Recently, highpointer postulated the following:
>What is going to happen when the numbers are used up? The waypoint of the most recent cache placed is GCE5C6. At the current rate of new cache placements (which is obviously going to increase as geocaching continues to add new adherents, and the weather gets warmer at higher latitudes and elevations), we should reach the cache with waypoint GCFFFF before the end of April.
>
>Then, what will Geocaching.com do to increase the number of waypoint numbers? Is it possible to add another digit, thereby making the next waypoint number GC10000?
>
>Ken (a.k.a. Highpointer)
>
to which Team Tierra Buena responded:
>Not likely, as many older GPSRs can't handle waypoints more than of more
>>than six characters. But here was the thinking from TPTB (The Powers
>>That Be) at the end of last year. As I recollect from subsequent posts,
>>they have pretty much gone forward with what's described in here. Pay
>>particular attention to the posts from "Elias", as he's the one writing
>>the code for geocaching.com: http://tinyurl.com/7l54.
>
which prompted this response from Team Snaptek:
>A quick fix would be to switch to a base 36 numbering system (a thru z
>plus 0-9).
>It would be fairly trivial to either convert to this new numbering
>system, or make the new system fit inside the old system by looking for
>a number for a new record in the database, it that number is also
>representable as hex, then get add one and repete till you get a non-hex
>number.
>I also like the idea of breaking up the caches into categories. I would
>presonally do both. That would give you around 1,679,620 per catagory.
> That would last us much much longer than just spliting up the
>categories. By the time we run out of GC numbers again, I would think
>that it would be in the relm of possibilities to just do away with only
>having 6 digits to play with, since the base 36 number would give you
>25.6 times the cache space we currently have. It should be good for at
>least 10 years.. and thats if they DON"T split up the caches.
>
>But thats what I would do....
>
>Brian Cluff
>Team Snaptek
>
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? 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.) 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. By simply dropping the 'C' from the prefix,
using the existing hexadecimal numbering system and (I assume) very
minute, if any, changes in the software that handles it, you would
increase the number of cache waypoints available by a factor 15. This
seems to me like the most bang for the least buck; the highest return
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.
Of course, you know, of those 16 million, 12 million would be micros in
the greater metro Phoenix area. :-) Heck, the city(s) would have to
build more parks and greenbelts!
-- Sprocket
(text/plain)