spoxox

Tell me, is there any chance that the GPX export functionality, severely limited though it is, will become too much of a strain; will be removed in favour of a paper-based system that doesn't achieve the functionality which people rely on, expect, and pay a premium fee for - and that will occasion no further development work? Your customers are speaking loudly here. There is a very strong need for further development work. The GS response to a clear outcry from paying customers has been horrendous. (No doubt several loyalists will point out the irrelevant lack of unanimousness.) Hopefully TPTB are not so thin skinned that this, too, is censored. Hopefully, TPTB start to behave like a responsible commercial endeavour - for a commercial endeavour GS certainly is; one that strives to maintain a monopolistic hold on its industry. So be it; I have no qualms with the business model. I do expect better customer service. That some are willing to volunteer their time in support of a commercial enterprise does not obviate the customer's right to expect adherence to standards. Removal of the GE KML marks a significant devaluation of the product. It's stunning how many deniers of this simple truth exist. We could do something easily and well, and now we can't. And many of us aren't happy. And the reply from the vendor has been terse, bordering on rude.

I'm heading out to a bookstore, preferably Chapters. I'd like to grab a cache or two in the neighbourhood. So I fire up GE, search on Chapters (immediate results) and, with the GC KML loaded, look at the neighbourhood caches deciding which to target. Elapsed time to cache perusal: less than 1 minute. Can anybody tell me how I'll do this once I can no longer see all the caches in GE? Surely you won't say this: Determine the address of ONE POSSIBLE book store Create a PQ based on that address Wait, sometimes 2-3 hours, for the PQ results to be emailed Load the PQ into GE Repeat for other candidate bookstores

There are two schools of thought here. I'm not sure how close the divide is along the lines of "those who used GE/KML" and "those who did not use GE/KML". It does seem close. Typically, it would appear that those who did not use GE/KML are probably not in a position to assess the loss. I fear some uninformed opinion is being offered. I would respectfully request that those who did not have the GE/KML experience (and recently, as GE itself improved over the last couple of years) keep their own counsel. They really have little to offer as they don't know what the others have lost. For all I know, it may be true that every capability available through the GE/KML interface is available elsewhere. I do not believe it, but stand to be corrected. I am utterly convinced, having used GE/KML frequently if not regularly, that the GE interface is far superior to anything else that's available. Using the PQ interface to take advantage of GE functionality is a woefully inferior alternative. Given the PQ restrictions, it's terribly inadequate. Perhaps if there were some PQ sharing functionality (I'll do 5 in Seattle; you do 5 in Chicago; we'll post them somewhere) it might make some difference. But that would still never add up to the same thing. (I have found the Follow-a-Route tool useless for my purposes.) In any case, web site navigation and instruction is a little weak. Ultimately, although GS has spoken, certainly the customers should have a right to speak. Regardless of pronouncements like "never again", decisions can sometimes be reversed - sometimes in the light of overwhelming demand (which this is not, yet), and sometimes when circumstances change. A continued, joint, loud voice decrying this decision (or necessity) will register. If one day this tool can be returned, today's speech might further that result. Suggestion that some withhold their voice is, as the Brits would say, just not on. Respectfully yours, paul

Dutifully searching to see if my question has been asked and answered. Gleeful to find it has been asked. Disappointed that it hasn't been answered. Dear Atwell family, did you find an answer on your own?

So, to sum up: 1. GE KML is gone out of necessity and won't come back. 2. There is no reason to mistrust the moderators (despite that '200' thing). 3. Those who never used GE/KML know it's unnecessary - to themselves. They're irked with the GE/KML users for whining about their loss. 4. Those who used it realize there may be alternatives, but they aren't as good as GE. Seven or eight thousand of the original two hundred dropped by to express their disappointment. They're irked with the non-users for whining about the whining. 5. I use the word "whining" only for efficiency/expediency and not to offend. 6. GE/KML is a superior tool to anything that replaces it for reasons stated above (vastly superior navigation when compared with GM; much better response time than GM; bigger pictures and better printing than GM; faster results when browsing an area - i.e., no intermediate generate PQ step; etc.). Sigh. I went looking for the alternatives. I may be missing something, but so far they really don't measure up. The suggestion that we'll be happy GE/KML is gone can be based only on the secret knowledge of pending or planned improvements or....any of several somethings not so good. I'm torn between appreciating the quality and volume of work done by Lackeys and expecting better customer service from a commercial enterprise. Such is the nature of the unusual Groundspeak organization.

I regularly used the Google Earth KML every time I traveled, which was infrequent. Very disappointed with this. Relevance to thread waning...but as these fixes are performance matters, perhaps a slightly long-winded performance question fits: Also very curious about the rationale behind the decision to keep operational details private. None of my business, of course, but if the reasoning is available somewhere I'd be interested to read it. My guess is other profit options are in place or planned that would mandate keeping trade secrets. Of course, with constant performance issues, perhaps the product isn't yet salable. All of which begs the question: with the open source model certainly well established, is there ever any thought put to tapping a larger resource in the search for solutions? Presumably, DBs are replicated and partitioned globally; we hear servers and network capacity are computationally powerful.... As an IT pro, I can't help but speculate about the bottleneck(s).