Jump to content

thomfre

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thomfre

  1. How do you know it was a bug? It's not that hard to download thousands of caches, and that did not use to break apps with the old API. Now it will.
  2. Yes, this is definitely a huge change from the previous API. And a change that will see a lot of confused and eventually angry users once more partners switch to the new API.
  3. Most of this is wrong. Many of the apps are doing this on their own. API limits are per member, per app.
  4. Cachetur.no has been open about this process to all users since the new API was announced. GDPR* If I remember correctly, it was TLS1.2, and to comply with PCI (for payments). The reason for the long time is issues with the new API, missing features etc. The new API is also considerably slower. It's starting to look better now. So migrating was a lot more work last summer than it is now. Cachetur.no was fully migrated, but the new authentication didn't work, so we had to revert some parts back to the old API. So we are also about 90% migrated now.
  5. I use Pi-Hole and uBlock Origin, takes care of everything. I recommend this, or similar setups, to everyone. Not only does it block nasty tracking, but it will also prevent some malicious code from executing.
  6. If you have logged in with Facebook, you should be able to remove the connection to Facebook here: https://www.geocaching.com/account/settings/authorizations Just be sure that you have a valid password on geocaching.com first. If you don't use Facebook on geocaching.com, it might simply be the tracking you're seeing: If you are located in the EU or the EEC, and have not given explicit consent to this tracking, and they still track you, it is illegal. In any case, blocking it is simple, and should be done anyway.
  7. The problem here is "most events". Since there's so many events that have a mismatch between the new time and the time in the description, you can't really trust any of them. This is making it harder to figure out the actual time of the events. And it was already hard (it's amazing how hard some people hide the event times) without this. Thank you for giving this priority.
  8. Can you please remove the default values? Here is another fine example (I have many, if that's what you need): https://coord.info/GC81NTW Midnight to 1pm in the event time field, but noon to sunset (nice times?) in the description.
  9. Those are for the online log No stories in the physical logs anymore... unless...there's something written with UV ink. Hmmm
  10. Thank you! This is by far the best news I've heard this year! And it puts the new map in a whole new light, making it not nearly as bad as I first thought Again, THANK YOU!
  11. OSM is just data. And this is how Groundspeak have decided to render that data. The biggest issue is how infrequent it's updated. But a larger choice in map tiles would be nice! And I don't see any reason why we can't have all that's available in the old map.
  12. You can switch to OpenStreetMap by selecting the "Geocaching" map. This should also be the default on the new map. ...and Groundspeak probably have to pay a lot for the use of Google Maps...
  13. All of this is so true! You really hit the nail on the head! Forcing us to use one map to do all, is like using a flat head screwdriver as a universal screwdriver. It can be done, you can use it on Phillips screws, torx etc. But you will damage the screw and sometimes even the screwdriver. Exactly the same will happen here - you will damage the experience for your users. I never use the search feature. I think the only time I've used it, was to test the galactic search you did a couple years ago. I don't need it, and I don't want to be forced to use it. But I do need the browse map to be fast, dependable, able to show me all the caches in the world at once, light on resources (I usually have 80-100+ tabs open) and nonstrenuous to use. The old map is all of that (although it has periods when it's less dependable). The new is not. And I don't think it can be either, because you are doing too much with one tool. Please don't make this: It might look cool, but it's very hard to use... The new map has a lot of improvements, that I actually can see myself enjoy using - but only when needing to map a PQ, do more advanced filters or something like that. It does not cover the needs I have for the page I use the most - the browse map (I love that term). And I don't believe it ever can. So please, don't take away the old map!
  14. This is normal in the release notes forum. Old release notes are usually closed when new are opened for the same feature. I guess it's to keep discussion in one place, which makes a lot of sense. It's also very normal for HQ to be very quiet in here. But they say they monitor the feedback, so I hope they do. And I hope they take actions based on it.
  15. My fear is that they will handle it like the BBCode vs Markdown in logs. When HQ think they have added all we need, they'll retire the old map. The old map use a rather ingenious trick to be able to show all caches (kudos to the original architect, designers and developers!). There's no way the new map can mimic that functionality, without copying over and using the same trick (which would improve the new map a lot). Yes it was. I've listened to that episode, and wanted to believe so hard that HQ could change their mind about retiring the old map. I still hope, but fear the worst. The new map is slow, and very hard to use. Especially when moving around. Having to click "Search this area" makes it so hard, that I made a user script to click it for me. I'm not arguing against that. What I see as a problem, is the complete lack of acknowledgement of numerous issues that's been talked about since this new map was first mentioned in a release note here. Issues that greatly reduce the usability, but that should have been very easy to fix (I know they are, because I've also fixed some of them with my user script). But this is also a problem with how the new map works, compared to the old. The old use a separate tile layer for the caches, making loading and displaying them really smooth and fast. The new map works in a totally different way, which won't allow the display of many caches. The map is the single most important resource on geocaching.com to me, and the old map here is the only resource where I can view caches all over the world - in one view. That's not possible in the new map, unless HQ change their mind and implement the old tile layer (please, HQ, please!). I do not want to lose functionality I use on a daily basis, and functionality that can't be found elsewhere. On top of this, moving all information to the sidebar makes the map a lot harder to use for me. As mentioned both by myself and others before, it require a focus shift every time a cache is clicked. And I have to use the mouse a lot more (which is not good). To be realistic, we can have the same map. The new map is still based on a combination of Leaflet and Google Maps - two JavaScript mapping libraries. The exact same libraries that run on the old map. The Google map tiles are the exact same. And the vector tiles, that many people struggle with (because it's considerably slower for everyone with older hardware), can very easily be loaded in Leaflet on the old map as well.
  16. Yes! Besides the general slowness and lack of ability to handle more than 1000 caches, this is the hardest thing on the new map for me. I love high screen resolutions, and the new map force me to use the mouse (and shift focus) a lot more. This is making the new map hard and strenuous to use. I have temporary solved it by making my own cache popup in a user script. But that shouldn't be necessary...
  17. I agree! Did not mean it as an excuse... Just a friendly suggestion if the new map doesn't get what the old has
  18. The new map is also based on Leaflet, so you can still get what you want with 3rd party user scripts.
  19. https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2019/01/one-map-endless-inspiration/ Dear Groundspeak, This must be the worst sentence I have read in a very long while. Everyone I talk to fears losing the old map, and many of us depend on that map to plan our geocaching outings. It's fast. It's (almost) dependable. It shows way more than 1000 caches. It works with several different map tiles. This has nothing to do with not liking change. This has to do with not wanting to lose one of the best features of geocaching.com. The new map is great for mapping PQs, searches and lists. But it's nowhere near being able to replace the old map. Please don't take away the most valuable feature you have.
  20. I agree on the bodily fluids and other nasty stuff! I would rather have a photo, than a destroyed log. But if someone signed my log with UV ink, I would probably just get a chuckle, and move on. And I have to admit that I probably would have found it very cool to see a different signature light up in between other signatures that may have ended up on top of it. But I like colorful logbooks (no bodily fluids, please).
  21. Let's dive a bit further into this then. By following the link to "inappropriate logs", we get this: Neither the guidelines, nor the help center, say anything about cache owner having to regularly check their log books. It doesn't say so at all. Regular visits and general cache maintenance is something else, I'm not disagreeing on that. People write ugly. Rain and moisture can make signatures unreadable. People write on top of others. It's impossible to verify all finds. And I guess that's why HQ haven't included a physical log check in the current version of the guidelines and the help center.
×
×
  • Create New...