Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
MetsFanInNJ

GC90000

Recommended Posts

GC10000 was published on 12/26/2006 - 6 1/2 years after the first placement

GC20000 was published on 7/2/2011 - 5 1/2 years after GC10000

GC30002 was published on 10/16/2011  - 3 1/2 months after GC20000 ?

GC40001 was published on 4/4/2013  - a little over 1 1/2 years after GC30002

GC50000 was published on 3/19/2014  - less than a year after GC40001

GC60001 was published on 8/6/2016 nearly 2 1/2 years after GC50000

GC70000 was published on 2/10/2017 - about 6 months after GC60001

GC80000 was published on 7/10/2019 - exactly 2 years 5 months after GC70000

 

So when does everyone think GC90000 is coming? I am thinking around 9/18/2020

Also, any reasons why the length between milestones vary so widely? I would have expected that the durations would gradually get shorter instead of being all over the place.

Edited by MetsFanInNJ
spelling
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, MetsFanInNJ said:

Also, any reasons why the length between milestones vary so widely? I would have expected that the durations would gradually get shorter instead of being all over the place.

 

Perhaps it was the two batches of virtual rewards which saw large blocks of GC codes released simultaneously.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Perhaps it was the two batches of virtual rewards which saw large blocks of GC codes released simultaneously.

 

Good point, that would explain the 6-7 gap but the earlier one is puzzling me. Forgot about those (maybe because I got shut out :() Which reminds me, I have about 6 weeks to finish my Adventure Lab that I started...

Share this post


Link to post

Do you see a list somewhere that shows every new published cache worldwide?   I'm assuming you are looking at something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/11/2020 at 12:10 PM, MetsFanInNJ said:

 

Also, any reasons why the length between milestones vary so widely? I would have expected that the durations would gradually get shorter instead of being all over the place.

 

I'd also chalk this up a bit to saturation. Some areas have a low turn over, so new caches rarely get places. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, igator210 said:
On 9/12/2020 at 2:10 AM, MetsFanInNJ said:

 

Also, any reasons why the length between milestones vary so widely? I would have expected that the durations would gradually get shorter instead of being all over the place.

 

I'd also chalk this up a bit to saturation. Some areas have a low turn over, so new caches rarely get places. 

 

Another thought: the date of publication can sometimes be many months or even years after the GC code was issued. One of mine took three months from when I created the cache page until it was finally published as the nartional parks approval process was pretty slow. Your list shows GC20000 was published in July 2011 but I just checked GC20001 and it was published almost a year earlier in August 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Another thought: the date of publication can sometimes be many months or even years after the GC code was issued. One of mine took three months from when I created the cache page until it was finally published as the nartional parks approval process was pretty slow. Your list shows GC20000 was published in July 2011 but I just checked GC20001 and it was published almost a year earlier in August 2010.

 

Ohhh... good point... someone could grab a GC code and sit out it for years if they wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post

Back to the original question, my AL bonus cache, which I started working on yesterday, is GC8ZXGJ so it's getting very close to GC90000. Doing a global cache search and sorting by placed date, I see that GC8ZZ3A has been published so it might have already happened.

Share this post


Link to post

As I post this, the latest code allocation is GC8ZZHV. GC90000 will be reached within the next few hours, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Another thought: the date of publication can sometimes be many months or even years after the GC code was issued. One of mine took three months from when I created the cache page until it was finally published as the nartional parks approval process was pretty slow. Your list shows GC20000 was published in July 2011 but I just checked GC20001 and it was published almost a year earlier in August 2010.

 

For a small number that is a reasonable explanation but there are about 1.68 million listings (36^4) between the odometer rolling over so to speak, unless there is some numbering restrictions that I am not aware of. Which tells me there are s sh*tload of GC codes that never get published (events and archives cannot possibly keep up with publications) 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

As I post this, the latest code allocation is GC8ZZHV. GC90000 will be reached within the next few hours, I guess.

 

Did you create a dummy listing or are you a reviewer with magic powers?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MetsFanInNJ said:

 

For a small number that is a reasonable explanation but there are about 1.68 million listings (36^4) between the odometer rolling over so to speak, unless there is some numbering restrictions that I am not aware of. Which tells me there are s sh*tload of GC codes that never get published (events and archives cannot possibly keep up with publications) 

 

GC codes are base-31 with the letters LOUIS not used, so the number per odometer rollover is 31^4 = 923521. So on that basis, GC90000 should be the 8311689th GC code. The average lifespan of a cache seems to be about 3 to 5 years so that's not unreasonable if there's a bit over 3 million currently active caches.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

GC codes are base-31 with the letters LOUIS not used, so the number per odometer rollover is 31^4 = 923521. So on that basis, GC90000 should be the 8311689th GC code. The average lifespan of a cache seems to be about 3 to 5 years so that's not unreasonable if there's a bit over 3 million currently active caches.

Interesting! Thanks for explaining that.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So on that basis, GC90000 should be the 8311689th GC code

7900569, to be exact. Up to GCFFFF, the codes were hexadecimal. Starting with GCG000, the current "Base-31" system was adopted. Therefore, GCG000 was cache # 65536 instead of # 16*31^3 = 476656. The difference is 411120, which is the number of caches "missing" compared to a pure base-31 evaluation of 90000.

 

... and yes, I know that I can be a nerd :P!

 

BTW, GC90000 was allocated around 9:30am CEDT (UTC+0200) today.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, MetsFanInNJ said:

 

Did you create a dummy listing or are you a reviewer with magic powers?

Neither. If you type coord.info/GCxxxxx in your browser, the URL expands slightly differently, depending on whether the code GCxxxxx is just not yet published, or still completely unallocated. So by playing around, you can find out the exact point in the sequence where we currently are.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

7900569, to be exact. Up to GCFFFF, the codes were hexadecimal. Starting with GCG000, the current "Base-31" system was adopted. Therefore, GCG000 was cache # 65536 instead of # 16*31^3 = 476656. The difference is 411120, which is the number of caches "missing" compared to a pure base-31 evaluation of 90000.

 

... and yes, I know that I can be a nerd :P!

 

BTW, GC90000 was allocated around 9:30am CEDT (UTC+0200) today.

 

9:37am CEDT (UTC+0200) actually. How did I know it? Use the coord.info/GCxxxxx trick to find out...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, uqam said:

 

9:37am CEDT (UTC+0200) actually. How did I know it? Use the coord.info/GCxxxxx trick to find out...:P

I already know that you got it, since about 5 seconds after the allocation ;). When I thought this morning "Hey, let's have a look if GC90000 is gone", I found out that the current position is GC8ZZZV! So I decided to "watch it live" :D. And after I saw the cache name, I stalked your profile (I'm a curious person).

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

GC codes are base-31 with the letters LOUIS not used, so the number per odometer rollover is 31^4 = 923521. So on that basis, GC90000 should be the 8311689th GC code. The average lifespan of a cache seems to be about 3 to 5 years so that's not unreasonable if there's a bit over 3 million currently active caches.

Why are the letters LOUIS not used? I understand that Base 31 has to leave out 5 letters, but why not just make it go up to U and leave out VWXYZ instead? Just wondering. It's making it harder for me to do this whole Base 31 to Base 10 conversion thing:D:tongue:

Edited by TmdAndGG

Share this post


Link to post

So as to avoid confusion between 1 and I, 5 and S, 0 and 0 (can't even see that one in this font!).  The L is only an issue in lower case.  Never understood U.

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

So as to avoid confusion between 1 and I, 5 and S, 0 and 0 (can't even see that one in this font!).  The L is only an issue in lower case.  Never understood U.

 

Ok. GC codes are usually in uppercase anyways. Thanks!

By the way, for some reason I can see the slight difference between 0 and O here, but not on your post...

Edit: It's possible that the U could look like a V...

Edited by TmdAndGG

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, any useful distinction between the letter and number is a very font specific thing, so it's a question of how a given browser renders it, and any font selection allowed by board software.

As you say, yours does show up differently.  Still, there would be a risk in any given font of having them look too similar or identical.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Never understood U

It' to avoid Four Letter Words. :lol:

Edited by HHL

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ecanderson said:

So as to avoid confusion between 1 and I, 5 and S, 0 and 0 (can't even see that one in this font!).  The L is only an issue in lower case.  Never understood U.

 

Probably to just make it easier to remember the banned ones with the other ones, otherwise you would have LOIS for base-32. 

I would ask why base-31 and not base-32 (2^5) which my computer science mind would compute easier but I don't want to annoy crusty old charter members. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, baer2006 said:

7900569, to be exact. Up to GCFFFF, the codes were hexadecimal. Starting with GCG000, the current "Base-31" system was adopted. Therefore, GCG000 was cache # 65536 instead of # 16*31^3 = 476656. The difference is 411120, which is the number of caches "missing" compared to a pure base-31 evaluation of 90000.

 

... and yes, I know that I can be a nerd :P!

 

BTW, GC90000 was allocated around 9:30am CEDT (UTC+0200) today.

 

Can you explain how this works with caches with letters such as GC8BA53 (one of mine).  Using an online base-31 converted I can convert 90000 and get what you got (at least get 8311689 - 411120 = 7900569).  How would I convert my cache ID to the nth cache using a base 31 system?  

Share this post


Link to post

So now that we have crossed the GC9xxxx divide, any way for mere premium members to know which one was actually published first? I vaguely remember that there were some time stamps at the bottom of the cache page at one time but those are gone now. 

 

When i use HHL's link from above, GC900BC shows up lowest on the list but that is hardly foolproof. 

Edited by MetsFanInNJ
Added info
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

Time stamps still appear at the bottom of printed cache pages, but reflect the date/time that the page was brought up for printing ("Page Generated"), not the date/time of placement or publishing.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

Can you explain how this works with caches with letters such as GC8BA53 (one of mine).  Using an online base-31 converted I can convert 90000 and get what you got (at least get 8311689 - 411120 = 7900569).  How would I convert my cache ID to the nth cache using a base 31 system?  

The math:

"Digits" for base-31 are 0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRTVWXYZ

=> 8BA53 = 8*(31^4) + 11*(31^3) + 10*(31^2) + 5*31 + 3 = 7725637

7725637 - 411120 = 7314517 = your cache ID

 

The tool ;):

https://www.geocachingtoolbox.com/index.php?lang=en&page=gcCodeIdConversion

Edited by baer2006
Typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

The math:

"Digits" for base-31 are 0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRTVWXYZ

=> 8BA53 = 8*(31^4) + 11*(31^3) + 10*(31^2) + 5*31 + 3 = 7725637

7725637 - 411120 = 7314517 = your cache ID

 

The tool ;):

https://www.geocachingtoolbox.com/index.php?lang=en&page=gcCodeIdConversion

 

So that's how you solve that puzzle!  Thanks!  B)  (sorry I couldn't preface my question with "for the purposes of a puzzle...")

 

It's always fun to learn something new.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/11/2020 at 12:10 PM, MetsFanInNJ said:

GC10000 was published on 12/26/2006 - 6 1/2 years after the first placement

GC20000 was published on 7/2/2011 - 5 1/2 years after GC10000

GC30002 was published on 10/16/2011  - 3 1/2 months after GC20000 ?

GC40001 was published on 4/4/2013  - a little over 1 1/2 years after GC30002

GC50000 was published on 3/19/2014  - less than a year after GC40001

GC60001 was published on 8/6/2016 nearly 2 1/2 years after GC50000

GC70000 was published on 2/10/2017 - about 6 months after GC60001

GC80000 was published on 7/10/2019 - exactly 2 years 5 months after GC70000

 

It's hard to draw an exact timeline with the milestones, since they are milestones and thus targets for squatting. GC30000, GC40000, and GC60000 were sat on by folks who somehow never got around to putting a cache together. (Might have been trying to sell it and never got a buyer.) And GC40000 and GC80000 were events, so that automatically throws the timeline off, especially with a mega event. Probably there would be a more accurate timeline if we looked at the listings a few places before/after the big ones.

 

(Maybe I'll look at this tomorrow, but for now, it is TV time with the wife.)

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/11/2020 at 12:10 PM, MetsFanInNJ said:

GC10000 was published on 12/26/2006 - 6 1/2 years after the first placement

 

That was actually panic or "ZERO" day for geocaching because quite a few GPSr units could only go up to 6 digits, which I think is the reason geocaching adopted the hex format instead of just numbers. I had an etrex and had to use scripts to chop off the G in the code in order to upload. 

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...