Jump to content

Running out of 4-digit cache names?


ratcrow

Recommended Posts

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

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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...