> These sound like engineering solutions to a problem that seems 
> relatively simple, to me.  While I like the idea of separating cache 
> types into MC, VC, etc. (ie. Multi-Cache and Virtual-Cache) I would 
> think conversion to a base 36 numbering system as a 'quick fix' would 
> create more havoc than it alleviates.  For example, how do you handle 
> all of the existing waypoints that would now be 'out of order' if placed 
> within a _new_ numbering system?

Me personally, I wouldn't bother working around the old caches, I would 
just let them fall into their new place in the numbering scheme.  Some 
people will have to change their websites, but thats what happens when 
you don't do it right the first time around.
It would be trivial to add a line, for a while to the top of pages whos 
numbers look like vaid hex numbers that says "you might have been 
looking for "this" page instead, and give a link to the equivelent page.
There is also the problem that if you are sorting on the waypoint, and 
you have dropped the C off of it like you mention later, they now don't 
sort in the correct order since GCFFFF comes after G10000.

> And what about the exclusion of those 
> confusing letters and digits? (1's a I's and O's and 0's)  As an (ex) 
> software engineer, this seems to me like a programmer's nightmare.   I'm 
> not saying it couldn't be done; I'm just questioning whether it is the 
> best solution for the amount of benefit gained.    If it were me (and 
> fortunately, it's not) I would very simply drop the 'C' from the GC 
> designation and continue with the current hex numbering system.  In 
> other words, instead of  GCF123, we would use G0F123.  What is so sacred 
> about the 'GC' prefix anyway?  I could just as easily recognize a 
> waypoint like G0F123 in my GPSr as a GeoCache and not the location of 
> the million dollars in gold boullion I have buried in the desert (which 
> I would designate MYGOLD or some such.)

For me I have my GPS completely full of waypoint, and I KNOW stuff that 
starts with GC is a geocache.  If it just had G, I would still be fairly 
sure it was a geocache, but now absolutly.  It's also nice to have them 
all sort together so that they can be easily added and deleted.

> The base 36 numbering system 
> described above is purported to increase the number of available cache 
> designations by a factor of 25.  But to do that, you have to completely 
> change the numbering system and consequently the the code that handles 
> and sorts the caches.

The code that handles and sorts the caches is using base 10, for the 
database.  The can see this at the top of the page when it goes to a 
specifc cache page.  Unless the site is written extremely bad, I would 
image there is a function like convert2gc() somewhere in there.  It 
should only be a matter of changeing a couple of functions to update the 
whole site.

> for the least amount of effort.  And if you really want to get crazy, 
> why not drop the 'G' from the GC number while you're at it.  Thus, 
> GCF123 would become 00F123.  Again, do you really need the G to remind 
> you that the 6 character waypoint in your GPS is a Geocache?  By using  
> six digits in a hex  numbering system, you've now increased the number 
> of possible waypoints by a factor of 255!   That's a total of more than 
> 16 million possible Geocaches! Enough to keep even the most addicted 
> busy for a few years. 

I would say.. Yes, I need at least the G.  I really don't want my 
geocaches mixed in with the rest of the waypoint that just happen to be 
numbers.  Many GPS units by default name un-named waypoint as numbers, 
it could befome a real nightmare trying to find that waypoint you just 
saving within the pile of geocaches.

It best thing would have been to have just done it right in the first 
place, but I would guess that nobody ever imagined that geocache would 
ever take off the way it has.  but sometimes you have to break a few 
eggs to make an cake.

Brian Cluff
Team Snaptek