number be for that last cache placed on the globe? (assuming we would places caches over the ocean)

[+Renegade Knight]

What happens after GCZZZZ? ....

 

You wake up and go caching.

[+fizzymagic]

And what would the final GC number be for that last cache placed on the globe? (assuming we would places caches over the ocean)

You just asked that to make me look good, didn't you?

 

Given a surface area of 1.97e8 square miles, and 115 caches per square mile, you'd have 22,655,000,000 available caches.

 

Cache 22655000000 would have waypoint GCTGAHBEH. Only 9 characters long!

[+Moose Mob]

And what would the final GC number be for that last cache placed on the globe? (assuming we would places caches over the ocean)

You just asked that to make me look good, didn't you?

 

Given a surface area of 1.97e8 square miles, and 115 caches per square mile, you'd have 22,655,000,000 available caches.

 

Cache 22655000000 would have waypoint GCTGAHBEH. Only 9 characters long!

thanks!

[+Lil Devil]

Cache 22655000000 would have waypoint GCTGAHBEH. Only 9 characters long!

I wonder who will be FTF?

[+Moose Mob]

Cache 22655000000 would have waypoint GCTGAHBEH. Only 9 characters long!

I wonder who will be FTF?

Hmm depends.. at the current cache placement rate, what date would that fall on?

[+Okiebryan]

Weekly Cache Notification

 

This is an automated message from Groundspeak LoBot Mailer

 

Recently Published Geocaches (1 total)

-----------------------------

1. (GCTGAHBEH) Psycho Urban Cache #26,452 (Traditional Cache)

Date: 4/1/2174

Posted by The Great-grandchildren of Vinny and Sue

www.geojoshing.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=049e8f0b-e143-41-a093-59b37c9b

88.9mi E (143.2km E)

 

You have reached the end of Geocaching. Find a new hobby.

Edited November 2, 2006 by Okiebryan

[+Blue Bomb]

[+Sioneva]

!!!!!!!

[+biosearch]

So basically what we have determined up to this point of the thread is:

 

There really is no need, unless we actually plant to place 115 per square mile across the face of the planet, we won't need more than perhaps seven, at the most eight characters.

 

The ability to place caches off the planet surface is improbable at best.

 

We are all really, really, really serious geeks...

[Iwuzere]

I can't help wondering how confused my GPSr would get if it was in orbit, ABOVE the satellites

[+Moose Mob]

Weekly Cache Notification

 

This is an automated message from Groundspeak LoBot Mailer

 

Recently Published Geocaches (1 total)

-----------------------------

1. (GCTGAHBEH) Psycho Urban Cache #26,452 (Traditional Cache)

Date: 4/1/2174

Posted by The Great-grandchildren of Vinny and Sue

www.geojoshing.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=049e8f0b-e143-41-a093-59b37c9b

88.9mi E (143.2km E)

 

You have reached the end of Geocaching. Find a new hobby.

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are.

[+emurock]

Weekly Cache Notification

 

This is an automated message from Groundspeak LoBot Mailer

 

Recently Published Geocaches (1 total)

-----------------------------

1. (GCTGAHBEH) Psycho Urban Cache #26,452 (Traditional Cache)

Date: 4/1/2174

Posted by The Great-grandchildren of Vinny and Sue

www.geojoshing.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=049e8f0b-e143-41-a093-59b37c9b

88.9mi E (143.2km E)

 

You have reached the end of Geocaching. Find a new hobby.

That is great.

[+Renegade Knight]

...There really is no need, unless we actually plant to place 115 per square mile across the face of the planet, we won't need more than perhaps seven, at the most eight characters....

 

Archiving and the passing on of geocachers will require a lot of numbers over time. You could recycle the active numbers if you had a retirement number tagged to the retired orginal cache number.

[+ShutterBug98027]

Just to throw a monkey in the wrench, did you estimate 2174 from a linear projection of cache placements? Or did you asume an exponential curve of placements?

[+fizzymagic]

Just to throw a monkey in the wrench, did you estimate 2174 from a linear projection of cache placements? Or did you asume an exponential curve of placements?

Neither would be correct. See this thread for the analysis.