Sign in to follow this  
Followers 26
OpinioNate

Geocaching.com site update Feb 14th, 2012

720 posts in this topic

It seems to me that no one except Groundspeak understands why they needed to change the maps. Groundspeak CANNOT afford to pay the price that Google wants to charge for their maps. If they could, they would not have made this change.

 

You will notice the default map is not pointing to OSM's tile server. They are pointing to MapQuests OSM servers. You have to physically switch to OSM's tile servers to create any load on them. What exactly is the issue there?

 

We've explained why the maps had to do the change, people have guesstimated on the attributed costs that we would incure if we stuck with Google maps.

 

-Raine

 

Hi there,

 

MapQuest is a joke, at least in Europe. Mayor roads are missing not to speak about the details. So you'd HAVE to switch to OSM or one of the other alternatives which use OSM.

So there is your load you put on a server of a non profit-organization like OSM without giving anything back.

 

Furthermore the policy claims this as "forbidden" (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy)

 

OSM Tile usage policy

However, OpenStreetMap's own servers are run entirely on donated resources. They have strictly limited capacity. Heavy use of OSM tiles adversely affects people's ability to edit the map, and is an abuse of the individual donations and sponsorship which provide hardware and bandwidth. As a result, we require that users of the tiles abide by this tile usage policy.

 

OpenStreetMap data is free for everyone to use. Our tile servers are not.

 

So I regard the usage at least unfair if not a shame for Groundspeak and therefore Geocaching as well.

If you use their servers, pay for it by donation. If you want to use the data - it's free, but get your own server!

And even then a donation on a regular basis would be only fair!!

 

Greetings from Germany (no sat-view anymore, no hybrid, loads of roads missing on the map)

HansHafen

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know why this needs repeating. It clearly IS about money. Google is now charging for the usage of their maps and they were not before. The End.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Where is Groundspeak's responses to these complaints and suggestions? There are only two staff replies here, one basically telling us off for using the new maps. Europe has no satellite imagery and there are bugs in the overlays. I don't actually dislike the OSM maps but they're slow.

 

What are Groundspeak doing to address these complaints? What alternatives are being considered? Anything at all?

 

A lot of the posts in here are taking the view that it's all out of Groundspeak's hands like this is all one big voluntary concept - it's not, it's a business many or most of us are paying for. Perhaps Google is the trigger for this change but my contract is with Groundspeak, not Google and I want to know what they're planning to do about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

I noticed the same thing. I happens when you initially select one of your pocket queries from the list and the icons for caches which I have posted DNF logs don't switch to smiley faces until I've zoomed in a couple of levels. Clicking on the Pocket Query or Search tab will turn those icons back to the correct icon types. Actually, if this worked correctly it would be a nice feature. It would be nice to see a map of caches which (accurately) showed which caches you've posted DNF (and only DNF) logs.

 

I also noticed some weird behavior which selecting the "My Finds" and "My Hides" buttons. For awhile selecting the My Finds button was only changing the icons on *some* of the caches on the map and toggling the "My Hides" button was changing the icons on caches that I own, as well as cache I have found.

0

Share this post


Link to post

New maps will take getting used to and they seemed a little slow just now.

 

All in all great update!

A little slow is the under statement of the year, I would have been happier with an increase in membership fees to cover Google (the new maps Suck big time & no Sat view)

0

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me that no one except Groundspeak understands why they needed to change the maps. Groundspeak CANNOT afford to pay the price that Google wants to charge for their maps. If they could, they would not have made this change.

 

You will notice the default map is not pointing to OSM's tile server. They are pointing to MapQuests OSM servers. You have to physically switch to OSM's tile servers to create any load on them. What exactly is the issue there?

 

We've explained why the maps had to do the change, people have guesstimated on the attributed costs that we would incure if we stuck with Google maps.

 

-Raine

 

Hi there,

 

MapQuest is a joke, at least in Europe. Mayor roads are missing not to speak about the details. So you'd HAVE to switch to OSM or one of the other alternatives which use OSM.

 

I prefer using the OSM maps over the Mapquest maps, and in may cases, even the Google Maps layer (not the aerial photos). However, I don't want to switch to OSM maps every time I go to the maps page. It doesn't even save which map type I've selected in the same browser session. Let me select my mapping preference in my profile and use that as the default basemap for the mapping page.

0

Share this post


Link to post
What about using Bing Maps? Is their pricing structure similar to Google maps?

I can't find any info on pricing (see below), but it appear that the threshold level below which the maps are free, is far lower than that of Google's.

 

Bing: Limit of 125,000 sessions or 500,000 transactions in a 12 month period

Google: Usage limit (per day): 25,000

 

Geocaching.com usage averages well over 2,000,000 hits per day.

 

Edit: I found some info from 2 years ago on Bing's pricing: $8000 for 1,000,000 transactions, which is twice Google's price. :blink:

 

Further, according to that page, they define a "transaction" as 8 map tiles, where Google defines a "hit" as simply loading the map; user movement (panning) does not add to usage.

 

Granted, other deals may be available in the quantity we use, but it still doesn't sound like a feasible solution.

 

Coincidentally, I'm working on something that has similar usage limits. I'm working on a location disambiguation service (so one can type a portion of a city name and it will return possible candidates with a unique identifier for each) for a semantic web application. I'm using the geonames api, which does have fairly generous usage limits. A colleague of mine that's also working the the project asked me about the limits and indicated that he'd been doing some testing with the Google geocoding API and indicated that it also has a limit on request per IP address. However, he suggested that one of the ways around this is to put the geocoding code in javascript, thus the request would be coming from the browser (rather than the single address of the server).

 

I really haven't thought this through but I wonder if it would be feasible for members to personally obtain a Google maps API key (it's really easy and something I've done for several applications) and stuff it in their geocaching profile. Then when the mapping page is selected it reads that key out of their profile and constructs javascript so that requests are using the geocachers API key (rather than the one Groundspeak has registered) for google map requests. My colleague seems to think this would work but I haven't had a chance to ask him about the details.

0

Share this post


Link to post

New maps will take getting used to and they seemed a little slow just now.

 

All in all great update!

A little slow is the under statement of the year, I would have been happier with an increase in membership fees to cover Google (the new maps Suck big time & no Sat view)

Then we would have multiple threads protesting that Groundspeak broke its promise to Charter Members. My membership is locked in at $30 per year for life. That was part of the inducement to support the site back in 2002. Back when the maps were ugly, angular shapefiles with very little detail and no aerial views. This is the fourth(?) major mapping change I've seen since I joined, yet the price of premium membership hasn't gone up by even a dime.

 

I wish I had signed up for a charter membership at my local gas station.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortuantelly I have a display problem using the Opera internet browser:

 

On the new maps it's no longer possible to click on a cache's icon to popup detailed infos.

(in Firefox no problem).

 

When will come the bug-fixes :surprise:

0

Share this post


Link to post

I also miss a preference entry "last used map". Not all users are satisfied with the stardard set map

0

Share this post


Link to post

For starters, a lot of people are griping at GSP about this change and seem to think that the switch in maps is supposed to be an "improvement". It's not. It's simply GSP's business reaction to the change in licensing the map data from Google. The one thing that I have not seen anyone here mention is that they could have opted to remove the maps completely. I suspect the reaction here would be far worse if they had removed all of the maps from geocaching.com. But instead, they opted to at least give you something until they come up with a better way to make this work for all involved. Would you have rather had no maps until they figured something out or at least something in the interim?

 

I would bet that the folks at GSP knew all along that the moment they switched to OSM, there would be a huge backlash from the users because of the lack of detail. But there choices were limited in how they would proceed. Remove the maps entirely? Nope, too much flack. Give them OSM maps? Better than nothing but will not be as good as Google and we'll still get lots of flack but it's beyond our control. Charge more money for use of Google Maps? People would gripe that their membership fees shouldn't be going up. No matter how you do this, people were going to gripe anyway.

 

I would much rather have at least something for a map instead of nothing while GSP works out the kinks on how best to serve it's client base. I don't hold anything against them for this change because I see it as merely the first step.

 

This was going to happen one way or another (because of Google's changes) and now that it has happened, it's time to figure out what the best options in moving forward are. Not sit around and bash a company for making changes that were beyond their control.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

 

Unfortuantelly I have a display problem using the Opera internet browser:

 

On the new maps it's no longer possible to click on a cache's icon to popup detailed infos.

(in Firefox no problem).

 

When will come the bug-fixes :surprise:

 

Opera works fine for me.

 

f2e9669c4d0a46baad590b9.png

 

Bye, Ozric

0

Share this post


Link to post

Repeating my earlier question:

 

Isn't their any way that Groundspeak can have Google Maps accessed from the user's computer, rather than from geocaching.com ? That way, Groundspeak would avoid the load on Google by distributing it.

For example, by linking to a Google Earth file, the user could use that to view a bunch of caches. Not sure if it would work similarly with Google Maps.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Heck, if you need to limit Google Maps to PM's do so.

Due to the costs involved, not only would they have to limit it to PMs, but PM price would double or triple or more. :yikes:

 

That's complete speculation. You don't know the amount of PMs and until that number is made known, saying that costs would "double or triple or more" is speculation.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Maps are *not* working properly on iPad. We are able to see the caches right on their place, but tapping on their symbol results in ... nothing. No popup like on desktop browsers. Useless.

0

Share this post


Link to post

All of these people who are assuming that being a PM gives them a right to Google Maps have me scratching my head to be honest.

 

A look at the membership comparison chart clearly shows the only map related item is,

Maps

Use the map view filters to see only the types of geocaches that appeal to you or to remove your hides and finds.

 

I have only ever paid for my PM for two main reasons. The first is to allow me to seach for PM caches. The second is to receive PQ’s.

 

If you want different mapping there are lots of other options. You can even just pull the GPX file into Google Earth if you like. If you want satellite photos before searching for a cache copy and paste the coordinates into Google Maps.

 

I for one would NOT be paying for any increase to gain the Google Maps functionality.

 

The $30 membership includes a value placed on the overall product (both real and intangible aspects) by the consumer. Most of the reason I am a PM is just to say "thanks" to Groundspeak for keeping this going. I couldn't care less about PQs, Recently Viewed, the Stats Page, etc. Even though the Google Maps API wasn't part of what we were paying for, it had a value assigned to it by (what appears to be) a great number of PMs. If you take away that service, you lower that perceived value. If you lower the value without decreasing the cost, you're going to potentially lose paying customers. I think this entire situation could be handled without significantly increasing PM dues. You can't decrease the value of a product, and then expect your customers to pay the exact same amount.

 

Do you see what I mean? It doesn't matter that we weren't guaranteed Google Maps. Let me give you an example. You always buy Goodwill tires. They just switched to a new eco-friendly compound that didn't raise or lower their operating costs, it's just eco friendly. It also didn't raise the price of the tires. You don't care because you weren't paying for the molecular structure of the rubber, just the quality of the Goodwill product, and the price didn't change. Well now you find out that the new compound has the tendency to spontaneously combust, and Goodwill knew that. You weren't ever paying for a particular molecular compound, that wasn't part of the price built into the rubber, but you sure as heck won't pay the same amount for a crappier product!

 

That's what is happening here. They changed a small piece of the puzzle that didn't change operating costs, but lowered the perceived value of their product. Why would I pay $30 for a crappier product?

0

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me that no one except Groundspeak understands why they needed to change the maps. Groundspeak CANNOT afford to pay the price that Google wants to charge for their maps. If they could, they would not have made this change.

 

You will notice the default map is not pointing to OSM's tile server. They are pointing to MapQuests OSM servers. You have to physically switch to OSM's tile servers to create any load on them. What exactly is the issue there?

 

We've explained why the maps had to do the change, people have guesstimated on the attributed costs that we would incure if we stuck with Google maps.

 

-Raine

 

Raine,

It's not really guesstimation when we know A.) How much Google charges per 1000 hits over 25,000/day. and B.) How many hits/day Geocaching.com produces.

 

Unless Groundspeak's figures were not accurate, we have a very good idea of how much it would cost Groundspeak per day/year. The only real guesstimation is to the number of Premium Members. The real point here is that Google Maps was apparently highly valued by your members. I sincerely hope that Grounspeak is in meetings all day working to solve the issue. There are many other solutions to this issue. I think we all completely understand that Grounspeak can't simply 'foot the bill' and no one is asking them to.

Edited by dcwalker30
0

Share this post


Link to post

Ipad support.

 

The new maps work better with the iPad2, because now they actually show the cache icons. However, when I want to view a cache by clicking on the cache icon, nothing happens.

 

With the beta maps, the cache icons didn't display. I had to use the "old maps" to browse in map view and be able to see a cache.

 

Now, i can see the cache icons, but can't view the cache details. It would be nice to be able to click a cache icon and see the cache bubble.

 

Same here. I like the new maps and they load quickly on my iPad but nothing happens when I click on the cache icons. I use my iPad a lot to plan caching trips but can't do that if I can't access the cache details from the map. The same thing used to happen in the beta maps, and I always had to revert to the original maps, but know they've gone I can't do that anymore. Surely there must be a quick fix for this ?????????

0

Share this post


Link to post

I am unable to use the new maps on my iPad2. While I can see the geocache icons, I cannot see the GC #'s or get to the cache page. This should be have been able to work prior to the release of the new maps.

0

Share this post


Link to post

[Edited by Moderator.]

 

What a bunch on unappreciative people, threatening to not pay your premium membership, [Edited]

 

You actually use that map? [Edited] - there are way better solutions.

 

Keystone, I will not cry about your edit, at least you did not throw the babies out with the bath water.Thanks... 8-)

 

I bet what I said is what many at GS wanted to say!

Edited by Frank Broughton
0

Share this post


Link to post

Whoa! I think they've introduced a new bug into the forum code! The text in Frank's post seems unnecessarily large. <_<

 

Maybe so, but it was accurate and deserving... there are better solutions! PQ's and Google Earth, GSAK and google maps.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I, for one, absolutely hate the look and feel of the new maps as they load on my computer. This really sucks. I'd pay up to $100 a year for better google maps. Geocaching just became harder and less fun when you cant use decent maps to see anything. Fix it.

 

Eyedoc

0

Share this post


Link to post

I, for one, absolutely hate the look and feel of the new maps as they load on my computer. This really sucks. I'd pay up to $100 a year for better google maps. Geocaching just became harder and less fun when you cant use decent maps to see anything. Fix it.

 

Eyedoc

 

Maps suck! They will not even load all the way in satellite view.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What Groundspeak seems to want to ignore is the removal of TERRAIN maps. I hike hilly and mountainous areas and the Terrain maps are much more useful than the Topo maps. It's a huge loss for me personally that is going to make finding terrain 2.5 and above much more difficult.

 

Big thumbs down on the new default maps. What was in beta was much better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
I sincerely hope that Grounspeak is in meetings all day working to solve the issue.

 

Since when were "issues" ever solved by having a meeting?

 

I sincerely don't understand all the fuss here. I'll grant you that it sucks right now for the people in areas with little OSM coverage, but conversely the coverage is frequently better when you get to more exotic places like e.g. Marrakesh, where OSM got the streets in the souk mapped. I also find that the cartographic quality of google's maps has been declining in the last year or so, culminating with misplaced English-language labels strewn all over the maps now.

 

And still, it's not like the geocaching.com maps are the absolutely only way to see caches on a map.

 

What Groundspeak seems to want to ignore is the removal of TERRAIN maps.

 

Have a look at the OpenCycleMap. It doesn't have hillshading but it does have contour lines. And - as opposed to the google terrain map - it actually has other stuff than roads on it at the same time.

 

Biggest loss at the moment seems to be quality satellite images.

Edited by Yellow ants
0

Share this post


Link to post

What Groundspeak seems to want to ignore is the removal of TERRAIN maps. I hike hilly and mountainous areas and the Terrain maps are much more useful than the Topo maps. It's a huge loss for me personally that is going to make finding terrain 2.5 and above much more difficult.

 

Big thumbs down on the new default maps. What was in beta was much better.

 

They are not lost, you can still use them, just not on that GS page.

0

Share this post


Link to post

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

Bing map is almost as bad as map quest arial, in Denmark :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
What Groundspeak seems to want to ignore is the removal of TERRAIN maps.

 

Have a look at the OpenCycleMap. It doesn't have hillshading but it does have contour lines. And - as opposed to the google terrain map - it actually has other stuff than roads on it at the same time.

 

Biggest loss at the moment seems to be quality satellite images.

 

I didn't realize the satellite views were gone as well. That's another huge loss. I have looked at the Open Cycle maps and they are pretty useless for planning hikes. Not even close to the level of terrain detail to be useful.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What Groundspeak seems to want to ignore is the removal of TERRAIN maps. I hike hilly and mountainous areas and the Terrain maps are much more useful than the Topo maps. It's a huge loss for me personally that is going to make finding terrain 2.5 and above much more difficult.

 

Big thumbs down on the new default maps. What was in beta was much better.

 

They are not lost, you can still use them, just not on that GS page.

 

I see that from an individual cache page I can access the Google Terrain view. But only for that cache. If there's a way to still plan a multiple cache hike using Terrain View then please let me know how to do so because I do not see that available. The best remaining option seems to be the My Topo map option which is better than nothing but not nearly as nice as Google Terrain.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to jump on the "I hate the new maps" bandwagon. Perhaps make the free membership extremely limited to encourage more paid memberships...that along with a smaller increase in premium membership cost. Maybe that will make up enough to go back to Google Maps?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hi!

 

I think there were some great fixes like the "1mb or the width/height is greater than 2048 pixels" photo uploading relaxation and the choice to not/view recently viewed caches.

Hear, hear! There were some outstanding upgrades that came out in this update, but they've been completely over-shadowed by the kerfuffle over the map change.

So please tell me what outstanding upgrade you do mean that I might have been missing?

Granted, some of the changes may not affect you, but there were some long-standing bugs that were finally addressed. I find the above increase in allowed image size to be a huge step forward. The improper display of Unicode characters on cache pages was becoming a huge problem for cachers whose language used non-Latin characters. I know you mentioned you don't use the maps, but the proper pocket query display had been a long time coming. There were also a number of minor changes that either fixed little annoying bugs or just made things easier.

0

Share this post


Link to post

By the way....

 

GS still using google Maps and creating Trafic

 

b2e95c0fa83a45959189de8.png

 

The "View Dynamic Map" Button on the Listing Page leads to google Maps.

 

Bye, OZRIC

Edited by O Z R I C
0

Share this post


Link to post

By the way....

 

GS still using google Maps and creating Trafic

 

<snip>

 

The "View Dynamic Map" Button on the Listing Page leads to google Maps.

 

Bye, OZRIC

I noticed that, but they probably saw that the usage of that was low enough that they could keep it. It may get used more now, though, so it's possible that it may go away next.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed that the map on each cache page where the "View larger map" and "View dynamic map" links are, are still Google. With this being the case, does every cache page load cause one of those 2,000,000 Google map counts? If so, why not change this map to OSM? Then allow Google Maps if you select the "View larger map" link.

 

For me, I look at many cache pages a day. If each view counts agains the Google maps counter, I am racking up a lot of hits. I only use the "View larger map" link a couple times per day - at most. Maybe making this change would drop the 2,000,000 hits down to something more manangeable. Maybe this and only allowing premium members access to Google maps would get the numbers in line with what Goundspeak can deal with.

 

For me, it doesn't really matter which street map is used. BUT I really miss the terrain maps. And Google's satellite maps seem to be much better also.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Repeating my earlier question:

 

Isn't their any way that Groundspeak can have Google Maps accessed from the user's computer, rather than from geocaching.com ? That way, Groundspeak would avoid the load on Google by distributing it.

For example, by linking to a Google Earth file, the user could use that to view a bunch of caches. Not sure if it would work similarly with Google Maps.

 

Makes perfect sense to me....I wondered the same thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post

One good way could be to generate a kind of KMZ file that "open a cache/Querry in google earth" the same way when we look at a trackable and ask for Google earth Path...

 

so beside icons for "preview querry" "map ths querry" there could also be "Map in google earth" that could create a KMZ file loadable by Google earth.

0

Share this post


Link to post

since there is already the option to "create a pocket querry from view" on the Map

0

Share this post


Link to post

What Groundspeak seems to want to ignore is the removal of TERRAIN maps. I hike hilly and mountainous areas and the Terrain maps are much more useful than the Topo maps. It's a huge loss for me personally that is going to make finding terrain 2.5 and above much more difficult.

 

Big thumbs down on the new default maps. What was in beta was much better.

 

Is the Open Cycle Map layer not good enough for you terrain wise?

 

554710ce-c6cc-40dd-9402-10c1b24d19f8.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak-

 

First, I definitely understand why the Google Maps had to go. We (and you) have benefited pretty well from those free maps all these years. I understand that that approach is not sustainable with the new pricing model.

 

Now that that's gone away, however, I for one am going to have some higher expectations over what you CAN control. This was a huge takeaway, and my subscription dollars are getting me less than they did last week. Honestly I expect you to make it up to me. Give us a nice new feature, something that we've begged for, not a pet project (like the largely ignored Challenges).

Edited by korey99
0

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, this stinks. Google's sat images are at least in focus at most levels. And up to date. For example, I looked at the area where I used to work. The images for there are 2-3 years old. In Google, they are right now, about 6 months old.

 

<_<

Edited by Shop99er
0

Share this post


Link to post

What Groundspeak seems to want to ignore is the removal of TERRAIN maps. I hike hilly and mountainous areas and the Terrain maps are much more useful than the Topo maps. It's a huge loss for me personally that is going to make finding terrain 2.5 and above much more difficult.

 

Big thumbs down on the new default maps. What was in beta was much better.

 

Is the Open Cycle Map layer not good enough for you terrain wise?

 

No Open Cycle maps are not good enough. The option I'll probably use will be the My Topo option. As I said, I am aware of the Open Cycle maps but they are not as nice or as detailed as either the My Topo maps or the Google Terrain view. The Terrain view made it particularly easy to plot hikes along ridges and through valleys. The hills in the area you show have terrain that just isn't captured by Open Cycle. Also, the lack of shading makes it trickier to read those maps.

 

Here's an image with a comparison on 3 map types of the Deam Wilderness area in the Hoosier National Forest you showed above.

 

6341e94c-1ac9-49a8-8ace-3968315275ca.jpg?rnd=0.9968487

 

The first is a Terrain view I pulled from Google Maps. The next two are remaining available views at geocaching.com. The middle is the My Topo view and the last is the Open Cycle view. Of these 3 I will now use My Topo but will sure miss Google Terrain.

 

P.S. Edited to fix image embed.

Edited by CGCachers
0

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

 

Unfortuantelly I have a display problem using the Opera internet browser:

 

On the new maps it's no longer possible to click on a cache's icon to popup detailed infos.

(in Firefox no problem).

 

When will come the bug-fixes :surprise:

 

Opera works fine for me.

 

f2e9669c4d0a46baad590b9.png

 

Bye, Ozric

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

 

Unfortuantelly I have a display problem using the Opera internet browser:

 

On the new maps it's no longer possible to click on a cache's icon to popup detailed infos.

(in Firefox no problem).

 

When will come the bug-fixes :surprise:

 

Opera works fine for me.

 

f2e9669c4d0a46baad590b9.png

 

Bye, Ozric

I use Opera 11.61 and here I get a four-arrow pointer that zooms in when hiting the mouse

0

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding the dynamic Google map views on the individual cache pages - it may well be that the static preview image which is loaded by default does not count towards the map usage. If that's so, then I'm confident that the number of "view dynamic map" clicks are a mere fraction of the total individual listing page hits, and really don't weigh in at all compared to the full page general map use.

That was the benefit of the preview image - no extra loading of content that may not even be used. I'd be worried if the preview image counted as a hit toward the dynamic map use.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Like others have noted I too am not a fan of the map choices. Does the Administer of this formum know if Geocaching has considered partnering with Microsoft to use their Bing Maps? I do not know what map apps Microsoft uses for Bing Maps but they may be interested in any way they can compete by taking interest away from Google. Just a thought, I would like to hear back on this.

0

Share this post


Link to post

If you want to return the Google map and Google satelite view into your geocaching map, install Mozilla Firefox and Grease Monkey add-on. Then download this script and install it. This script adds new map views into Geocaching map (see the map options in upper right corner).

 

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/125938

aaa.png

Edited by mitak
0

Share this post


Link to post

If you want to return the Google map and Google satelite view into your geocaching map...

<snip>

Before going and advertising this in public, do you know where these Google Map hits will be registered against? If they use your own Google Maps API key, then fine. If they will count as hits against Groundspeak, then this should not be used. It will only increase the number of hits that Groundspeak is trying to decrease, and will hasten the demise of the few spots on the site where Google Maps is still used.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This update is FRUSTRATING. The new maps are painfully slow and offer about a quarter of the detail. Why do these maps have no scale bar? While trying to locate a new area to place a cache this comes in very handy. Personally I feel the premium membership dues would more than cover the cost to use the google map plugin. (yes I pay the premium fee)

 

Update request, include the distance from home to premium members for newest in home state!

 

Update request, take the preview map in the cache listing back 2-3 versions. The map should be in dynamic mode by default!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 26