texasgrillchef

Depends on where you are I would say. An example... In some cities in Texas... Driving a Nail into a Utility pole IS considered defacement. Doesn't matter if your posting a sign for your "Garage Sale", "Lost Dog", or a geocache. Yet on the other hand. Some cities don't consider defacement, and you are pefectly allowed to drive nails into the Utility pole to place a sign, a geocache, or whatever. So long as it doesn't break any other laws, or cause the Utlitiy pole to fail, or prevent the Utility pole from doing its intended job. In regards to Trees in public right of way, or on public property. One CAN use a nail on the tree. However depends on the Tree as well. Example of this, a tree in the public right of way along the highways (even inside city limits" is ALLOWED to be used an an ALTERNATIVE to a fence post. So in Texas, you will see ALOT of Barbed Wire fences using a Tree as the fence post & thus see Nails & other stuff driven into them On the other hand... a nice transplanted tree, that is in a landscaped area of a city park, or other public building you can't drive a nail or anything else into. Or even hang anything FROM that tree. WITHOUT prior authorization from the apropriate City official. You also can't drive nails into any tree that is on personal property, WITHOUT permsion. If its on personal property, you can do anythign you want to that tree that the property owner allows you to do. You CAN however drive a nail into a tree that is in the so called back country woods, or other "Wilderness" type area. Depending on what your doing. Hanging a bird feeder, animal feeder, Remote Camera, etc.. or other animal monitoring device is allowed. As far as doing so for a "Geocache" the jury is still out. So In TEXAS I would say, that if you can legally attach a sign, a camera, a bird feeder, a bird house, or other animal feeder/home, or fence, etc... Then you can attach a geocache. If you can't do any of the other things legally. Then you can't attach a geocache either. I almost forgot one other note... In certain parts of Texas (As well as other states), where there is an area that is designated as a "National Forrest", even land owners have certain restrictions to what they can do with their trees, even though its on private lands, those trees were designated as being part of a "National Forrest" & becasue of that, certain restrictions apply no matter if it's private or public land. (This includes dead trees as well as those still living) TGC

One other note I would like to add... When it comes to being in the "Wilderness" & dealing with animals of any type. Here are some basic rules to follow. This applies to any living thing if you really want to think about it, INCLUDING HUMANS! LOL... 1. NEVER EVER get between a baby & it's mother. 2. NEVER appear as a threat. 3. NEVER "Suprise" an animal/human. When walking/hiking etc... Walk Loudly, Make yourself Known. This works very well with bears, as well as snakes. The drawback of this of course, is you probably won't get to see much wildlife on your expidition in the back country, but you also will reduce the chances of getting into trouble as well. 4. KNOW which animals you need to RUN from, & which animals you need to FREEZE in position with. Example.. NEVER run from a Bear, any bear. However, Run from a rattle Snake. 5. Know what animals you need to expect to see for the area that you will be geocaching. These are just a few small suggestions to help reduce the need to be in a situation that would require to use some form of self protection of any type. TGC

Carry Self Protection? Im in Texas! What do you think most Texans do! LOL Of course I carry... and also support passing of the current bill in our State congress to pass the new "Open Carry" laws as well. I come from the belief, that if you see that I am carrying, you will be less likely to create an issue with me. You don't see me carrying, you might take the chance to create an issue with me, in hopes that I am not carrying. IF you see that I am, the odds are good that you probably wouldn't. Especially with the gun I carry... Lets just says I call it my "Clint Eastwood Special". However note.... That as with most states, even in Alaska... Shooting people or animals is only LEGAL if your acting in Self-Defense of yourself, your family, or of those people that you are with at the time. You can't simply shoot an animal or person without probable cause. This includes Bears, Mountain Lions, Alligators, Wild Pigs, etc... (All of which BTW are in the state of Texas). The exceptions of course are if your hunting & have a hunting license & the animal you killed is what your hunting license was issued to hunt. While shooting something as simple as a rattle snake in Texas doesn't lead to much of an investigation, it does if you kill a mountain lion, bear or alligator. In Texas with Alligators, 100% of all the Alligator attacks have always occurred when someone was where they SHOULDN'T have been, OR even doing something that they SHOULD NOT have been doing in the first place. This of course does not include Alligator attackes/injuries to Alligator hunters in Texas during our annual Alligator hunt. Which is VERY tightly controlled by our Texas State Parks & Wildlife Department. Also keep in mind, that even in Texas, it is illegal to discharge your weapon inside city limits, (Even if you have a farm/ranch that is inside city limits) unless you are discharging your weapon at a legally licensed gun/shooting range. There is NOTHING wrong with carrying a gun for your protection. Just be clear & understand the law, when it comes to when you can actually USE it! TGC P.S..... One other note, Tasers, Stun Guns etc... also have special requirments for each state as well.

nice satalite image... Don't see any cache icons of anytype on the map. If I wanted just a plain satalite view without any caches plotted on it. There are alot of ways I can do that... Now show me a Satalite Hybrid Image that shows at least 100 caches plotted on it!!! TGC Oh BTW.... I only use IE 9.0... Firefox won't run on my system.. so I guess it won't do any good for those of us who are required to use IE 9 right?

Absolutely... My complaints about the maps though aren't about the speed at which they are loading, or with the "Buggy" parts of not showing the caches, or toggling of viewing cache types on/off. Those are bugs that CAN be worked out, by the IT staff at GS/GC.com so that it becomes more efficient. Do I like the slowness and bugginess of it now? No of course not. But those aren't really where my personal complaints are about as a whole. My complaint is with the MAPS themselves... Issues that are BEYOND GS/GC.coms control. The data being received by the 3rd party source. Examples of this include: 1. OpenSourceMaps.... Poor color/contrast choices of the roads to background. Someone with poor eyesight &/or colour blindness it's very hard to impossible to see/read & understand. The color scheme of it is HORRIBLE! Sadly because GS/GC.com use map tiles, instead of the other map type. GS/GC.com CAN'T change the color scheme of OSM. 2. The photo quality of the Areal Maps is not good at all. There is also limited levels of those maps. You can't zoom in as close. As well as the Areal Maps are OLDER and more outdated. The Areal shot of my home is 3 YEARS OLD! The google view of my home is only just over a year old. The Bing Satalite map, is about 8 months old. With google & Bing, I can actually see the house number painted on my Drive Way clearly and read it. With the areal maps being used by GS/GC.com currently I can not. 3. No Hybrid view in the Areal Maps. I will admit that with both Google & Bing's Hybrid maps, they overlay roads as being roads that are really private drives, and in Texas sometimes are just Dry Creek/River beds, as well as not showing dirt/gravel roads that have been their & being used since 1836 as being roads at all! No Hybrid view of the current Areal Map. So you may see your "Dot" of where your at, but have no clue of where you are or how you got there etc... Unless you go back to street view. Not good at all. So yes the bugs & the speed will be worked out eventually by the IT staff at GS/GC.com. But that ISN'T all that we are complaining about either. TGC p.s. Mapquest is better than OSM, but even mapquest has issues that I don't like. I don't even use Mapquest anywhere, including the free apps they provide for my iOS devices. Why? because their are better ones you can use on your computer &/or iOS device when it comes to needing a map for soemthing other than geocaching.

At several recent events... A few cachers have told me that these improvements to the PQ system would be nice. But they aren't needed. I asked why? Their reply... "You can do all this with GSAK" I agreed & said "Yes you can... BUT...." Why we need these options as PQ's and shouldn't rely on GSAK: 1. Currently the official iOS app does NOT have import capabilities of GPX files. So even when you do create a GPX file that would be the same as having a PQ generate it. You CAN'T import those to your Official iOS Geocaching.com app. As far as I know you can't do that with the other platforms either on the official gc.com apps. 2. I don't use a MAC or Linux, but if your a MAC/Linux only type person. You can't use GSAK. Unless you have the "Windows" interface option installed on your MAC/Linux system. Many do not. Those 2 reasons alone, IMHO are enough to need & warrant those extra featurs I have suggested for the PQ system. TGC

GS/GC.com.... Any word yet on when the PQ system might get improved or overhauled???? TGC

Agreed. I still wonder if this sort of structure was (or perhaps, is currently being) discussed as an option. To me, the move to OSM seems to be a band-aid solution to avoid an increase in cost to the existing Premium Member. This "tiered" membership structure I suggested a while back allows for the flexibility of all interested parties to select that which works best for their perceived caching needs at a price that works for their budgets while also addressing the Google surcharge. I get the feeling that Groundspeak/gc.com was kinda caught with their pants down type thing. Even though google gave everyone in the CE field plenty of notice. Because GS/GC.com wasn't able to find a satisfactory solution & implement it quick enough. They just fell back to using OSM before the google deadline to save them millions of dollars in fees they couldn't afford. So yes I agree... OSM seems to be the band-aid fix. Whats funny, is that they try to build it up as being better than google or bing, & it isn't. People who are colour blind have issues viewing OSM. Since OSM is "Free" because its open source. ADA rules don't apply. However... I am curious to see that since Groundspeak isn't open source or a non-profit company, how the use of OSM applies with ADA rules. Guess it depends on ones POV. Just like wheel chair ramps are required for all buisness for use by their customers & even employees, there are some that still have the POV that wheel chair ramps shouldn't always be required by every company, or that the ADA only applies to wheel chair ramps & nothing else. One other note GS/GC.com is NOT very good at communication with its members/cachers. Heck Apple in all of its horrible control gives apple users better communication on whats comming in the future! We all know their will be an iPad 3, and iPhone 5. We may not know when, or exactly whats going to be added, but we KNOW its coming! We even get leaks about whats going to be on it, as well as updaets to the next iOS (5.1) which will be released soon I am sure. Complaints about GS/GC.com communication have been going on in the forums every since I have become a cacher. That probably won't change. Makes ya wonder though... I know the math well enough to know that Google maps is EXPENSIVE.... One of the reasons I suggested BING. What are their fees like? More expensive, less expensive than google? Is GS/GC.com checking into the Pros & Cons of Bing? I honestly don't believe that most cachers understand how much it really COSTS to use google. Think of google and accessing their maps, the same way you think of using Data on your smartphone when you DON'T have an unlimited data plan. Google doesn't have an "Unlimited" plan. So the more google maps you use, the more you pay. Just like data on the smartphone. You go over your 2gb plan, or whatever limited plan you have, you pay through the NOSE for it! Google is the same way. TGC

Here is one work arounds that I use. I agree they are not ideal. But they do work/help. Workaround: requires the user have GSAK 8.0, iGeoKnife & an iphone &/or iPad. 1. I have a GSAK db of all the caches I have NOT found, in the state of Texas. Currently at about 44,000 caches. I have a seperate database for caches I have found (5k+) My hides, Disabled & Archived. 2. I have an iPad & iPhone both running iGeoKnife. 3. Each day, I run the status update for the disabled/archived db. Any cacehs that have become "available" I do a refresh on those caches & then move them to my Texas Unfound DB. 4. I then run the status update on Texas Unfound. Takes about 30-45 min. I then move any caches that have been disabled or acrhived to that DB. 5. I then save the DB, and upload that DB to my iPhone & iPad. 6. I use iGeoKnife on my iPhone & iPad. It uses Google Hybrid maps, or Google Street maps. and will show up to 1000 caches per page view. It makes use of the GPS and shows you where you are on the maps. It shows you all the descriptions, and the last X number of logs for that cache. You can even ENTER your logs from this app. then when you get back home & sync... it will upload those logs to GSAK, and then allow you to send those logs to geocaching.com using the GSAK/Geocaching.com API. It's not the most ideal method. But it works. Hopefully soon, iGeoKnife will get API functionality to it. Once that happens we can just bypass using geocaching.com maps completely as well as the geocaching.com app! TGC

I can understand the need for generating revenue to cover servers, bandwidth usage, employees, and general business expenses and the like. No problem. I also understand that everyone contributes to this site, regardless of whether they are "Basic" members or "Premium" members. I assume, and probably not in error, when I say the number of "Basic" memberships far exceeds the number of "Premium" memberships by far. With this in mind, it is logical to assume that "Basic" members contribute more to this site than "Premium" members by virtue simply based on the numbers? When I say contribute, I'm inferring to the number of caches submitted, threads responded to, assistance given which (again) benefits all members. I mean isn't what this site is really about ... GeoCaching and not GeoCashing? Agreed? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? The elitist undertone I sense when "Basic" members are referred to as being "poor" or deserve nothing better than "poor-mans" maps is not conducive nor productive to growth, community or sense of "belonging" to the site as a whole. "Basic" members are members none the less. No one member is more important than the next, deserving of perks, or respect, simply based on ability to pay. We all enjoy the hobby, camaraderie and social aspects that GC.com provides us, regardless of being labeled with the title "Basic," "Premium," or simply "Member." It degrades the great collection of people who gather here routinely. My intention is not to belly-ache, complain or rant. This may have been mentioned before in the forum, if so I apologize. I want to suggest that maybe the site should consider requiring everyone pay something to access the site, be "equal" or "more equal" than what it seems to be at the moment. Have everyone simply pay $10/year for example which would guarantee equal access, equal "benefits," etc. across the board and rid the site of the atmosphere of "US" and "them". While in therory, I do like your concept, because I have socialist ideals in some respects to things in life. Sadly this would not work in this case. For these reasons... 1. There are alot of cachers who would be unwilling to pay even the $10 a year and would stop caching completely. 2. Even for those willing to pay $10 a year, It would probably raise revnue currently, but it would also raise the number of users into the paid system. Increasing demand probably guessing here, but by at least 10 fold on the servers alone for the PQ system. It would also increase the useage of google maps as well, if google maps were to be included. Even by collecting 10 bucks a year. The amount of revenue generated WOULD NOT cover the cost of google maps. Every single access to google maps would cost Groundspeak a penny. Now think of how many caches are found by every single user every single month. I find at least 150 caches per month on average. I have published at the time of this post about 335 caches, which are found on average a total of 285 times per month. Figure that it can take 2 to 3 access of the maps per cache find. Your looking at my caches only generating about $10 a month to google alone. Yes google costs that much! Unless the current 3rd party maps get better & can compete with google/bing. We are sadly going to be stuck without google or bing. No one has mentioned or suggested Groundspeak/geocaching.com pick up bing. I haven't been able to find any pricing structure for bing. Maybe they are more afordable? Their maps are still quite good, and their satalite maps/hybrid are quite good as well. I for one would be willing to pay up to $80 a year to be able to have access to either google &/or bing maps. To those who don't want to pay extra to have google/bing. Then don't, & don't get it google/bing maps. For thsoe who think they will be able to get google/bing maps for NO added cost, or extra fees, & get it for free.... Give up... It ain't gonna happen. Google isn't going to give away their access to the maps API for free. TGC

I like the idea of Tiered plans. 1. Premium Gold/Premium Platinum/Premium Plus... Whatever you want to call it. This plan would provide extra PQ's, as well as Google maps, with google satalite Hybrid modes as well. Charge whatever reasonable fee needed to cover the cost of paying google. Personally, I would be willing to pay up to $80 a year for this service level. 2. Premium Level... As it stands now. $30 a year. They don't get extra PQ's and they don't get Google maps. 3. Basic Membership... Exactly as it stands now... Free. No PQ's, No google Maps. This would allow those who are WILLING to pay extra for google maps, do so. Still worried about costs, then have a pay as you go plan for google maps, with limited access. Similar to the way our smartphones are. I am lucky enough to have Unlimited Data with AT&T on my iPhone/iPad. Others are stuck at teh 2gb level. You could do the same with google maps... A certain number of access per month. If you go over your charged more. TGC

$50 is way to much. Since they don't have a family plan that would be $100 a year for me and my wife. Sadly because of the Google's pricing structure. $50 a year might not be enough to cover the cost of paying for the rights to use Google maps. Lets say you find 50 caches per month. I find over a 100 per month on average. For the last year I have found over 150 per month average. The cost that a cacehr at 50 caches per month alone would add to the bottom line in costs to google maps, would well be over $50 a year to google alone. This would leave NO money left to pay the IT staff at Groundspeak to keep this web site operational. Groundspeak doesn't set the costs for the use of google. Google does. Are they overpriced. Absolutely. figure it like this. Every single time you access google maps. It costs a penny.... now multiply that by the number of caches found in day. It adds up. TGC

Groundspeak/geocaching.com/Keystone... I have read the anouncment. I DO fully understand that the financial cost of keeping google maps has become and would become even a bigger financial burden to Groundspeak. So I do understand WHY for the time being Groundspeak/geocaching.com has dropped the use of google maps. Yes there HAS been great improvements to the mapping since geocaching.com first got started. However, Groundspeak/geocaching.com CAN NOT take all the credit for those improvements. Especially since Groundspeak/geocaching.com is using mapping data from 3rd party sources. The problem with the "Announcement" is that it DOES NOT provide us cachers with any information about the "Future", Just like the OP was asking, stating & requesting. Groundspeak/geocaching.com understand this. Your cachers.... Paid members & basic. DO NOT LIKE THE NEW CURRENT MAPS! Have you got that? Do you understand that? Seriously Do you? The last 3 events that I went to, since the update has included major discussions about how we can't stand the new maps. Even from cachers who don't use the forums. The general consensus here in Texas is.... lets just say... You all have dropped the ball. One solution that I have seen on multiple replies. Is that MANY of us would be willing to pay MORE money to cover the cost of having Google maps return! Call it a Premium Gold membership, or a Premium Platinum Membership. This level of paid membership would include google maps. Heck I would be willing to pay an EXTRA $50-$75 a year to have that capability!! SERIOUSLY! So I think what the OP is asking... NOW that you KNOW that the majority of us cachers HATE the new map system. For various reasons. What is Groundspeak/geocaching.com going to do about it? Nothing? Something? WHAT? That is what we want to know! Or do you all even care? TGC

For some reason, I don't think geocaching.com/Groundspeak care how we feel about the maps, or are doing much to correct it. in the mean time.... I am using GSAK, with iGeoKnife on my iPad. You can use google maps, as well as the Satalite Hybrid image. Plus you can view a full screens worth of caches. Not just 30. It isn't an ideal solution. But it works for now, until someday in the far distant future geocaching.com figures out a better solution. In the mean time Im not using the website maps anymore! TGC

I too would love to see a family membership. I would be willing to pay extra for a family membership plan. How much extra would be all dependant on what all comes with a family membership plan. How many Cacher names would be allowed, how many PQ's could be downloaded & shared. Etc... TGC P.S. For us... It ISN'T about logging premium caches. For our family, its about downloading the PQ's we create to our iOS apps. Currently (Because I am premium) I can download my PQ's to my iOS phone/iPAD, but my wife CAN NOT... So get another premium? It isn't worth THAT much extra ($30) for the year so she can download, & log premium caches. Our main desire from a family membership, would be SHARING PQ's! The other problem is, We would have to create the SAME PQ twice... and it would have to RUN TWICE... Thereby taking TWICE as much server time to run the same pq twice, just so she can download the PQ to her iOS device, and I can download it to my iOS Device (Both of use the geocaching.com app) In this case... Maybe have a Family Membership for 4 Cacher names... All for say $89 for the year. This would allow us to say download 15 PQ's per day, with each of those 15 PQ's SHAREABLE on all of our "Smartphone"/Tablets geocaching.com app & API. Plus allow all 4 cacher names to have all the other premium features as well. As for another suggestion I made... for a premium plus account. One could even make that a family account as well. TGC

No thanks... I hate this warning messages. Once is enough. I get that when I come to Geocaching.com including on my iOS devices. My vehicle GPS device asks EVERY single time I have started my vehicle since I bought it in 2006. It won't let me see or do anythning until I hit the "I ACCEPT" button. I am sick and tired of having to hit that button every single time I start my truck! seriously... SO NO! NO! NO! NO! Now... on a similar idea, that I would like to see... Is more "Dangerous" type attributes one could add to a cache listing, giveing us more idea of what kind of dangers lurk with finding this cache. Think of it similar to the different ratings movies/TV shows have... one for Violance, one for Language, one for Sex. "Dangerous" type attributes that I think should be added, include: "Roadways" These are caches that are located in the medians of roads, or in gaurdrails, etc... Any cache GZ that is located near a roadway where cachers should be watching out for traffic. "Water" Such as in dry creek beds, near bridges. When I lived in albuquerque, NM There were signs all over the Aroyos because of possible flash flooding even on a clear sunny day. Many people have been washed away and drowned because of that. Same thing happens all over the country. People aren't always watching out. At least with this attribute, one can be somewhat alerted that their could be a water danger nearby. I am sure there are other "Dangerous" type attributes. But the point is, add the attributes.. Don't add a warning thing that we all have to click on, every darn time we want to view the cache. Thats going overboard! TGC

How about adding the capability to support the viewing of our lists on our iOS devices. Allow us to view all of our lists, bookmarks, ignore & watch lists. All us to view & add/delete the caches in any of our lists including bookmarks, ignore & our watch list. TGC

What a small group of us was trying to suggest a while back, but didn't seem to garner enough support, was a NEW cache type... HISTORICAL CACHE... This would be a virtual cache, and be the COMPANION cache to an "Earthcache". The Historical cache would be of historical importance. Just like the Earthcache relates directly to mother earth. The Historical Cache would relate to something that is of historical importance. The OTHER requirment to a Historical Cache, would be that it would have to be at a location where the placement of a PHYSICAL cache would be impossible, or would be illegal, or otherwise not allowed. Currently... Some get around this by using the "Mystery/puzzle/unknown" cache type, or even a "Multi" cache type, where a STAGE of the the cache is located at the historical location. The problem of this is, that a cacher would STILL have to go to ANOTHER location & find the physical final to sign the log and grab this as a smiley. THIS isn't always possible, or logical depending on the historical location. Alot of cachers wouldn't find such a cache because the distance they might have to travel to get to the final, or the time it would take to get to & find the final isn't something that they would wish to do, or have the time to do. Examples of this... are currently where Grandfathered Virtuals are located. Such as in Washington D.C. Where there are virtuals all over that area, & NOT anywhere closeby that one could place a physical that many people would want to get. So... Why don't we just try to gather support for a "Historical Cache Type" to be the "sister" type to Earthcaches. Simple guidelines. 1. Must be historical in nature. 2. Must be in a location where a physical cache can't be placed within .05 miles (279') 3. Can't be located within .1 mile of any other grandfathered Virtual. As far as logging requirments go... 1. If questions are to be answered, must have an automated system to verify that the answers were given correctly. 2. Photos that include the cacher in the photo should ALWAYS be Optional & never required. Other photos that DON'T include the cacher can be required by the CO if desired. Photos should never require that the GPS be in the photo, because a cacher could be using his "Smartphone" as his GPS and phone, or be using one of the newer GPS's that have a built in camera. That should be rather simple and straight forward.... Just an idea... TGC

The color scheme of OpenSourceMaps makes it very difficult to see, read & understand. It's HORRIBLE! Seriously... Some roads are light gray, with a white background... OR so I am told... the contrast ratio of the two are so bad I can't see them. My wife can.. I can't. Whats with these pastel colours for the rest of the roads? The contrast ratio of roads to background is horrible & very very didfficult to read! IF your trying to view them on a iPhone or iPad, and your anywhere the light is bright, give up, even my wife can't see them then! Please Please do something about the color scheme to OpenSourceMaps.... TGC

I have a personal distaste for mapping companies in general, & wish they would be more regulated by our goverment. However that is a moot point that probably won't go anywhere until more people (The general public) realize how much those mapping companies are really S**wing us! Once more people start updating their GPS head units in there cars at a price of $300+ a year! But I digress... (Sorry) My suggestion is this... Google & Bing maps, as well their Satalite HYBRID image mapping is of great quality. Sure their is alot of improvement both companies could make to their data, as well as making it more accurate. OpenSourceMaps is good... but the COLOURS they use in the maps, are VERY HARD on my EYES! The contrast between roads & background, as well as the differences in the roads are EXTREMELY hard to see! (Light gray on a white background... Seriously??) Because Google & Bing have switched to a higher priced system... What about having an ADDITIONAL subscription for us geocachers that would INCLUDE the use of Google/Bing maps (Streets & Satalite Hybrid) Call it Premium Plus or Premium Gold or something. Say for an extra $50 a year. This level would provide us with the capability of using Google &/or Bing maps... including the Satalite Hybrid Maps as well. As much as I don't really like their pricing model. I would be willing to pay EXTRA in subscription form to have Google &/or Bing maps return to geocaching.com as well as our iPhones/iPads. Sorry folks... Unless OpenSourceMaps can do something about their color scheme I can't stand them. If you can't see the map, then it isn't much use to you. Hmmmm makes me wonder if someone who is color blind could make an ADA complaint... then again its free & opensource so probably not. Mapquest... can't stand them. Don't even like their own mapquest iPhone/iPad app! Map programs I use on my computer, iPhone & iPad? Delorme, Garmin, Co-Pilot, Microsoft Streets & Trips. So how about it? An upgrade level to premium service for an additional yearly fee that includes use of Google &/or Bing maps? TGC

+1 I agree... It doesn't matter which computer I use, or even iPhone or my iPad... It takes FOREVER to load the Sat images. When they do finally load, there is NO HYBRID mode!!! So you can't tell what road your on, if any at all, or what roads are coming up. Because in SAT images, there can appear to be a road, when it really isn't one. Its a stream, or River, or its even a PRIVATE road! Like I have said before... I do realize that the map issues are entirely Groundspeak/Geocaching.com's fault. However, they CAN do something about the speed at which it takes to LOAD the maps, as well as finding a better sat image map, that includes a HYBRID mode! Geocaching.com... Have you all looked into Bing Sat images? Are they affordable or not? TGC

Question... I understand about the decesion of Google maps. What about using Bing Maps? Is their pricing structure similar to Google maps? What about using Bing Hybrid Satalite Maps? Mapquest Aerial maps that are now being used, don't have the "picture" quality that is available in other satalite maps. The other issue is that it doesn't have Roads overlay. (Hybrid Mode). Thanks TGC

We need a satalite Hybrid map. Like we have in our iPhone/iPad app. Where it shows the Satalite image, as well as a road overlay. Or am I missing something in Mapquest Aerial Map??? What about using Bing Satalite Maps, in hybrid mode. Are they pricing structure similar to googles? And being to expensive???? Thanks TGC

What about Satalite maps with road overlay... otherwise known as hybrid maps????? TGC

+1 Vote for HORRID! Today when I wanted to go cacheing.. I bypassed the web site and just used my iPad/iPhone and the app, as well as using GSAK and iGeoKnife on my iPad & iPhone. I am just glad that we now have API functionality from geocaching.com & GSAK, as well as the fact I loaded all 46,000+ geocaches for the state of Texas into GSAK. However... even going that route wasn't my prefered or "Ideal" solution. I am sick and tired of having to use "work arounds" to make things work like I would like them too! Sadly, as much as I don't like the new "maps".... I do realize that it ISN'T all geocaching.com's fault. Mapping Data companies are all off in the "ozone". In google maps, for the DFW area at least, Google maps has an average of 4 errors per square mile average for DFW. When I went to get the new "update" for my Alpine Headunit in my Truck. They wanted $800! for the update. That was MORE expensive than the headunit cost me in the first place! Whats up with that??? A friend of mine wanted to update the GPS in his new 2010 Prius. They (Toyota) wanted $375 for the update! Whats up with that? Bing & Google no longer have download capability from ANY app or program. I would suggest writing "Washington" and ask them to start "Regulating" mapping companies with stricter standards. However.... I will admit that probably woudn't help much anyways. As we (the consumers) would still get "Sc***D" just like we (consumers) were when copy right law changed & the DCMA. But enough of the rant agains't the companies that provide the map data. Just realize that it ISN'T all geocaching.com's fault, They (Groundspeak) STILL could do better about making the mapping system work faster, more effieciently, and without the other bugs of stuff not working. TGC