Jump to content

Funky GC Codes


Recommended Posts

I presume the GCwxyz number associated with each cache, is a database key field. These also exist for each trackable, log, etc. I dunno how they're allocated: I'd guess sequentially.

 

That's not the point. Every-so-often an interesting one must creep in. I had this notion when I encountered: http://coord.info/GC1DAFT and thought "GC 1 DAFT" was an amusing ID for a cache. (I don't know how far afield the term" daft" is, so for the uninitiated, it means silly or foolish.)

 

Tell me about other funky database IDs you've encountered!

Link to post

Each cache has a unique ID (incremented by 1 every time a new cache is created, even if unpublished). That is converted to the GC code. It is a Base 31 conversion, omitting the characters "ILOSU" to prevent confusion with 1, 0, and 5. Not sure about "U" but it means some rude words will automatically be eliminated.

 

I'm not sure if any of the other potentially rude words are filtered out. Won't be surprised if it is - should be fairly easy to code for it.

Link to post

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned http://coords.info/gcXXXX yet.

Thats an interesting cache. The listing is locked to keep people from logging. In a way, I thought I saw "traveling cache" between the lines after it been archived.

Only ~25 million more cache hides before we get to GCXXXXX (ID = 26309420, if anyone's waiting for it)

my head hurts! Thank you! :blink::ph34r:

Link to post
Only ~25 million more cache hides before we get to GCXXXXX (ID = 26309420, if anyone's waiting for it)

Doesn't that equate to something like 147 years at the current rate of going?

Nah... a dozen more power trails and we'll be there.

 

Kidding aside, only Groundspeak has the numbers to show how quickly GC IDs are given out. I believe Fizzymagic has some plots showing increase in number of caches that could be used to provide an estimate.

Link to post

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned http://coords.info/gcXXXX yet.

 

...and 458 watchers!

I don't want to derail the thread, but why would 458 people be watching an archived cache that has apparently been locked down to prevent any further logging? I'm just curious. Does anyone know or have any educated guesses?

 

My guess is that many people just haven't "unwatched" it. I sometimes forget that I'm watching a cache until I get an email about it.

Link to post

My guess is that many people just haven't "unwatched" it. I sometimes forget that I'm watching a cache until I get an email about it.

Heh! Funny, someone has unwatched it. It's down to 457 watchers today!!

 

why is it watch worthy I wonder? Only 5 finds (one of them a dupe) and 1 who never found another cache. Still, not sure why its watch worthy.

 

I did make a bookmark list for a challenge which wanted finds based on GC#, but never found the cache while in Oregon.

Most interesting one I found at the time was GC1GERM. Did CoFTF it.

 

that challenge in Oregon

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=a525d79c-d798-4df8-8ee5-92206d2b9cb3

Link to post

My guess is that many people just haven't "unwatched" it. I sometimes forget that I'm watching a cache until I get an email about it.

Heh! Funny, someone has unwatched it. It's down to 457 watchers today!!

 

why is it watch worthy I wonder? Only 5 finds (one of them a dupe) and 1 who never found another cache. Still, not sure why its watch worthy.

 

I did make a bookmark list for a challenge which wanted finds based on GC#, but never found the cache while in Oregon.

Most interesting one I found at the time was GC1GERM. Did CoFTF it.

 

that challenge in Oregon

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=a525d79c-d798-4df8-8ee5-92206d2b9cb3

Thanks, Lamoracke. I didn't ask my question well, but that's actually what I was wondering. It had a very limited lifespan and didn't seem worthy of that many watchers. It made me wonder if there was some history behind this cache that wasn't obvious when looking at the listing.

Link to post

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned http://coords.info/gcXXXX yet.

 

...and 458 watchers!

I don't want to derail the thread, but why would 458 people be watching an archived cache that has apparently been locked down to prevent any further logging? I'm just curious. Does anyone know or have any educated guesses?

maybe two.

The had it on their watchlist before the locked and forgot about it.

Or waiting to see if it gets unlocked like when the Space Station did.

Link to post

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned http://coords.info/gcXXXX yet.

 

...and 458 watchers!

I don't want to derail the thread, but why would 458 people be watching an archived cache that has apparently been locked down to prevent any further logging? I'm just curious. Does anyone know or have any educated guesses?

 

~400 or so of those are probably not even geocaching anymore. With logs locked, there won't be any emails received to remind people to take it off their watch list.

Link to post
why is it watch worthy I wonder? Only 5 finds (one of them a dupe) and 1 who never found another cache. Still, not sure why its watch worthy.

Heck knows, but I'm now watchign it to find out. Maybe It's watching gone "viral?"

Link to post

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned http://coords.info/gcXXXX yet.

 

...and 458 watchers!

I don't want to derail the thread, but why would 458 people be watching an archived cache that has apparently been locked down to prevent any further logging? I'm just curious. Does anyone know or have any educated guesses?

 

~400 or so of those are probably not even geocaching anymore. With logs locked, there won't be any emails received to remind people to take it off their watch list.

 

But why would over 400 people be watching in the first place? I have a feeling that there was a something funny going on like armchair logging and Groundspeak cleaned up the log history and then locked it.

Link to post

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...
×
×
  • Create New...