+fizzymagic Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 It's coming up in a couple weeks, folks: the point at which the current geocache numbering system will run out of numbers. Does anybody have any idea what TPTB plan to do about it? I'd like to know so I can prepare my GPX application to accommodate it. Link to comment
skydiver Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Q: What happens in your decimal numbering system when you run our of numbers? i.e. 9,99,999... A: You add a digit and keep right on going. i.e. 10,100,1000. It's not rocket science. --------------------------------------- "We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) --------------------------------------- Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 There's about 12,000 numbers left. The last 10,000 numbers were used in about 2.5 months. With the growth factor, I'm wondering if I should go ahead and grab as many as I've already got planned so I'll have them in case the switchover doesn't happen in a timely manner. CR Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by skydiver:Q: What happens in your decimal numbering system when you run our of numbers? i.e. 9,99,999... A: You add a digit and keep right on going. i.e. 10,100,1000. Q: What do you do when people post idiotic responses to serious questions? A: You ignore them. Link to comment
skydiver Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by fizzymagic:Q: What do you do when people post idiotic responses to serious questions? A: You ignore them. I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood your question. My understanding of the question is that your concerend with the current numbering system for waypoint ID's, and what will happen when we get to the last number, which will be GCFFFF. The answer is that the number that follows the GC is a hexadecimal number, so after FFFF is simply 10000 (add a digit, and keep going). This rule follows with other numbering systems too, like the decimal example I gave, as well as binary and octal. In fact, I'm not personally aware of any numbering system that doesn't follow this rule. If you are talking about some other numbering system for caches (never heard of such a thing myself), then please accept my appologies. However, if didn't misunderstand your question, and you are in fact a physicist as your profile claims (indiciating you're probably resonably intelligent), and you have in fact authored an application that can parse GPX files (indicating a basic understand of computer programming, and therefore hexadecimal numbering too), then the question was idiotic, and deserved an idiotic response. Correction: My previous statement that I'm not aware of a numbering system that doesnt' follow that rule was incorrect. The Roman Numeral System doesn't seem to follow that rule. But then again, I don't think geocaching.com is using the Roman Numeral System anywhere in their code. --------------------------------------- "We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) --------------------------------------- [This message was edited by skydiver on February 03, 2003 at 10:05 AM.] Link to comment
+Lil Devil Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 skydiver, there's more to it than that. Because many GPS receivers only support 6 character waypoint names, we can't just add another digit. And for reasons mentioned in this post, we can't change the 'GC' part. That post also mentions an idea for a solution. Fizzy's query was to see if TPTB have come to a final decision. Lil Devil Link to comment
+ScottJ Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by fizzymagic: Q: What do you do when people post idiotic responses to serious questions? A: You ignore them. I didn't find Skydiver's response at all idiotic. If there's some problem you've discovered with rolling over to an additional digit (such as support for legacy GPS receivers), perhaps enlightening us all would be more productive than insulting someone. Skydiver offered an obvious, sensible, definitive answer based on his current knowledge, something most idiots don't do. ScottJ -- Scott Johnson (ScottJ) [This message was edited by ScottJ on February 03, 2003 at 10:24 AM.] Link to comment
skydiver Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by LilDevil:skydiver, there's more to it than that. Because many GPS receivers only support 6 character waypoint names, we can't just add another digit. And for reasons mentioned in http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=6770936793&m=7080972535&r=5590977045#5590977045, we can't change the 'GC' part. That post also mentions an idea for a solution. Fizzy's query was to see if TPTB have come to a final decision. Lil Devil http://www.lildevil.org/images/smiley/lildevil.gif Thanks for the intelligent clarification LD. Since I always assign more descriptive IDs to waypoints on my GPS, I hadn't considered the length of the geocaching.com waypoint ID's a problem. --------------------------------------- "We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) --------------------------------------- Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by skydiver:I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood your question. You did, and you angered me by assuming I was an idiot. I probably should have Markwelled you to the thread mentioned previously here, but I assumed that anybody concerned would understand the issues. Briefly, the system currently in use won't work with another digit, because many older GPS units only allow 6-character waypoint IDs. Various solutions have been proposed, including dropping the C from GC (thus getting an additional hex digit) and going to waypoint names that use _all_ combinations of letters and digits. Both solutions have certain drawbacks, and may not provide enough new space to avoid running out yet again in a couple of years. My query was to find out what solution TPTB are considering, and whether they would enlighten us so we could prepare. Link to comment
+LarsThorwald Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 I have only a moderate understanding of the problem being discussed here, but I just wanted to say that reading the above posts has been quite entertaining! Charlie "One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction." Link to comment
+The Cheeseheads Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 If we use 0-9 and A-Z, that gives over 1.6 million caches if we stick with the GCXXXX numbering system. Of course only Jeremy would know how much recoding would have to be done to handle that... - - - - - Wisconsin Geocaching Association Link to comment
+Mr. Snazz Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Didn't Elias say that they already had a system ready to throw in, basically Base-36 minus a few letters (to prevent GCF*CK, etc)? Link to comment
Elias Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:I thought this was already resolved? The design since my last post hasn't changed. The code has been written and tested off-line. It'll be tested and on the site prior to the rollover. -Elias Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Looks like a non issue if the current plan is implemented? Wherever you go there you are. Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 Thanks, Elias. I just missed your previous post somehow. Link to comment
+georgeandmary Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 bump it's getting close george Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more. Link to comment
+flask Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 i think i understand the problem. i'd love to know more about the proposed solutions and their drawbacks, but i can't seem to make the link to the threads work. can anyone briefly recap? i'd like to stress that i have no actual opinions on the topic- i'm just looking for a little edjicashun. it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six. Link to comment
+Allen_L Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Looks like Elias's post got caught by the Great Forum Renumbering I think this is the adjusted link. Link to comment
CacheNCarryMA Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Mr. Snazz: quote: Didn't Elias say that they already had a system ready to throw in, basically Base-36 minus a few letters (to prevent GCF*CK, etc)? How about charging a fee for "personalized" Geocache reference numbers, similar to the way the Dept. of Motor Vehicles charges extra for vanity license plates. Think of the stampede for "GCDOOT" or "GCFTF1" or "GCACHE." You could sell 'em to the highest bidder. Link to comment
Recommended Posts