Jump to content

GCZZZZ and beyond?


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment

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...

Link to comment
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.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

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. :unsure:

Link to comment

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. :tired:

 

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...

Link to comment

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.

 

:tired:

Link to comment

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. :tired:

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

 

:tired::blink::):):D

Link to comment
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.

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

Link to comment
:tired: 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? :blink:

 

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!

Link to comment
:blink: 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!

:tired: thanks!

Link to comment

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 by Okiebryan
Link to comment

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...

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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. :laughing:

Link to comment

...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.

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...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...