Feature Request: OpenStreetMaps instead of Google

February 21, 2010

I've been playing around with OpenStreetMaps.org I've finding for our area it's accuracy is much better than google and it's updated more frequently. ie there's a new sub-division going up in our area. OpenStreetMaps already has the roads on it, and the houses aren't even finished.

OpenStreetMaps also has a lot of the trails on it. Even one's I've been adding. This is not on Google. I'd find it very helpful on planning my trips if I could see that level of detail on the map

February 21, 2010

Upvote!

At least have the option to switch between GMaps and OSM instead of getting rid of GMaps altogether.

February 21, 2010

We definitely still need the option to use Google as I don't believe OpenStreetMaps has the worldwide coverage you need.

Chris

11.6k · February 21, 2010

OpenStreetMaps also has a lot of the trails on it. Even one's I've been adding. This is not on Google.

How do you get a trail view?

How do you enter GPS coordinates?

February 21, 2010

OpenStreetMaps also has a lot of the trails on it. Even one's I've been adding. This is not on Google.

How do you get a trail view?

How do you enter GPS coordinates?

Not sure I fully understand the question. To view a trail, just view an area of the map where a trail exists. To get one in there, register an account, upload you GPX tracklog (after walking the trail), then use the flash tool to trace and label the trail. Then it's live 30 seconds later on all applications using OSM.

February 21, 2010

How do you get a trail view?

How do you enter GPS coordinates?

Trail view: these are by default on the normal OSM maps, so any OSM map (I think the default renderer is Mapnik) will have the trails on it (currently they're dotted red lines). EXAMPLE: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.36770...586&zoom=15

Enter GPS coordinates: not sure what you mean?

4.2k · February 21, 2010

OpenStreetMaps doesn't even come close to Google Maps, not to mention that accuracy is questionable since it looks to me similar to Wikipedia, anyone can EDIT it...so you better hope and pray they did a good job

i don't see the option of entering any coordinates, just a location

Edited February 21, 2010 by t4e

February 21, 2010

OpenStreetMaps doesn't even come close to Google Maps, not to mention that accuracy is questionable since it looks to me similar to Wikipedia, anyone can EDIT it...so you better hope and pray they did a good job

Just to pick on the italicized part: I massively disagree. Have you used it? There are applications such as Navit which use OSM data for navigation - Navit is sat nav software, and we used it on a 10000km road trip in north western Canada and Alaska over the summer and EVERYTHING that was on the OSM map was there in real life, and in the correct position. Similarly, I drove from the UK to southern France and then back to the UK via Belgium and again, all the things on the map were there in real life, in the correct location. The problem comes when things are missing from the map. Yes, GMaps has more data (though I've found they can be off with their road placements), but OSM does show trails, which is what the OP gave as a primary reason for using it.

EDIT: Probably also worth mentioning that, whilst OSM may claim that you can edit the map just like you can edit Wikipedia, it's not quite as easy. I guess this is on purpose, to keep the 'have-a-go' trolls away...

i don't see the option of entering any coordinates, just a location

You can enter coordinates on the OSM website, but it's not very friendly. The format you need in the search box is $lat,$lon in decimal degrees. Not friendly at all. But, when implementing on a site such as gc.com Groundspeak could implement code to convert whatever to whatever. I haven't looked into the OSM API yet, but I presume it's not much different from the GMaps API, so the search thing shouldn't pose too many problems.

Edited February 21, 2010 by tiiiim

10.1k · February 21, 2010

If I were Google, I would be embarassed by the tremendous number of errors on the newest release. Any reliable company would have recalled it. It seems to be based on unreliable sources.

On the other fin, I would not be interested in any mapping program that requires setting up an account.

11.6k · February 22, 2010

Not sure I fully understand the question. To view a trail, just view an area of the map where a trail exists. To get one in there, register an account, upload you GPX tracklog (after walking the trail), then use the flash tool to trace and label the trail.

I did not see any trails, so I was asking how to view them. Now I understand that I can draw the trail in, after I hike the trail. Sorry, I was expecting... wouldn't anyone reading that there are trail maps for planning trips naturally think... I mean...

Let's just say I had strange expectations, and leave it at that. Very nice map site.

Edited February 22, 2010 by kunarion

11.6k · February 22, 2010

Enter GPS coordinates: not sure what you mean?

What I mean is what t4e mentioned about "entering any coordinates", which you've since answered. Sorry I wasn't very clear. I expected to be able to enter GPS coordinates copied from a web site, and next I tried a GC code. Nothing worked, and that seemed strange to me if it's a replacement for, say, Google Maps. I just figured I was too dumb to figure out how to do it.

Now I see it just has a... different... input for Lat/Lon. Maybe it's better than the way I'm doing it. It just seemed very odd that it wasn't working.

Edited February 22, 2010 by kunarion

February 22, 2010

On the other fin, I would not be interested in any mapping program that requires setting up an account.

OSM is not a mapping program per-se. If you want, it is exactly like Google Maps - go to the website, type your desired location (granted, the search function is a little retarded) and the slippy map will take you there. No account required whatsoever. It works JUST like Google Maps in that respect. And this is what would be good on gc.com - in addition to GMaps, also have the option to display an OSM slippy map.

The account which is referred to is only required if one wants to edit the maps.

As far as implementing the slippy map on a website, there's documentation in the OSM wiki - looks fairly identical to the GMaps API. The main instructions start here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Export#JavaScript_API and there's a simple example here http://toolserver.org/~kolossos/osm/embedded.html. Add a toggable 'Show using OSM/GMaps' to the Google Maps page of gc.com and you're set!

Hmmm, wonder if this could be done using a userscript and Greasemonkey - anyone wanna try?

38.2k · February 22, 2010

If I were Google, I would be embarassed by the tremendous number of errors on the newest release. Any reliable company would have recalled it. It seems to be based on unreliable sources.

On the other fin, I would not be interested in any mapping program that requires setting up an account.

I've reported two dozen errors in Morris and Passaic Counties alone. Things like calling a section of Pyramid Mtn Natural Area "Great Piece Meadow State Park". A state park that doesn't exist and an area that is several miles from Pyramid Mtn. Also the Cannonball Trail was shown as a road, Midvale Mtn Rd was shown as a road that meets the fictional Cannonball Rd. One shows what I know to be private property as park land.

On nearly every report I received the "We have investigated and you were right!" message and some have already been changed. For the private property/parkland issue I was told "we don't have the capability to investigate this" even though I liked to a recent copy of the area's open space map in my e-mail.

February 22, 2010

I feel my point may have been lost. (maybe it didn't but thought I'd try to be more clear just incase I did loose people)

The Request: Currently viewing geocaches the iPhone GeoCaching program allows for you to switch to using OpenStreetMaps (OSM). In my area Orangeville, Canada. People have been loading in trails like the Bruce Trail and the Caledon Trails. So when viewing the geocaches in an area I can get a sense of where the geocaches are related to where the trails are. Plus the entrances so I know where to start and where I'll end up. (None of the maps are an exact science, even google maps don't line up 100%) So what I'd like is to have GeoCaching.com have the same option where you can pick the map to use as your default. (rather than just Google)

Pros:

- OSM is free and you can view the maps without a login

- OSM is edited like wikipedia. So it's not bound by legal contracts like NavTec. (I once tried to submit the new HW 109 by-pass. NavTec wouldn't even consider my GPS data or that I found a new road because I wasn't a government agency)

- Any one can easily add new trails/roads that currently don't exist. You just create an account on OSM, upload your GPS logs, click edit. Then you can trace, and label the new segment. It becomes live almost immediately. (Here's one I entered yesterday http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=43....yers=B0000F000F

- I know the have imported the Canadian Road Network. So they have all the current roads as the Canadian government has recorded them for 2008 (not sure if they have grabbed 2009 yet) I'm pretty sure they've grabbed the Tiger Data system as well for the US.

Cons:

- Same as the pro, it's community based. This means that it's not a team of experts entering the data. But fans and enthusiusts. So areas with many eyes looking at it will have the greatest accuracy. But with the Canada RN added your accuracy of the road network is going to be just as accurate as Google.

For more information: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page

February 22, 2010

The Request: Currently viewing geocaches the iPhone GeoCaching program allows for you to switch to using OpenStreetMaps (OSM). In my area Orangeville, Canada. People have been loading in trails like the Bruce Trail and the Caledon Trails. So when viewing the geocaches in an area I can get a sense of where the geocaches are related to where the trails are. Plus the entrances so I know where to start and where I'll end up. (None of the maps are an exact science, even google maps don't line up 100%) So what I'd like is to have GeoCaching.com have the same option where you can pick the map to use as your default. (rather than just Google)

It would be great to have OSM maps as an option. While we wait, there are a couple of workarounds:

For the Geocaching Maps page, add the following as a bookmark - clicking on it will add 3 different OSM options to the default map/satellite/terrain ones:

java script:(function(){var%20script=document.createElement('script');script.setAttribute('type','text/javascript');script.setAttribute('src','http://johnmckerrell.com/files/osmify.js?rand='+Math.random());var%20heads=document.getElementsByTagName('head');if(heads[0])heads[0].appendChild(script);})()

Described at:

http://blog.johnmckerrell.com/2007/12/31/n...fy-bookmarklet/

For individual cache page maps you need this greasemonkey script:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=191618

Hope this helps!

David

February 22, 2010

For the Geocaching Maps page, add the following as a bookmark - clicking on it will add 3 different OSM options to the default map/satellite/terrain ones:
java script:(function(){var%20script=document.createElement('script');script.setAttribute('type','text/javascript');script.setAttribute('src','http://johnmckerrell.com/files/osmify.js?rand='+Math.random());var%20heads=document.getElementsByTagName('head');if(heads[0])heads[0].appendChild(script);})()
Described at:

http://blog.johnmckerrell.com/2007/12/31/n...fy-bookmarklet/

Wow, OK, this is the answer!! I've slightly modified the code and turned it into a userscript for Greasemonkey - now I get the options everytime!! Fantastic! Thanks for that!

February 22, 2010

Compare OSM vs Google... Move the transparency slider and see.

http://sautter.com/map/

I think OSM would be a big + for many countries where Google has almost nothing. And for many regions where Google has maps, the OSM maps can offer more. So to have the possibility to switch would be excellent.

Edited February 22, 2010 by geowas

February 22, 2010

Compare OSM vs Google... Just move the transparency slider.

http://sautter.com/map/

That's really cool! Here's an example of an area close to me. http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=14&lat=43...rs=B00000TFFFFF

The trails on there and roads in parks give me a better idea of where to park and general access points not on google.

5.2k · February 22, 2010

http://sautter.com/map/

Cool. That was fun to play with. And proof that OSM sucks in my area.

And no, I'm not going to waste my time trying to improve it when Google Maps works great, and is fairly accurate.

February 22, 2010

Edited February 22, 2010 by geowas

1.2k · February 23, 2010

Compare OSM vs Google... Move the transparency slider and see.

http://sautter.com/map/

I think OSM would be a big + for many countries where Google has almost nothing. And for many regions where Google has maps, the OSM maps can offer more. So to have the possibility to switch would be excellent.

That was very interesting to play with. I was suprised at the differences along the main roads in my town. Very rough on the OSM but navicable. It makes me want to drive around my town for a few hours and fix them.

Edited February 23, 2010 by AndrewRJ

February 24, 2010

I like OSM and it's a great service, but in my town there are a lot of missing places, sadly, so I don't think it's a good alternative for here.

Elsewhere, like London, however, it's pretty much bang on, so in that respect it's great.

February 24, 2010

I like OSM and it's a great service, but in my town there are a lot of missing places, sadly, so I don't think it's a good alternative for here.

Elsewhere, like London, however, it's pretty much bang on, so in that respect it's great.

why not take your GPS and drive the missing streets, and walk or cycle the missing paths. The interface is pretty easy to use? Just upload the track log from you GPS and trace.

Edited February 24, 2010 by TheCarterFamily

February 24, 2010

I wrote two small Greasemonkey scripts for two of the issues mentioned in this thread.

osm4gc adds links to OSM maps to the details pages on GC.com.

osmCoords works on www.openstreetmap.org and changes the behaviour of the search field. The script recognizes common formats of coordinates and moves the map to the indicated place. This is one of the features that t4e was missing on the site.

February 24, 2010

I like OSM and it's a great service, but in my town there are a lot of missing places, sadly, so I don't think it's a good alternative for here.

Elsewhere, like London, however, it's pretty much bang on, so in that respect it's great.

why not take your GPS and drive the missing streets, and walk or cycle the missing paths. The interface is pretty easy to use? Just upload the track log from you GPS and trace.

I was thinking this too. But then, is it that easy? For me, I cache with a netbook. As a result, any GPX files I create can be as large as I want (unlimited routes and waypoints) with a resolution of 1 second. The GPX file is also already stored on my netbook, so uploading to OSM is a doddle.

How easy is it with a GPSr? I've heard there are restrictions to the number of points which can be included when tracking. I've also read that some GPX files aren't quite up to the standards, and OSM dismisses them straight off the bat. Also, is transferring the file as easy as plugging in the GPSr to the computer and copy/pasting it over? Just things I was thinking of which might put me off too if I only had a GPSr!

Edited February 24, 2010 by tiiiim

7.3k · February 24, 2010

I think that OSM would be a wonderful site to use as a supplement to the maps on Groundspeak. I've been meaning to bring the subject up myself, but haven't gotten around to it. At this point, at least, it shouldn't replace google, however. But OSM can be quite wonderful, especially when reliably edited.

My brother has been adding lots of detail over the past year or so to the Seattle area, and to Wenatchee. Anything that he's edited has been done with attention to detail and quite a bit of actual legwork. :laughing:

February 24, 2010

I was thinking this too. But then, is it that easy? For me, I cache with a netbook. As a result, any GPX files I create can be as large as I want (unlimited routes and waypoints) with a resolution of 1 second. The GPX file is also already stored on my netbook, so uploading to OSM is a doddle.

How easy is it with a GPSr? I've heard there are restrictions to the number of points which can be included when tracking. I've also read that some GPX files aren't quite up to the standards, and OSM dismisses them straight off the bat. Also, is transferring the file as easy as plugging in the GPSr to the computer and copy/pasting it over? Just things I was thinking of which might put me off too if I only had a GPSr!

Easy is a very subjective term. For me I have a Garmin GPS 60cx and an iPhone. For a recent trail I used iPhone app Gaia GPS to create a track. Emailed the track to myself, saved it to my hard drive. Just for greater accuracy I also used the Garmin's save track feature to save the starting/ending points of my trip, and copied the saved route to my computer using gpsbabel - http://www.gpsbabel.org/. (I'm a linux user so I don't know about windows)

Then just uploaded both files into OSM, clicked the edit button, and traced the route. Then loaded my Garmin track log and compared the recently created trail. Done. Took me all of 10 minutes.

Later I started to get fancy and used the gpsbabel features to filter, combine and massage the GPX files. Any really large files made OSM choke but with GPS babel I was able to make them smaller.

Here's an example of the commands I used: I needed to convert the track to waypoints for filtering which is why there are multiple passes.

gpsbabel -i gpx -f 2006.gpx -f 2007.gpx -f 2008.gpx -f 2009.gpx -f 2010.gpx  -x transform,wpt=trk -o unicsv -F Area_Converted_To_WPT.csv

gpsbabel -i unicsv -f Area_Converted_To_WPT.csv -x radius,lat=44.0000,lon=-81.0000,exclude=yes,distance=0.1K,nosort=yes -o unicsv -F Area_Remove_Home.csv

gpsbabel -i unicsv -f Area_Remove_Home.csv  -x radius,lat=43.92863,lon=-80.12657,distance=1K,nosort=yes -o unicsv -F Area_Mountain_Bike_Trail-pre.csv

gpsbabel -i unicsv -f Area_Mountain_Bike_Trail-pre.csv -x transform,trk=wpt,del -o gpx -F Area_Mountain_Bike_Trail.gpx

1.3k · February 25, 2010

I know the Ontario trails project has used open steet maps as a source for some of its data. From what I see looking at the Ontarils project and open street maps, it doesn't look like much has been contributed back which is shame considering all the trails in the Ontario trails project.

February 25, 2010

I know the Ontario trails project has used open steet maps as a source for some of its data. From what I see looking at the Ontarils project and open street maps, it doesn't look like much has been contributed back which is shame considering all the trails in the Ontario trails project.

I think I missed something here? The offer their trails in a GPX file. You can upload GPX files into OSM and trace it. So I don't see the problem?

February 25, 2010

I know the Ontario trails project has used open steet maps as a source for some of its data. From what I see looking at the Ontarils project and open street maps, it doesn't look like much has been contributed back which is shame considering all the trails in the Ontario trails project.

I think I missed something here? The offer their trails in a GPX file. You can upload GPX files into OSM and trace it. So I don't see the problem?

I was thinking the same, BUT BEFORE you do this it's probably best to contact the owner of the website first - his email address is at the bottom of each page. The footer also indicates that the trail data "is released to Creative Commons, with attribution". Make of that what you will....

Edited to add: also, perhaps query the OSM talk-ca mailing list to see if they haven't already got plans for the data, or if they haven't already tried adding it...

Edited February 25, 2010 by tiiiim

1.3k · February 25, 2010

I know the Ontario trails project has used open steet maps as a source for some of its data. From what I see looking at the Ontarils project and open street maps, it doesn't look like much has been contributed back which is shame considering all the trails in the Ontario trails project.

I think I missed something here? The offer their trails in a GPX file. You can upload GPX files into OSM and trace it. So I don't see the problem?

I didn't say there was a problem, I was just commenting it would be nice if the data was there on open street map.

I use a BlackBerry application that uses open street maps and it would be nice to see the trails on there.

February 25, 2010

I didn't say there was a problem, I was just commenting it would be nice if the data was there on open street map.

I use a BlackBerry application that uses open street maps and it would be nice to see the trails on there.

Right and my comment back is you have all the tools to add the maps yourself. I've already added 4 of the trails to the map. My suggestion is cut and paste trail sections into new files so your working with smaller chunks. (any text editor should do the trick)

19k · February 25, 2010

Things like calling a section of Pyramid Mtn Natural Area "Great Piece Meadow State Park".

Excuse me while I snicker a bit. Sounds like somebody had a great time there. :lol:

11.6k · February 25, 2010

OpenStreetMaps also has a lot of the trails on it. Even one's I've been adding. This is not on Google. I'd find it very helpful on planning my trips if I could see that level of detail on the map

I will be making Tracks this weekend. What's the most Geocaching-friendly way to make a trail to send to that site? Do you save each trail individually? This will be in a park, where trail loops are connected. If I don't send a complete trail, does that mess things up?

I've never tried to send a track, nor have I read any of the trail-saving instructions on OpenStreetMaps (never even saved a track on my Garmin Oregon), so I may only try a couple of short segments, in case the format, or whatever, is entirely wrong.

By the way, none of my GPS Tracks have ever looked like I was following a trail. They look like I was being chased around by wolverines. Just sayin'.

February 25, 2010

OpenStreetMaps also has a lot of the trails on it. Even one's I've been adding. This is not on Google. I'd find it very helpful on planning my trips if I could see that level of detail on the map

I will be making Tracks this weekend. What's the most Geocaching-friendly way to make a trail to send to that site? Do you save each trail individually? This will be in a park, where trail loops are connected. If I don't send a complete trail, does that mess things up?

I've never tried to send a track, nor have I read any of the trail-saving instructions on OpenStreetMaps (never even saved a track on my Garmin Oregon), so I may only try a couple of short segments, in case the format, or whatever, is entirely wrong.

By the way, none of my GPS Tracks have ever looked like I was following a trail. They look like I was being chased around by wolverines. Just sayin'.

I'll answer in bullets!:

1) Save trails as you want to. For ease of use, probably saving them individually is best (especially if they have different names), but that's only to make it easier for you when you upload and trace them. OSM doesn't care!

2) You don't have to complete a trail - put as much on there as you can - it'll be an incentive for you or someone else to go there and finish it off.

3) All GPX tracks look a bit wonky - use some artistic license when tracing your tracks, and use other features on the map to help you!

Hope this helps!

February 25, 2010

Just to pick on the italicized part: I massively disagree. Have you used it?

The problem comes when things are missing from the map. Yes, GMaps has more data (though I've found they can be off with their road placements), but OSM does show trails, which is what the OP gave as a primary reason for using it.

I have used OSM, and I both agree and disagree.

Agree: data on OSM tends to be accurate, down to the trail level.

Disagree: when the data is there, it is accurate, but there are vast areas, where only the major roads exist.

While OSM (at least as of now) is a good addition, it cannot yet replace Google maps.

February 25, 2010

Just to pick on the italicized part: I massively disagree. Have you used it?

The problem comes when things are missing from the map. Yes, GMaps has more data (though I've found they can be off with their road placements), but OSM does show trails, which is what the OP gave as a primary reason for using it.

I have used OSM, and I both agree and disagree.

Agree: data on OSM tends to be accurate, down to the trail level.

Disagree: when the data is there, it is accurate, but there are vast areas, where only the major roads exist.

While OSM (at least as of now) is a good addition, it cannot yet replace Google maps.

Agreed on all counts! An option to show OSM maps in addition to GMaps would be ideal!

February 26, 2010

I just checked out OSM for my local area. There is a lot of missing information, but I was impressed with the trail coverage. However, I was shocked to see that much of the data seems to be simply copied from Google Maps. Google Maps has a lot of spelling errors in my local area, and OSM has the exact same errors :blink: I checked Yahoo Maps, Bing Maps, MapQuest, and the maps produced by my local government - none of those sources had the errors.

I agree that OSM would be nice to have as an alternative option. I especially liked the trail coverage. However, I would have some difficulty trusting information from OSM, given the above observations.

7.9k · February 26, 2010

'Instead of'...NO.

'In addition to'...Why not?

February 26, 2010

'Instead of'...NO.
'In addition to'...Why not?

I agree in addition to is the best. It's more what I envisioned and have no idea why I put instead of in the title....

As for all those saying, but OSM isn't accurate in my area, or has no data... I'm still scratching my head on that.... We're all Geocaches, arn't we? We all have GPSs don't we? To my knowlege any handheld GPS saves track logs as you go and/or has features for saving routes. So if it's inaccurate or missing... fix it! :blink:

I spend 2 hours last night and entered about 30 trail systems for my area. It's not hard to do...

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_Guide

February 27, 2010

when the data is there, it is accurate, but there are vast areas, where only the major roads exist.

Isn't the same true for Google?! So many countries are not seriously covered by Google, having just the major highways.

And for the accuracy: since Google started to add smaller roads/tracks they become more and more wrong (new roads added where there are buildings for > 10 years).

I vote for having boths. Each of the two, Google Maps and OSM, have their strengths and weaknesses. Why not combine them.

1.3k · February 27, 2010

I think Groundspeak, like any other company, would look as Open Street Maps and ask "What is the immediate and long term return of integrating it?" Long term, it has the potential of being a valuable resource provided there is a high coverage of trails for a large number of their customers. Short term the coverage of trails for a high number of customers is very low at this point as I am hearing from other posters.

Given that there are other local projects creating trail maps for GPS receiver ans mapping software with far better coverage than Open Street Maps, i would have to conclude that that the current effort of most trail mapping is going into other areas other than Open Street Maps.

If you want Groundspeak to adopt Open Street Maps along with their other mapping solutions, you will have to show a commitment that would demonstrate its value to them.

In the short term I would say Open Street Maps does not provide enough value. Long term could be a different story if enough people add enough trails for it to be of value.

February 27, 2010

I think Groundspeak, like any other company, would look as Open Street Maps and ask "What is the immediate and long term return of integrating it?" Long term, it has the potential of being a valuable resource provided there is a high coverage of trails for a large number of their customers. Short term the coverage of trails for a high number of customers is very low at this point as I am hearing from other posters.

Given that there are other local projects creating trail maps for GPS receiver ans mapping software with far better coverage than Open Street Maps, i would have to conclude that that the current effort of most trail mapping is going into other areas other than Open Street Maps.

If you want Groundspeak to adopt Open Street Maps along with their other mapping solutions, you will have to show a commitment that would demonstrate its value to them.

In the short term I would say Open Street Maps does not provide enough value. Long term could be a different story if enough people add enough trails for it to be of value.

It might just be me being naive here, but isn't adding OSM as an option to GMaps just a few simple lines of code to add? What's it got to do with commitment? The other day I created a web page which overlaid all my GPX files onto an OSM map - only took me an hour. Obviously, GC will have to make it bulletproof, but there's a team to do it. The only reason I see for not adding it is that there's WAY more important bugs to be fixing now!! Anyway, I'm not too bothered: the bookmarklet posted earlier is exactly what I'm after, so I'm happy!

February 27, 2010

To answer Keith Watson "value" comment I think of only one thing.

I used to maintain 2 premium accounts, for my family, with Geocaching.com at a value of $60/year. I'm finding with the lack of options, like OSM and iPhone Application deficiencies that this is not even worth the $30/year. I've already let one account expire. Since I'm finding I need to pay other companies money to make up the difference, I find it a waste of money to continue paying to geocaching.com. Makes more sense to let both accounts expire and sign up again when the "value" of Geocaching.com increases.

Now this is only me... but if others followed the same logic...

1.3k · February 28, 2010

To answer Keith Watson "value" comment I think of only one thing.

I used to maintain 2 premium accounts, for my family, with Geocaching.com at a value of $60/year. I'm finding with the lack of options, like OSM and iPhone Application deficiencies that this is not even worth the $30/year. I've already let one account expire. Since I'm finding I need to pay other companies money to make up the difference, I find it a waste of money to continue paying to geocaching.com. Makes more sense to let both accounts expire and sign up again when the "value" of Geocaching.com increases.

Now this is only me... but if others followed the same logic...

Out of interest, what other companies are you paying money to to make up the difference?

February 28, 2010

Off the top of my head TrailBehind Inc. is one of them. Their giving me the ability to find geocaches and map out the trails to better enhance OSM.

Edit: Just to add to this... how many people are using a program like GSAK to make up the "difference" of what Geocaching.com can't do. So if you register it, your paying $25US on top of your geocaching.com fee.

Edited February 28, 2010 by TheCarterFamily

1.3k · February 28, 2010

Off the top of my head TrailBehind Inc. is one of them. Their giving me the ability to find geocaches and map out the trails to better enhance OSM.

Edit: Just to add to this... how many people are using a program like GSAK to make up the "difference" of what Geocaching.com can't do. So if you register it, your paying $25US on top of your geocaching.com fee.

From what i can see, TrailBehind is an iPhone application for finding trails around you. That is a commercial mapping product. I use trails from the Ontario Trails Project. I don't have to pay for the maps, but I did have to buy a GPS that works with the maps. Does that mean that Groundspeak is giving me less value because I want to use a map they don't provide? No.

No body needs maps on their GPS to geocache. Does this mean anyone who wants maps can complain that Groundpseak is dropping the ball? Again, no.

I don't use GSAK and never have. I know a few people that don't either and are not about to drop their premium accounts. They seem to get the current system working quite well for them.

1.3k · February 28, 2010

Their giving me the ability to find geocaches and map out the trails to better enhance OSM.

I hope you mean for your sake you are using the product to walk the trail and use your tracks lines to update Open Streets Maps. Copying or tracing what you see in a commercial product and making it available to the public may be considered a derivative work and could be considered a copright violation.

As for the value you get from Groundspeak, there is another thread to complain about that. The purpose of this thread is what value would Open Street Maps provide should Groundpseak decide to include it.

1.6k · March 1, 2010

Off the top of my head TrailBehind Inc. is one of them. Their giving me the ability to find geocaches and map out the trails to better enhance OSM.

Edit: Just to add to this... how many people are using a program like GSAK to make up the "difference" of what Geocaching.com can't do. So if you register it, your paying $25US on top of your geocaching.com fee.

From what i can see, TrailBehind is an iPhone application for finding trails around you. That is a commercial mapping product. I use trails from the Ontario Trails Project. I don't have to pay for the maps, but I did have to buy a GPS that works with the maps. Does that mean that Groundspeak is giving me less value because I want to use a map they don't provide? No.

No body needs maps on their GPS to geocache. Does this mean anyone who wants maps can complain that Groundpseak is dropping the ball? Again, no.

I don't use GSAK and never have. I know a few people that don't either and are not about to drop their premium accounts. They seem to get the current system working quite well for them.

Yeah, what he said!

In the USA version of the site there are many more mapping options than there are in Canada, but I don't see how this matters or that adding even more, like OSM would change much. Aren't you just looking at where caches are placed from your home before you go and find them?

Unlike Keith Watson, I do use GSAK but not for the actual geocaching. Groundspeak isn't really giving anything less or not doing something. Groundspeak is for giving the coordinates to logbooks, and the listings that describe them. If you choose a third-party application to get the coordinates onto your GPS, that's up to you and has nothing to do with Groundspeak. GSAK and other programs just make data management easier.

Maybe I just use the maps we do have differently.... like to see approximately where the cache is. The rest, I figure out on the way there.

BQ

Edited March 1, 2010 by The Blue Quasar

March 1, 2010

"Copying or tracing what you see in a commercial product" I feel rather insulted that you even suggested this. No where in my post did I even suggest it. I use only CC, my own tracks or tracks I have received permission from the author to edit OSM.

As for the rest... You can do what you want with "your" money. Point, and reason I asked for the change, is I find geocaching.com near impossible to use for most of what I need to do. I don't feel it's worth the money I'm paying for this service.

Feature Request: OpenStreetMaps instead of Google

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment