Geocaching.com site update Feb 14th, 2012

February 14, 2012

OpinioNate, on 14 February 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

New Features:

• Added setting choice in profile to hide Recently Viewed Caches from the private profile view

Where is the setting? I am trying to turn it off, but can't find it in my profile.

Thanks

Accounting Settings / Manage Account Preferences.

Would have been better to put a check box on the profile pages, to minimize poking aorund for it.

I guess I am blind as I still can't find it.

More help please.

.

February 14, 2012

dito not been able to disable that also

February 14, 2012

What were the costs involved of being part of the 0.35%?

From the Huffington Post:

"According to Apple Insider, the company says the charge will only affect .35% of users as websites won't be charged until they get 25,000 Google Maps clicks in one 24-hour period. After they've reached this quota, businesses will be charged $4 per 1,000 clicks according to BBC News."

So, if my math serves me right, according to Groundspeak's estimate of 2,000,000 hits per day, we're talking about $8,000 per day in fees to Google, or approaching $3,000,000 per year. Only Groundspeak knows the number of premium members, but they tell us there are over 5 million registered cachers. If you assume only 10% are premium members (high? low?), you would be talking about a $6.00 increase per year to cover the cost of the Google service. I'd pay it.

Of course, I would think that there would be ways to greatly limit that number of hits by changing the default, only giving Google Maps to premium members, etc.

February 14, 2012

finally found it : http://www.geocaching.com/account/ManagePreferences.aspx

February 14, 2012

What were the costs involved of being part of the 0.35%?

From the Huffington Post:

"According to Apple Insider, the company says the charge will only affect .35% of users as websites won't be charged until they get 25,000 Google Maps clicks in one 24-hour period. After they've reached this quota, businesses will be charged $4 per 1,000 clicks according to BBC News."

So, if my math serves me right, according to Groundspeak's estimate of 2,000,000 hits per day, we're talking about $8,000 per day in fees to Google, or approaching $3,000,000 per year. Only Groundspeak knows the number of premium members, but they tell us there are over 5 million registered cachers. If you assume only 10% are premium members (high? low?), you would be talking about a $6.00 increase per year to cover the cost of the Google service. I'd pay it.

Of course, I would think that there would be ways to greatly limit that number of hits by changing the default, only giving Google Maps to premium members, etc.

I agree +4

February 14, 2012

What were the costs involved of being part of the 0.35%?

"According to Apple Insider, the company says the charge will only affect .35% of users as websites won't be charged until they get 25,000 Google Maps clicks in one 24-hour period. After they've reached this quota, businesses will be charged $4 per 1,000 clicks according to BBC News."

So, if my math serves me right, according to Groundspeak's estimate of 2,000,000 hits per day, we're talking about $8,000 per day in fees to Google, or approaching $3,000,000 per year. Only Groundspeak knows the number of premium members, but they tell us there are over 5 million registered cachers. If you assume only 10% are premium members (high? low?), you would be talking about a $6.00 increase per year to cover the cost of the Google service. I'd pay it.

removing google map to "non paying" and paying up to 10$ more a year is ok with me for Bettoer Google maps... and MORE cache Per Poket Querries! per day!

2.1k · February 14, 2012

What were the costs involved of being part of the 0.35%?

$4 per 1000 loads above 25,000 is the base plan.

5.2k · February 14, 2012

What were the costs involved of being part of the 0.35%?

By my calculations, a whopping $8,000 per day!

1.2k · February 14, 2012

What were the costs involved of being part of the 0.35%?

rough back of the napkin calculations for the information Nate provided and the pricing plan that google has it works out to

$7,900 a day or 2.88 million a year!!!!

That said there is a Google Maps API for Business that has another set of rates, but you have to call them to find out what those rates are.

February 14, 2012

finally found it : http://www.geocaching.com/account/ManagePreferences.aspx

Thanks!

February 14, 2012

Re the new maps (although we can hardly call them that):

I clicked the "try it" link and got a nice array of icons with no map behind them. This is useful ... how?

Just out of curiosity. What would the cost be, per premium user, to get the Google maps back?

Just found the answer to my question?

I too would be willing to pay to get the Google maps back. Charge me $4/1000? That'll work.

Edited February 14, 2012 by two bison

February 14, 2012

I like the new feature to see only the caches in the PQ on the map. However, I did notice a bug. Is this the correct place to report it?

Caches in which I have logged a DNF are showing up as a smiley on the new map when I view my PQ on the map.

Looks like this may be fixed now. It was happening, but now it is not. Thanks!

5.2k · February 14, 2012

Just out of curiosity. What would the cost be, per premium user, to get the Google maps back?

By my calculations, as much as $30 per month.

1.2k · February 14, 2012

We're working on the performance issues with the maps.

Having everyone want to come and play with the new ones have overwhelmed the system! I'll update more as I can. Sorry folks!

-Raine

3.2k · February 14, 2012

I was going to make a chart with the load time for each panel.. but after 5 minutes and zero panels I gave up.

5.2k · February 14, 2012

Having everyone want to come and play with the new ones have overwhelmed the system!

What used to be 2,000,000 hits per day is probably closer to 5 million today :blink:

February 14, 2012

At least thanks for the quick updates on this issue!

3.2k · February 14, 2012

Re the new maps (although we can hardly call them that):

I clicked the "try it" link and got a nice array of icons with no map behind them. This is useful ... how?

Just out of curiosity. What would the cost be, per premium user, to get the Google maps back?

No clue but I'd gladly double my yearly contribution.

1.9k · February 14, 2012

I was going to make a chart with the load time for each panel.. but after 5 minutes and zero panels I gave up.

I could get some to load by zooming in, but not all of them.

February 14, 2012

One question: Are you (Groundspeak) aware of the data usage license from openstreetmap.org? Currently you're using the tiles from tile.openstreetmap.org and you might be blocked in the near future.

edit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_Usage_Policy

Edited February 14, 2012 by SammysHP

February 14, 2012

What were the costs involved of being part of the 0.35%?

From the Huffington Post:

"According to Apple Insider, the company says the charge will only affect .35% of users as websites won't be charged until they get 25,000 Google Maps clicks in one 24-hour period. After they've reached this quota, businesses will be charged $4 per 1,000 clicks according to BBC News."

So, if my math serves me right, according to Groundspeak's estimate of 2,000,000 hits per day, we're talking about $8,000 per day in fees to Google, or approaching $3,000,000 per year. Only Groundspeak knows the number of premium members, but they tell us there are over 5 million registered cachers. If you assume only 10% are premium members (high? low?), you would be talking about a $6.00 increase per year to cover the cost of the Google service. I'd pay it.

Of course, I would think that there would be ways to greatly limit that number of hits by changing the default, only giving Google Maps to premium members, etc.

This, this, and this!!! A thousand times, this!!! There are so many other solutions rather than rolling out this turd of an update. Up the Premium cost $5 and only allow Premium members to access Google Maps, for one. This OSM garbage is terrible.

From a Wikipedia article on CloudMade: "CloudMade recorded a loss for 2008 of £1,426,585, with a loss for 2009 of a further £2,149,259. On October 5, 2010, OpenStreetMap founder and CloudMade cofounder Steve Coast resigned from all positions within the company. In November, Steve announced that he had accepted a position as Principal Architect at Microsoft's Bing Mobile."

Looks like we just jumped onto a sinking ship with both feet. Please give us the opportunity to choose to pay for a superior product.

February 14, 2012

By my calculations, as much as $30 per month.

Do you really think it is as low as 8,000 premium members??? Even if only 2% of cachers (5 million, according to the homepage) signed up for a premium membership, we're talking about 100K. I've only been doing this for 18 months, so maybe I'm overestimating the popularity...?

19k · February 14, 2012

Re the new maps (although we can hardly call them that):

I clicked the "try it" link and got a nice array of icons with no map behind them. This is useful ... how?

Just out of curiosity. What would the cost be, per premium user, to get the Google maps back?

No clue but I'd gladly double my yearly contribution.

And probably just as many would not, so you'd have to double your doubling to make up for those that bailed.

February 14, 2012

.

Edited February 14, 2012 by dcwalker30

5.2k · February 14, 2012

Do you really think it is as low as 8,000 premium members???

I said it was conservative. I really have no clue how many PMs there are.

February 14, 2012

The new map is the worst thing I've ever seen at gc.com:

Less than 50% of the tiles are loading

No sat-view in Europe anymore

Germany is one of the most active Geocaching-countries - you'll be hated by lot of us. I'm a mapper of OSM and used it already before the remove of Gmaps. But Google is the only provider for aero-images here in Germany with an usable resolution.

PS: Bing is no alternative, too low resolution.

Couldn't have said it better! Those new maps suck big time!!! Google Maps had a lot more detailed info on walking paths through parks or forests, not to mention the aerial views and topo maps. The new map is way too slow, it takes ages to refresh when you zoom in on a point (which basically you don't need to do anymore since there is no detail anyway)... And I've tried this at home on my computer, I really don't want to know how long it'll take on my iPhone when I'm outdoors... I'm sorry to say this, but this was a downdate rather than an update.

It's been asked already, I know: wouldn't it be possible to make the use of Google Maps a premium member only feature?

February 14, 2012

Charge premium members per 1000 hits. We could pay for the first thousand and then, when we get close we could re-up if we're finding them useful. You'd have to pay to play with the maps and what's not to like about that?

No maps for those that don't pay. That would certainly cut the hits on the maps down in a hurry. Charge per thousand, in advance.

Edited February 14, 2012 by two bison

February 14, 2012

I think the new maps will likely be OK for the majority of users once the server load issues are worked out, but so far they are still painfully slow to work with.

If I may ask, are VR's now reviewing caches with these new maps or do their accounts still provide access to Google maps? I can't imagine their accounts would generate enough hits to push into the .35% and I would think these new maps aren't nearly as helpful and complete as the Google provided ones. If they are also using OSM, I suppose it makes Reviewer Notes on cache submissions that much more important as it pertains to land manager issues (ie. Railroad tracks or park boundaries that may not show up on these OSM tiles correctly).

I'm wondering also if a 3 tiered membership structure might work or was considered for the use of Google maps? There doesn't seem to be much question that their service is quite good (superior, perhaps?) to the rest of the mapping options available to the public, so perhaps leave it to the caching community to determine what level of service they'd be happy with and willing to pay for:

Tier 1 - Premium Membership - Google map access, perhaps a few more PQ's run in one day and some extra value add options at GSP discretion: $50
Tier 2 - Regular Membership - Access to PQ's x5 per day, OSM map tiling: $30
Tier 3 - Basic Membership - No PQ's, OSM map tiling. This is your entry level free membership.

As others have mentioned, I'd also be willing to pay a premium to maintain the quality of maps that Google provides. I'm sorta surprised that some comminication to this effect wasn't asked of the general geocaching population to see if it would even be something that they might be interested in. While I don't understand fully the ramifications of Google's pricing structure with respect to how Groundspeak runs their accounting books, at face value, what I propose seems to be a sensible, viable option does it not?

February 14, 2012

The standard Mapquest is veeery slow here in Europe, but the openstreet maps work fine.

A pity you have to select it every time.

Wouldn't it be possible to store your preference in a cookie?

7.8k · February 14, 2012

I like the new feature to see only the caches in the PQ on the map. However, I did notice a bug. Is this the correct place to report it?

Caches in which I have logged a DNF are showing up as a smiley on the new map when I view my PQ on the map.

Looks like this may be fixed now. It was happening, but now it is not. Thanks!

Nope, still happening for me. I found it displays a smiley for any cache where you've logged ANY type of log, including DNF, note, Will attend, etc.

February 14, 2012

Good work!

I have one idea for improvement:

It would be great if users had the opportunity to select a map layer which will be used as a primary map for their account.

Someone prefers the OSM to MapQuest, another user prefers CloudMade etc.

Users of Google maps, do not worry. In a few days some new "Grase Monkey Script" will solve your troubles.

Edited February 14, 2012 by PaWcz

February 14, 2012

Give Caches along a Route a try. Useless.

February 14, 2012

What were the costs involved of being part of the 0.35%?

From the Huffington Post:

"According to Apple Insider, the company says the charge will only affect .35% of users as websites won't be charged until they get 25,000 Google Maps clicks in one 24-hour period. After they've reached this quota, businesses will be charged $4 per 1,000 clicks according to BBC News."

So, if my math serves me right, according to Groundspeak's estimate of 2,000,000 hits per day, we're talking about $8,000 per day in fees to Google, or approaching $3,000,000 per year. Only Groundspeak knows the number of premium members, but they tell us there are over 5 million registered cachers. If you assume only 10% are premium members (high? low?), you would be talking about a $6.00 increase per year to cover the cost of the Google service. I'd pay it.

Of course, I would think that there would be ways to greatly limit that number of hits by changing the default, only giving Google Maps to premium members, etc.

This, this, and this!!! A thousand times, this!!! There are so many other solutions rather than rolling out this turd of an update. Up the Premium cost $5 and only allow Premium members to access Google Maps, for one. This OSM garbage is terrible.

From a Wikipedia article on CloudMade: "CloudMade recorded a loss for 2008 of £1,426,585, with a loss for 2009 of a further £2,149,259. On October 5, 2010, OpenStreetMap founder and CloudMade cofounder Steve Coast resigned from all positions within the company. In November, Steve announced that he had accepted a position as Principal Architect at Microsoft's Bing Mobile."

Looks like we just jumped onto a sinking ship with both feet. Please give us the opportunity to choose to pay for a superior product.

+5

7.8k · February 14, 2012

The standard Mapquest is veeery slow here in Europe, but the openstreet maps work fine.

A pity you have to select it every time.

Wouldn't it be possible to store your preference in a cookie?

My thoughts exactly. It would be great if the map remembered your last selection. For my area, I'll be almost exclusively using the OSM layer, but that isn't the default, so I'll be constantly switching it.

BTW, for those looking for a topo-type map with contour lines, the OpenCycleMap layer has it.

February 14, 2012

The new map is the worst thing I've ever seen at gc.com:

Less than 50% of the tiles are loading

No sat-view in Europe anymore

Germany is one of the most active Geocaching-countries - you'll be hated by lot of us. I'm a mapper of OSM and used it already before the remove of Gmaps. But Google is the only provider for aero-images here in Germany with an usable resolution.

PS: Bing is no alternative, too low resolution.

Couldn't have said it better! Those new maps suck big time!!! Google Maps had a lot more detailed info on walking paths through parks or forests, not to mention the aerial views and topo maps. The new map is way too slow, it takes ages to refresh when you zoom in on a point (which basically you don't need to do anymore since there is no detail anyway)... And I've tried this at home on my computer, I really don't want to know how long it'll take on my iPhone when I'm outdoors... I'm sorry to say this, but this was a downdate rather than an update.

It's been asked already, I know: wouldn't it be possible to make the use of Google Maps a premium member only feature?

+5

February 14, 2012

I think the new maps will likely be OK for the majority of users once the server load issues are worked out, but so far they are still painfully slow to work with.

If I may ask, are VR's now reviewing caches with these new maps or do their accounts still provide access to Google maps? I can't imagine their accounts would generate enough hits to push into the .35% and I would think these new maps aren't nearly as helpful and complete as the Google provided ones. If they are also using OSM, I suppose it makes Reviewer Notes on cache submissions that much more important as it pertains to land manager issues (ie. Railroad tracks or park boundaries that may not show up on these OSM tiles correctly).

I'm wondering also if a 3 tiered membership structure might work or was considered for the use of Google maps? There doesn't seem to be much question that their service is quite good (superior, perhaps?) to the rest of the mapping options available to the public, so perhaps leave it to the caching community to determine what level of service they'd be happy with and willing to pay for:

Tier 1 - Premium Membership - Google map access, perhaps a few more PQ's run in one day and some extra value add options at GSP discretion: $50

Tier 2 - Regular Membership - Access to PQ's x5 per day, OSM map tiling: $30

Tier 3 - Basic Membership - No PQ's, OSM map tiling. This is your entry level free membership.

As others have mentioned, I'd also be willing to pay a premium to maintain the quality of maps that Google provides. I'm sorta surprised that some comminication to this effect wasn't asked of the general geocaching population to see if it would even be something that they might be interested in. While I don't understand fully the ramifications of Google's pricing structure with respect to how Groundspeak runs their accounting books, at face value, what I propose seems to be a sensible, viable option does it not?

+5

2k · February 14, 2012

I'm getting a lot of blank tiles where map data should appear (because the server doesn't respond in time?)

I understand why you need to move away from Google, but the ability to see complete map information suffers.

February 14, 2012

How do we use these new maps, no streets are showing up in Yuma!

7.8k · February 14, 2012

Give Caches along a Route a try. Useless.

I just tried it, and it's still using Google Maps. I don't see any differences from before the update.

February 14, 2012

If this is what geocahing is going to I think I will archive all my caches and call it quits. This is not fun!

2.2k · February 14, 2012

The new map is the worst thing I've ever seen at gc.com:

In that case, you obviously don't remember the pre-Google maps.

That's exactly what I was thinking! :rolleyes:

I remember those old maps well... :blink:

I love the new maps! They work great for my local area and the addition of some trails is a nice touch.

February 14, 2012

maybe Groundspeak doesn't want to pay google millions of dollars a year for something that has been free

February 14, 2012

By my calculations, as much as $30 per month.

Do you really think it is as low as 8,000 premium members??? Even if only 2% of cachers (5 million, according to the homepage) signed up for a premium membership, we're talking about 100K. I've only been doing this for 18 months, so maybe I'm overestimating the popularity...?

At 2,000,000 clicks per day, with 5,000,000 registered users, that's 0.4 clicks per registered user, per day. At 8,000 Premium Members, they could restrict Google Map access to Premium only and reduce the average Google hits to 3,200 clicks/day. There would need to be at least 62,500 Premium Members to reach the 25,000 daily clicks at that 0.4 clicks/day. If we had just 63,000 members (1.3% of the registered users, but enough to pass the 25,000 daily click limit), with an operating cost of $8,000/day for the Google API, that would come out to an increase in dues of $46.47 per member per year, or $3.87/month.

I know that to me, it would be worth another $3.87/month ($0.13/day) to have access to a far superior API. But I think there are far more than 63,000 Premium Members. I would be very impressed to see Groundspeak operate on a gross income of $1.9 million.

7.8k · February 14, 2012

How do we use these new maps, no streets are showing up in Yuma!

What layer are you using? I looked at Yuma on all the layers, and I see lots of streets. Here's what I see on the OSM layer (caches hidden):

3.6k · February 14, 2012

One question: Are you (Groundspeak) aware of the data usage license from openstreetmap.org? Currently you're using the tiles from tile.openstreetmap.org and you might be blocked in the near future.

edit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_Usage_Policy

I am not surprise this come up. I did wonder about it all along. :blink:

February 14, 2012

I don't care what map package is used ... as long as it works. I cache mainly in the desert so I rely on the Aerial view pretty much exclusively.

It took me 5 minutes to get this:

Not what I paid for...

February 14, 2012

Hällefors is a small town in Sweden.

Clear differences between the maps.

Some streets only in OSM maps, while google maps is all..

Where are the roads?

February 14, 2012

It is very hard to test with the slowness, so I am going to reserve judgement until the performance issues are resolved.

I have noticed one issue though... when using OSM and zooming in, the smiley and "my cache" icons all revert to the unfound traditional icon. I'm using Google Chrome.

February 14, 2012

What a load of rubbish the new maps are.. For everyones sake bring back GoogleMaps..

I've just done a check and with Google Maps I can scan right down to less than the size of my garage roof top.

Drawing a line across the screen measures just 6 feet across and 4 feet down..

To even get an aerial pic on my page with Mapquest the screen covers an area of 36 MILES across and 22 MILES down.

Wow what a resolution that is... Get it off and bring Google back...

Rant over..

February 14, 2012

Count me in to pay more for the use of google maps!

Geocaching.com site update Feb 14th, 2012

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