+Sueffel Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Hi, there is a problem refresh some cache codes. Jurgen & co wrote in the GSAK forum: "I just wanted to refresh a cache i had only the code somehow from a old backup. If i ask for a refresh for GC1D9G i get back the information for GC1D8F.Then i looked furter and i noticed that GC1D9G dos not exist. Not even unpublished. Is this a api problem??" See this in the GSAK forum: http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=28840# Greets Süffel Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) It is impossible for there to have ever been a cache page with a GC Code of GC1D9G. The four-digit hexadecimal codes ran out at GCFFFF. I wouldn't be surprised if a value of "G" in a four digit GC Code produced an error or a strange result from the API, because it's not valid input. Just to double-check, I did search for that GC Code and it returned an error message -- even though, as a reviewer, I can "see" retracted cache listings. The page was not retracted; rather, it does not exist at all. I suggest double-checking the GC Code. Could it be GC11D9G, for example? Edited January 13, 2015 by Keystone Quote Link to comment
+HHL Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It is impossible for there to have ever been a cache page with a GC Code of GC1D9G. The four-digit hexadecimal codes ran out at GCFFFF. I wouldn't be surprised if a value of "G" in a four digit GC Code produced an error or a strange result from the API, because it's not valid input.[…] Not quite true. There is also a possible four digit code containing a "G" based on Base31. Sometime around April 2003, the database reached ID=65535 or GCFFFF - the maximum of four digit hexadecimal. The programmer's used the solution of changing to a base 31 code: 0-9, A-Z with some characters left out. The waypoints were originally limited to six characters because most GPS units only allow six characters per waypoint. In December 2006, the database hit 512401 geocache records, which meant that they had already had GCZZZZ, the maximum geocache under the base 31 method. The programmer's solution was that next geocache would be GC10000 (seven digits). That geocache is now a memorial to the rollover. The TO's problem is NOT an unvalid code but a wrong feedback from his Api request. That is: Requesting GCCode A delivers a wrong GCCode B (where it just should give an error message). Hans Quote Link to comment
+Sueffel Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 I test a range of codes above GCFFFF. Range: GCKY00-GCKYZZ GSAK check all 1225 Caches. GSAK get 898 Caches back, 868 Caches in the Range of GCKY00-GCKYZZ, 30 not in this range. They have codes like GCKX** The rest of 357 Caches are not refreshed, because they didn´t exist. After this, i have 1255 in my database. Süffel Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.