[Az-Geocaching] RE: What will be the next waypoint number after GCFFFF?

[Scott Sparks]

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