[Az-Geocaching] My first finding of a geocache after GCFFFF
listserv@azgeocaching.com
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1480536446-1051214937=:94492
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
There was also mention that they would reject or ignore certain specific IDs that might e considered inappropriate (something like "GCSEX" might be on that list). Obviously we could think of some four-letter combinations of letters following "GC" that may be obscene and wouldn't be appropriate for cache waypoints. (I won't mention them here on this family-oriented listserv). With a base 36 numbering system we would have room for up to 1,679,616 four-character (after the "GC") waypoint combinations. That should last for a while, even if we have to drop a few combinations. Base 32 numbering system still provides over a million combinations. Yesterday I found my first geocache with a waypoint after GCFFFF - GCG01G.
I haven't done geocache GCB0B yet but I'm keeping several paperback books in my SUV for a visit to it that I hope to make soon.
Ken (a.k.a. Highpointer)
We've come a long way from the time when Bob Renner could get a cache ID
named after both the cache and himself (see GCB0B).
az-geocaching-request@listserv.azgeocaching.com wrote:Send Az-Geocaching mailing list submissions to
az-geocaching@listserv.azgeocaching.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
az-geocaching-request@listserv.azgeocaching.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Az-Geocaching digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. test (Jason Poulter)
2. Re: test (RAND HARDIN)
3. Re: test (Jason Poulter)
4. Bacon Cache Trip Report (Jerry Nelson)
5. Re: New Numbering System? (Scott Sparks)
6. Re: Re: New Numbering System? (Brian Cluff)
7. RE: Re: New Numbering System? (Team Tierra Buena)
8. Lowest Gas Prices (Cody Brown)
9. weekend gas Prices (Regan Smith)
10. Re: Re: New Numbering System? (Brian Cluff)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:41:12 -0700
From: Jason Poulter
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] test
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
test
--__--__--
Message: 2
From: "RAND HARDIN"
To: "AZ-Geocaching"
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] test
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:14:12 -0700
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C309BB.C2E7A080
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The test came through okay!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Poulter
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:46 PM
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] test
test
____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C309BB.C2E7A080
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The test came =
through okay! 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid=
; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> ----- Original Mess=
age -----R: black">From: Jason Poulter">Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:46 PM: 10pt Arial">To: listserv@azgeocaching.comNT: 10pt Arial">Subject: [Az-Geocaching] test IV>test
______________________________________________________=
______
Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
To edit=
your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeoca=
ching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
Arizona's Geocaching Reso=
urce
http://www.azgeocaching.com
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C309BB.C2E7A080--
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:27:12 -0700
From: Jason Poulter
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] test
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
seems i kinda broke the listserv yesterday night working on some other
stuff...
sorry about that peoples!!!
jason
RAND HARDIN wrote:
> The test came through okay!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jason Poulter
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:46 PM
> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com
> *Subject:* [Az-Geocaching] test
>
> test
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
--__--__--
Message: 4
From: "Jerry Nelson"
To:
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:09:59 -0700
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Bacon Cache Trip Report
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C309D4.515138A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Two days ago I headed to an anticipated first find of the new Bacon =
Cache in Squaw Peak Park in Phoenix placed by General Ursus. At a point =
about .14 miles from its location the trail changed to an unsigned, =
unnumbered route that caused me to hesitate. A few years ago I'd been =
embarrassed in front of a crowd when a SPP ranger yelled at me over his =
car speaker to get my bottom down from a location he thought was not =
correct. I suppose I was left with a greater than average consciousness =
of trail legality. Not a bad thing generally.
The General and I were not getting identical reports from officials =
about whether open but unsigned trails were legal. After exchanging a =
couple brief e-mails and his consequent asking on this listserv for the =
opinions of others regarding this placement, I decided that the trail =
might be alright after all, so made a second try this morning. Thanks =
to Highpointer and RTW for their responses, allowing me to get this one =
guilt free. The route, although maybe not as "official" as others in the =
area, appears to be used regularly and I'll now consider it OK unless I =
hear otherwise. I still made a first find, even though this has been =
in place for ten days.
The trail issue aside, I have to report that this is an excellent cache. =
It's a beautiful location, well hidden, requiring absolutely no =
searching in off route areas. Even the container is nicely constructed. =
Wear your hiking boots and be prepared for some loose slopes. If you =
like caches that require a bit of exercise and have outstanding views, =
you're bound to enjoy this. =20
The General made a good first hide. Thank you, SIR! (salute :o) )
Jerry
Offtrail
------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C309D4.515138A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
size=3D3>Two days ago I=20
headed to an anticipated first find of the new Bacon Cache in Squaw =
Peak=20
Park in Phoenix placed by General Ursus. At a point about .14 =
miles=20
from its location the trail changed to an unsigned, unnumbered route =
that caused=20
me to hesitate. A few years ago I'd been embarrassed in front of a =
crowd=20
when a SPP ranger yelled at me over his car speaker to get my =
bottom down=20
from a location he thought was not correct. I suppose I was left with a =
greater=20
than average consciousness of trail legality. Not a bad thing=20
generally.
The General and I were not getting identical =
reports from=20
officials about whether open but unsigned trails were =
legal. After=20
exchanging a couple brief e-mails and his consequent asking on this =
listserv for the opinions of others regarding this placement, I decided =
that the=20
trail might be alright after all, so made a second try this=20
morning. Thanks to Highpointer and RTW for their responses, =
allowing=20
me to get this one guilt free. The route, although maybe not as =
"official" as=20
others in the area, appears to be used regularly and I'll now =
consider it=20
OK unless I hear otherwise. I still made a first find, =
even=20
though this has been in place for ten days.
The trail issue =
aside, I have=20
to report that this is an excellent cache. It's a beautiful location, =
well=20
hidden, requiring absolutely no searching in off route areas. Even =
the=20
container is nicely constructed. Wear your hiking boots and be =
prepared=20
for some loose slopes. If you like caches that require a bit of =
exercise=20
and have outstanding views, you're bound to enjoy this. =20
size=3D3>
size=3D3>The General=20
made a good first hide. Thank you, SIR! (salute :o)=20
)
Jerry
Offtrail
>
------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C309D4.515138A0--
--__--__--
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:18:08 -0700
From: Scott Sparks
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Re: New Numbering System?
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
>
>
>I must not be looking in the right place, because I don't see the change that Scott mentions...
>
>Tim
>Team AZFastFeet
>
About an hour and a half after I posted that question to the listserv
(and also e-mailed the admins at GEOCACHING.COM) everything was back to
normal. And no, I hadn't been drinking anything. ;-) My guess is,
they (the geocaching gods) were testing their upcoming software changes
and have since returned them to normal. Some of the "new" waypoint
numbers had alphabetic characters well outside the range of hexadecimal.
I specifically remember a "Q" in one of them. In fact, I have a
printout in front of me of the '"A" Mountain Cache' that has a waypoint
of GCN7! I printed it at 1:22 PM 4/22/03.
-- Sprocket
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:08:02 -0700
From: Brian Cluff
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Re: New Numbering System?
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Scott Sparks wrote:
> About an hour and a half after I posted that question to the listserv
> (and also e-mailed the admins at GEOCACHING.COM) everything was back
> to normal. And no, I hadn't been drinking anything. ;-) My guess
> is, they (the geocaching gods) were testing their upcoming software
> changes and have since returned them to normal. Some of the "new"
> waypoint numbers had alphabetic characters well outside the range of
> hexadecimal. I specifically remember a "Q" in one of them. In fact, I
> have a printout in front of me of the '"A" Mountain Cache' that has a
> waypoint of GCN7! I printed it at 1:22 PM 4/22/03.
>From the looks of it they went with a compromise. I personally would
have just completely redone the numbering system....
Anyway, from the looks of it, everything after GCFFFF will be base 36.
so they have a simple formula of (bad pseudo code to folow)
if(database_number<=65535)
waypoint="GC"+hex_encode(database_number)
else
waypoint="GC"+base36_encode(database_number+base36_decode(G000))
They just have to make sure they add whatever the heck G000 is in base
36 to the real number that is in the database so that they don't step on
the toes of the hex numbers. It's not horribly complex....
Brian Cluff
Team Snaptek
--__--__--
Message: 7
From: "Team Tierra Buena"
To:
Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] Re: New Numbering System?
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:41:17 -0700
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
> Anyway, from the looks of it, everything after GCFFFF will be base 36.
I recall reading a while back that they were going to drop characters
like I and O to avoid confusion with 1 and 0. I think they were dropping
a few others and bringing it down to base 31 or 32. There was also
mention that they would reject or ignore certain specific IDs that might
be considered inappropriate (something like "GCSEX" might be on that
list).
We've come a long way from the time when Bob Renner could get a cache ID
named after both the cache and himself (see GCB0B).
Steve
Team Tierra Buena
--__--__--
Message: 8
To: az-geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com
From: "Cody Brown"
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:29:40 -0700
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Lowest Gas Prices
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
http://www.phoenixgasprices.com/
--__--__--
Message: 9
From: "Regan Smith"
To:
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:44:54 -0700
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] weekend gas Prices
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C30A35.6580F340
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
just for those who watch things like this 1.839 seems to be the best =
East Valley price for unleaded that I have seen which is fine for those =
heading to this weekends get together
you all be safe and have fun while Team Evil Fish hides the Hardest to =
find and log cache to date for us, the title will be something like =
Minus 20 or some such am working on making it a 5/5 but will be more of =
a 3.5/5
oh well but I degress
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C30A35.6580F340
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
just for those who watch things like =
this 1.839=20
seems to be the best East Valley price for unleaded that I have seen =
which is=20
fine for those heading to this weekends get together
you all be safe and have fun while Team =
Evil Fish=20
hides the Hardest to find and log cache to date for us, the title will =
be=20
something like Minus 20 or some such am working on making it a 5/5 =
but will=20
be more of a 3.5/5
oh well but I degress
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C30A35.6580F340--
--__--__--
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:08:00 -0700
From: Brian Cluff
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Re: New Numbering System?
Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Team Tierra Buena wrote:
>>Anyway, from the looks of it, everything after GCFFFF will be base 36.
>
>
> I recall reading a while back that they were going to drop characters
> like I and O to avoid confusion with 1 and 0. I think they were dropping
> a few others and bringing it down to base 31 or 32. There was also
> mention that they would reject or ignore certain specific IDs that might
> be considered inappropriate (something like "GCSEX" might be on that
> list).
WOW! what a pain that will be to try and duplicate... I wouldn't even
try and take out the swear words, there are just too many that you can
come up with, especially being an international thing. I came up time
at least 20 of the in a minute. Plus I was looking forward to try to
hid a really bad quality cache and have it be GCSHIT.
In any case, well just have to sit back and see what the heck they are
doing, and modify our site accordingly.
Brian Cluff
Team Snaptek
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list
listserv@azgeocaching.com
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com
End of Az-Geocaching Digest
--0-1480536446-1051214937=:94492
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV><EM>There was also mention that they would reject or ignore certain specific IDs that might e considered inappropriate (something like "GCSEX" might be on that list).</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Obviously we could think of some four-letter combinations of letters following "GC" that may be obscene and wouldn't be appropriate for cache waypoints. (I won't mention them here on this family-oriented listserv).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With a base 36 numbering system we would have room for up to 1,679,616 four-character (after the "GC") waypoint combinations. That should last for a while, even if we have to drop a few combinations. Base 32 numbering system still provides over a million combinations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yesterday I found my first geocache with a waypoint after GCFFFF - <SPAN id=WaypointName><FONT face=Verdana><A href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=65583">GCG01G</A>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<P><SPAN><FONT face=Verdana>I haven't done geocache <A href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCB0B">GCB0B</A> yet but I'm keeping several paperback books in my SUV for a visit to it that I hope to make soon.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN><FONT face=Verdana><STRONG>Ken</STRONG> (a.k.a. <STRONG><EM>Highpointer</EM></STRONG>)</FONT></SPAN></P>
<DIV><BR><BR>We've come a long way from the time when Bob Renner could get a cache ID<BR>named after both the cache and himself (see GCB0B).<BR><BR><BR><B><I>az-geocaching-request@listserv.azgeocaching.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Send Az-Geocaching mailing list submissions to<BR>az-geocaching@listserv.azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching<BR>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>az-geocaching-request@listserv.azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>You can reach the person managing the list at<BR>az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>than "Re: Contents of Az-Geocaching digest..."<BR><BR><BR>Today's Topics:<BR><BR>1. test (Jason Poulter)<BR>2. Re: test (RAND HARDIN)<BR>3. Re: test (Jason Poulter)<BR>4. Bacon Cache Trip Report (Jerry Nelson)<BR>5. Re: New Numbering System? (Scott Sparks)<BR>6. Re: Re: New Numbering System? (Brian Cluff)<BR>7. RE: Re: New Numbering System? (Team Tierra Buena)<BR>8. Lowest Gas Prices (Cody Brown)<BR>9. weekend gas Prices (Regan Smith)<BR>10. Re: Re: New Numbering System? (Brian Cluff)<BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 1<BR>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:41:12 -0700<BR>From: Jason Poulter <POLT@SNAPTEK.COM><BR>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>Subject: [Az-Geocaching] test<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>test<BR><BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 2<BR>From: "RAND HARDIN" <RHRDN8@MSN.COM><BR>To: "AZ-Geocaching" <LISTSERV@AZGEOCACHING.COM><BR>Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] test<BR>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:14:12 -0700<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR><BR>------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C309BB.C2E7A080<BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR><BR>The test came through okay!<BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: Jason Poulter<BR>Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:46 PM<BR>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>Subject: [Az-Geocaching] test<BR><BR>test<BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:<BR>http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching<BR><BR>Arizona's Geocaching Resource<BR>http://www.azgeocaching.com<BR>------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C309BB.C2E7A080<BR>Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable<BR><BR>
<DIV>The test came =<BR>through okay!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid=<BR>; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV Arial? 10pt>----- Original Mess=<BR>age -----</DIV>
<DIV 10pt COLO="<br" Arial; FONT: #e4e4e4;>R: black"><B>From:</B> Jason Poulter</DIV>
<DIV 10pt Arial="<br">"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:46 PM</DIV>
<DIV>: 10pt Arial"><B>To:</B> listserv@azgeocaching.com</DIV>
<DIV>NT: 10pt Arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Az-Geocaching] test</DIV>
<DIV> </D=<BR>IV>test<BR><BR><BR>______________________________________________________=<BR>______<BR>Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>To edit=<BR>your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:<BR>http://listserv.azgeoca=<BR>ching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching<BR><BR>Arizona's Geocaching Reso=<BR>urce<BR>http://www.azgeocaching.com<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C309BB.C2E7A080--<BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 3<BR>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:27:12 -0700<BR>From: Jason Poulter <POLT@SNAPTEK.COM><BR>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] test<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>seems i kinda broke the listserv yesterday night working on some other <BR>stuff...<BR><BR>sorry about that peoples!!!<BR><BR>jason<BR><BR><BR>RAND HARDIN wrote:<BR><BR>> The test came through okay!<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> *From:* Jason Poulter<BR>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:46 PM<BR>> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>> *Subject:* [Az-Geocaching] test<BR>> <BR>> test<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ____________________________________________________________<BR>> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:<BR>> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching<BR>> <BR>> Arizona's Geocaching Resource<BR>> http://www.azgeocaching.com<BR><BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 4<BR>From: "Jerry Nelson" <PEAKBAGGER2@COX.NET><BR>To: <LISTSERV@AZGEOCACHING.COM><BR>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:09:59 -0700<BR>Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Bacon Cache Trip Report<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.<BR><BR>------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C309D4.515138A0<BR>Content-Type: text/plain;<BR>charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable<BR><BR>Two days ago I headed to an anticipated first find of the new Bacon =<BR>Cache in Squaw Peak Park in Phoenix placed by General Ursus. At a point =<BR>about .14 miles from its location the trail changed to an unsigned, =<BR>unnumbered route that caused me to hesitate. A few years ago I'd been =<BR>embarrassed in front of a crowd when a SPP ranger yelled at me over his =<BR>car speaker to get my bottom down from a location he thought was not =<BR>correct. I suppose I was left with a greater than average consciousness =<BR>of trail legality. Not a bad thing generally.<BR><BR>The General and I were not getting identical reports from officials =<BR>about whether open but unsigned trails were legal. After exchanging a =<BR>couple brief e-mails and his consequent asking on this listserv for the =<BR>opinions of others regarding this placement, I decided that the trail =<BR>might be alright after all, so made a second try this morning. Thanks =<BR>to Highpointer and RTW for their responses, allowing me to get this one =<BR>guilt free. The route, although maybe not as "official" as others in the =<BR>area, appears to be used regularly and I'll now consider it OK unless I =<BR>hear otherwise. I still made a first find, even though this has been =<BR>in place for ten days.<BR><BR>The trail issue aside, I have to report that this is an excellent cache. =<BR>It's a beautiful location, well hidden, requiring absolutely no =<BR>searching in off route areas. Even the container is nicely constructed. =<BR>Wear your hiking boots and be prepared for some loose slopes. If you =<BR>like caches that require a bit of exercise and have outstanding views, =<BR>you're bound to enjoy this. =20<BR><BR>The General made a good first hide. Thank you, SIR! (salute :o) )<BR><BR>Jerry<BR>Offtrail<BR><BR><BR>------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C309D4.515138A0<BR>Content-Type: text/html;<BR>charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content='3D"text/html;' ="<br">charset=3Diso-8859-1"><BR>
<META content='3D"MSHTML' name=3DGENERATOR 6.00.2800.1141?><BR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3><FONT face='3D"Times' Roman?="<br" New>size=3D3>Two days ago I=20<BR>headed to an anticipated first find of the new Bacon Cache in Squaw =<BR>Peak=20<BR>Park in Phoenix placed by General Ursus. At a point about .14 =<BR>miles=20<BR>from its location the trail changed to an unsigned, unnumbered route =<BR>that caused=20<BR>me to hesitate. A few years ago I'd been embarrassed in front of a =<BR>crowd=20<BR>when a SPP ranger yelled at me over his car speaker to get my =<BR>bottom down=20<BR>from a location he thought was not correct. I suppose I was left with a =<BR>greater=20<BR>than average consciousness of trail legality. Not a bad thing=20<BR>generally.<BR><BR>The General and I were not getting identical =<BR>reports from=20<BR>officials about whether open but unsigned trails were =<BR>legal. After=20<BR>exchanging a couple brief e-mails and his consequent asking on this =<BR><BR>listserv for the opinions of others regarding this placement, I decided =<BR>that the=20<BR>trail might be alright after all, so made a second try this=20<BR>morning. Thanks to Highpointer and RTW for their responses, =<BR>allowing=20<BR>me to get this one guilt free. The route, although maybe not as =<BR>"official" as=20<BR>others in the area, appears to be used regularly and I'll now =<BR>consider it=20<BR>OK unless I hear otherwise. I still made a first find, =<BR>even=20<BR>though this has been in place for ten days.<BR><BR>The trail issue =<BR>aside, I have=20<BR>to report that this is an excellent cache. It's a beautiful location, =<BR>well=20<BR>hidden, requiring absolutely no searching in off route areas. Even =<BR>the=20<BR>container is nicely constructed. Wear your hiking boots and be =<BR>prepared=20<BR>for some loose slopes. If you like caches that require a bit of =<BR>exercise=20<BR>and have outstanding views, you're bound to enjoy this. =20<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3><FONT face='3D"Times' Roman?="<br" New><BR>size=3D3><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3><FONT face='3D"Times' Roman?="<br" New>size=3D3>The General=20<BR>made a good first hide. Thank you, SIR! (salute :o)=20<BR>)<BR><BR>Jerry<BR>Offtrail</FONT><BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY=<BR>><BR><BR>------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01C309D4.515138A0--<BR><BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 5<BR>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:18:08 -0700<BR>From: Scott Sparks <SCOTTSPARKS1@MCHSI.COM><BR>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Re: New Numbering System?<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>><BR>><BR>>I must not be looking in the right place, because I don't see the change that Scott mentions...<BR>><BR>>Tim<BR>>Team AZFastFeet<BR>><BR><BR>About an hour and a half after I posted that question to the listserv <BR>(and also e-mailed the admins at GEOCACHING.COM) everything was back to <BR>normal. And no, I hadn't been drinking anything. ;-) My guess is, <BR>they (the geocaching gods) were testing their upcoming software changes <BR>and have since returned them to normal. Some of the "new" waypoint <BR>numbers had alphabetic characters well outside the range of hexadecimal. <BR>I specifically remember a "Q" in one of them. In fact, I have a <BR>printout in front of me of the '"A" Mountain Cache' that has a waypoint <BR>of GCN7! I printed it at 1:22 PM 4/22/03. <BR><BR>-- Sprocket<BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 6<BR>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:08:02 -0700<BR>From: Brian Cluff <BRIAN@SNAPTEK.COM><BR>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Re: New Numbering System?<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>Scott Sparks wrote:<BR><BR>> About an hour and a half after I posted that question to the listserv <BR>> (and also e-mailed the admins at GEOCACHING.COM) everything was back <BR>> to normal. And no, I hadn't been drinking anything. ;-) My guess <BR>> is, they (the geocaching gods) were testing their upcoming software <BR>> changes and have since returned them to normal. Some of the "new" <BR>> waypoint numbers had alphabetic characters well outside the range of <BR>> hexadecimal. I specifically remember a "Q" in one of them. In fact, I <BR>> have a printout in front of me of the '"A" Mountain Cache' that has a <BR>> waypoint of GCN7! I printed it at 1:22 PM 4/22/03. <BR><BR><BR>From the looks of it they went with a compromise. I personally would <BR>have just completely redone the numbering system....<BR><BR>Anyway, from the looks of it, everything after GCFFFF will be base 36.<BR>so they have a simple formula of (bad pseudo code to folow)<BR><BR>if(database_number<=65535)<BR>waypoint="GC"+hex_encode(database_number)<BR>else<BR>waypoint="GC"+base36_encode(database_number+base36_decode(G000))<BR><BR>They just have to make sure they add whatever the heck G000 is in base <BR>36 to the real number that is in the database so that they don't step on <BR>the toes of the hex numbers. It's not horribly complex....<BR><BR>Brian Cluff<BR>Team Snaptek<BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 7<BR>From: "Team Tierra Buena" <TEAMTIERRABUENA@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>To: <LISTSERV@AZGEOCACHING.COM><BR>Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] Re: New Numbering System?<BR>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:41:17 -0700<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>> Anyway, from the looks of it, everything after GCFFFF will be base 36.<BR><BR>I recall reading a while back that they were going to drop characters<BR>like I and O to avoid confusion with 1 and 0. I think they were dropping<BR>a few others and bringing it down to base 31 or 32. There was also<BR>mention that they would reject or ignore certain specific IDs that might<BR>be considered inappropriate (something like "GCSEX" might be on that<BR>list).<BR><BR>We've come a long way from the time when Bob Renner could get a cache ID<BR>named after both the cache and himself (see GCB0B).<BR><BR>Steve<BR>Team Tierra Buena<BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 8<BR>To: az-geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com<BR>From: "Cody Brown" <BROWN.CODY@ORBITAL.COM><BR>Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:29:40 -0700<BR>Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Lowest Gas Prices<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>http://www.phoenixgasprices.com/<BR><BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 9<BR>From: "Regan Smith" <BUGGERS@MINDSPRING.COM><BR>To: <LISTSERV@AZGEOCACHING.COM><BR>Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:44:54 -0700<BR>Subject: [Az-Geocaching] weekend gas Prices<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.<BR><BR>------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C30A35.6580F340<BR>Content-Type: text/plain;<BR>charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable<BR><BR>just for those who watch things like this 1.839 seems to be the best =<BR>East Valley price for unleaded that I have seen which is fine for those =<BR>heading to this weekends get together<BR><BR>you all be safe and have fun while Team Evil Fish hides the Hardest to =<BR>find and log cache to date for us, the title will be something like =<BR>Minus 20 or some such am working on making it a 5/5 but will be more of =<BR>a 3.5/5<BR><BR>oh well but I degress<BR><BR><BR>------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C30A35.6580F340<BR>Content-Type: text/html;<BR>charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content='3D"text/html;' ="<br">charset=3Diso-8859-1"><BR>
<META content='3D"MSHTML' name=3DGENERATOR 6.00.2800.1141?><BR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3>just for those who watch things like =<BR>this 1.839=20<BR>seems to be the best East Valley price for unleaded that I have seen =<BR>which is=20<BR>fine for those heading to this weekends get together</FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3></FONT> </DIV><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3>you all be safe and have fun while Team =<BR>Evil Fish=20<BR>hides the Hardest to find and log cache to date for us, the title will =<BR>be=20<BR>something like Minus 20 or some such am working on making it a 5/5 =<BR>but will=20<BR>be more of a 3.5/5</FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3>oh well but I degress</FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV> </DIV><BR><BR>------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C30A35.6580F340--<BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>Message: 10<BR>Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:08:00 -0700<BR>From: Brian Cluff <BRIAN@SNAPTEK.COM><BR>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Re: New Numbering System?<BR>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><BR>Team Tierra Buena wrote:<BR>>>Anyway, from the looks of it, everything after GCFFFF will be base 36.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I recall reading a while back that they were going to drop characters<BR>> like I and O to avoid confusion with 1 and 0. I think they were dropping<BR>> a few others and bringing it down to base 31 or 32. There was also<BR>> mention that they would reject or ignore certain specific IDs that might<BR>> be considered inappropriate (something like "GCSEX" might be on that<BR>> list).<BR><BR>WOW! what a pain that will be to try and duplicate... I wouldn't even <BR>try and take out the swear words, there are just too many that you can <BR>come up with, especially being an international thing. I came up time <BR>at least 20 of the in a minute. Plus I was looking forward to try to <BR>hid a really bad quality cache and have it be GCSHIT.<BR>In any case, well just have to sit back and see what the heck they are <BR>doing, and modify our site accordingly.<BR><BR>Brian Cluff<BR>Team Snaptek<BR><BR><BR><BR>--__--__--<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Az-Geocaching mailing list<BR>listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching<BR><BR>Arizona's Geocaching Resource<BR>http://www.azgeocaching.com<BR><BR><BR><BR>End of Az-Geocaching Digest</BLOCKQUOTE>
--0-1480536446-1051214937=:94492--