ratcrow Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 I've noticed that some of the recent caches being placed are getting to the end of what can be done in four digits (since all of them are a hexadecimal representation). That is, I just saw cache GCEC4F, which is the 60,495th geocache. The 4-digit hexadecimal representation that geocaching.com uses will run out at 65,535 (GCFFFF). What next? Is there any plan to migrate to seven digits for each waypoint name (starting with GC10000), start reusing some of the old cache numbers, or expand the numbering system to be base-26 instead of base-16 to get more out of those digits? I am not sure if any GPSrs are limited to 6-character waypoint names, but this whole issue has me rather interested. Otherwise, should there be a competition for whoever can place cache GC10000? Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 There is a plan. I'd markwell you but I have no idea what the original thread said. Wherever you go there you are. Link to comment
+Mr. Snazz Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Oh, crap! Thank you for posting this! We'd better get going on a solution right away! Link to comment
+LaPaglia Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 DONT PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we just go check all the caches, any we dont find we re-use the number. That will hole us for a little while. Lapaglia Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus) Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 In perhaps my last Markwell before all the links break (boo hoo), here is the great renumbering plan. x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore. Link to comment
+Jamie Z Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Whatever happened to my suggestion that once the numbers run out, no more caches are allowed? Jamie Link to comment
Cholo Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Not to worry, most people have 16 more digits for counting purposes. Catch a cacher by his toe If he follows Take his dough Link to comment
+Markwell Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 If the link breaks, here's the text from Elias: quote:The current plan is to maintain the "GC" prefix, and roll over from GCFFFF to GCG000, using some form of base-36 (I'm currently working with base-32, but this can change). If I've done my math correctly, this will give us 589,832 new cache-ids. If we ever approach anywhere near that number of caches on the site, then we'll have to completely rethink the design of the site - the GCxxxx methodology will be toward the bottom of our issue list. As Clayjar correctly pointed out, this is a kluge. When we started Geocaching.com two years ago we had no idea how this sport was going to grow. At the time, it made sense (and was super easy) to just use hex, and as a result, we inadvertently introduced the GCFFFF problem. Markwell Chicago Geocaching Link to comment
+DustyJacket Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Make all new caches have the same number! (OK, it was a lame joke, but what do you expect at 4am?) DustyJacket ...If life was fair, a banana split would cure cancer. Link to comment
Recommended Posts