Geocaching.com site update Feb 14th, 2012

February 21, 2012

I understand the cost issue. But new maps are NOT working well. Setup is not as intuitive as it could be. It took me a couple of days to figure out how to do the filtering. Maps don't load all that fast. Mapquest Aerial usually neglects to load portions of the map.... The Sailor is not very pleased.

February 21, 2012

Why couldn't Groundspeak break up into smaller companies such as Groundspeak USA and Groundspeak UK and so on and then maybe they would have fallen out of that range where Google would have charge them

8.3k · February 21, 2012

Why couldn't Groundspeak break up into smaller companies such as Groundspeak USA and Groundspeak UK and so on and then maybe they would have fallen out of that range where Google would have charge them

Because their data center is in Seattle. Multiple data center would be even more expensive and in the US even some of the states would have to be broken up to keep below the limits.

February 21, 2012

Why couldn't Groundspeak break up into smaller companies such as Groundspeak USA and Groundspeak UK and so on and then maybe they would have fallen out of that range where Google would have charge them

Just as Waymarking.com and geocaching.com are seperated but both owned by Groundspeak and Waymarking.com is still using Google maps I think the underlying point of the dropping of Google had more to do with c:geo using the rata stored on the gc.com server side(not Google side no hits on maps adding to the supposed 2m Google hits) rather than money

8.3k · February 21, 2012

I love conspiracy theories. To bad Mae Brussell isn't still with us.

1.9k · February 21, 2012

I love conspiracy theories. To bad Mae Brussell isn't still with us.

But do you love the theories or the theorists? :lol: :rolleyes:

February 21, 2012

Because their data center is in Seattle. Multiple data center would be even more expensive and in the US even some of the states would have to be broken up to keep below the limits.

That's really not very sound logic. For an international web-based corporation with the amount of subscribers Groundspeak has, it would be absolutely foolish to have all of their eggs in one basket. Something as simple as a fire in the basement or a backhoe fiber accident could take down the entire site.

5.2k · February 21, 2012

That's really not very sound logic. For an international web-based corporation with the amount of subscribers Groundspeak has, it would be absolutely foolish to have all of their eggs in one basket. Something as simple as a fire in the basement or a backhoe fiber accident could take down the entire site.

True, but geocaching could hardly be considered mission-critical. It's about finding Tupperware in the woods. No harm is going to come to you if the website is down. :rolleyes:

February 21, 2012

The 'new' maps are still way to slow, plus I have yet to be able to see any aerial views

Edited February 21, 2012 by LightHouseSeekers

3.2k · February 21, 2012

The 'new' maps are still way to slow, plus I have yet to be able to see any aerial views

If you zoom out far enough to make them useless they sometimes work.

February 21, 2012

I paid with my wife Premium member fee several weeks ago. Sorry, you should send me back money!!!

Without Google Maps Geocaching.com the PM has no sense for us. You will loose pretty much premium members and members, I think.

February 21, 2012

True, but geocaching could hardly be considered mission-critical. It's about finding Tupperware in the woods. No harm is going to come to you if the website is down.

True, not all geocachers would consider geocaching.com a mission critical site but when you take into consideration that geocaching.com offers services for a fee, those who pay that fee should have the sense of security that the site will be reasonably available in the event of minor disasters. Of course 'no harm' will come to anyone if the site goes down but many people could potentially lose valuable time and money if they depend on the site's availability. Am I expecting too much? I support several clients who's revenue is a fraction of that of Groundspeak who 'get IT' enough to invest in a stable infrastructure. Are they wrong to provide redundancy for their valuable clients? I don't think so.

February 21, 2012

I should have read more before replying. Disregard my comments.

Edited February 21, 2012 by N7MFT

February 22, 2012

Did topo maps disappear with the 'maintenance' install that occurred about 1 hour ago?

Edited February 22, 2012 by FootSoSaurus

February 22, 2012

As far as I can tell, on my Mac running Safari, EVERYTHING has disappeared since the "maintenance" this afternoon. Since they stopped using Google Maps, everything was S-L-O-W and totally unusable. Watching tiles show up in aerial images was like watching grass grow. Now, I just see a white screen. No maps -- no caches -- no topos -- no aerials -- no NOTHIN'!! Not even an icon in the top right corner to click on.

It seems to be working under Firefox -- at least to some degree -- with the greasemonkey fix installed. But under Safari -- zilch!

Geeez -- are we going to suffer with this inferiority for more than another day??? Arrrrghhh...

February 22, 2012

Now, I just see a white screen. No maps -- no caches -- no topos -- no aerials -- no NOTHIN'!! Not even an icon in the top right corner to click on.

I am seeing the same blank page when I click on the "Map this Location" link on the search listing. If I perform the search on the map page itself, the maps display as before (before = before this update, not before last week's update).

I'm using Chrome.

Just tried in FireFox and it works. I even broke down and fired up IE and it works there to. Looks like a Chrome problem (in Windows).

Mike

February 22, 2012

So what got updated tonight?

February 22, 2012

All I see is a white screen in IE9. Works in Chrome. Please fix.

February 22, 2012

Chrome = white screen Please fix this.

IE9 works but I prefer Chrome

Firefox works but I prefer Chrome

February 22, 2012

Chrome = white screen Please fix this.

IE9 works but I prefer Chrome

Firefox works but I prefer Chrome

I'm also seeing the blank white maps page in Chrome tonight. IE 9 and Firefox work fine.

February 22, 2012

Chrome = white screen Please fix this.

IE9 works but I prefer Chrome

Firefox works but I prefer Chrome

I'm also seeing the blank white maps page in Chrome tonight. IE 9 and Firefox work fine.

Chrome just loaded maps again. I knew if I went and read awhile it would get back to what now passes for normal.

February 22, 2012

Chrome just loaded maps again.

Yup, Chrome is working again. Cool!

February 22, 2012

Another PM member wanting to voice my displeasure with the map "upgrade". I understand why GS decided to forgo Google maps, but there were other viable solutions than ditching the most widely used map in existence. I would be one of the PMs willing to pay more for a Google map option. Google maps are far superior to the other options out there.

I also feel that GS did a terrible disservice to their community by the poor informing they did of a major change to our geocaching hobby. I think their communication to their users is very poor.

Edited February 22, 2012 by crazycachingcouple

2.6k · February 23, 2012

Another PM member wanting to voice my displeasure with the map "upgrade". ...

I'm not trying to tow the party line here, but the maps change was not billed as an "upgrade". It was an update due to Google's new fee structure. An upgrade implies changes were made trying to make things better. This was not that. This was a change to keep some kind of maps vs jacking membership fees up or just yanking the maps entirely.

I understand why Groundspeak did what they did in a no-win situation and I am more than willing to give them time to sort out the issues with the maps. We have no idea what they are working on behind the scenes and I am confident they don't like this situation any better than we do. My only major gripe in all this is the lack of acknowledgement from them about user's concerns and any communication that they are working on them, although I choose to believe they are, indeed, working on them.

A lot of folks are saying they would pay more to have the Google maps, but I'd bet most, if not all of them, would have screamed bloody murder if all of a sudden Groundspeak had announced a membership fee increase because of the new Google charges.

/soapbox

February 23, 2012

Dear Groundspeak,

I accept your changes, but please find some fashion to permit use of aerial acquired base map photography within the geocache mapping environment. I am unsure if Microsoft is charging for their Bing Maps, but those are great, and locally are using a very nice 15cm (6 inch) pixel resolution. For now I will be using Cacheye 1.3 which uses Bing maps mated with GSAK outputted query. The old Google maps were nearly perfect quick and efficient.

Please solve this.

Misha LeBlanc, CTech

GIS Tech

Moncton, NB

7k · February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of an open and free API, eh? <_<

9.4k · February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of risks of using an open and free API, eh?

I fixed it for you. If anything it should help you to understand and appreciate that ultimately APIs are neither "open" nor "free."

February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of risks of using an open and free API, eh?

I fixed it for you. If anything it should help you to understand and appreciate that ultimately APIs are neither "open" nor "free."

You FIXED it? Do you honestly believe that?

7k · February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of risks of using an open and free API, eh?

I fixed it for you. If anything it should help you to understand and appreciate that ultimately APIs are neither "open" nor "free."

Wat?

So what are you saying here? That OSM is neither open nor free? Or that the Groundspeak API is open and free? :blink:

February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of risks of using an open and free API, eh?

I fixed it for you. If anything it should help you to understand and appreciate that ultimately APIs are neither "open" nor "free."

Wat?

So what are you saying here? That OSM is neither open nor free? Or that the Groundspeak API is open and free?

I think he is saying that if there is an expense that might affect Jeremy’s bottom line it is not acceptable regardless of what impact it might have on us members.

February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of risks of using an open and free API, eh?

I fixed it for you. If anything it should help you to understand and appreciate that ultimately APIs are neither "open" nor "free."

Jeremy, there are over 500 posts in this thread, many of which are expressing dissatisfaction about the recent changes, and how your company handled the change management. You finally decide to weigh in, and instead of expressing some customer focus, you get pedantic with us?

February 23, 2012

GSAK had same problem and has a work around as each user initiates the

google maps and not GC. How does it work with grease monkey

Edited February 23, 2012 by 5 Campers

February 23, 2012

Guess I won't be considering that Premium membership just quite yet.

PK

February 23, 2012

Hello guys, if like my previous post - there's new version of Grease Monkey script that contains also Google terrain map, Google hybrid map and standart Google map is set as default, so you don't have to change it in upper right corner. It also contains czech "Amapy.cz" but I guess you don't care... You can also disable/enable map in selection window.
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/125938
So if a greased monkey can make this work why can’t Groundspeak?

Out frigging standing!!!!! The inventiveness and resourcefulness of folks.

February 23, 2012

I understand your need to escape Google's greedy clutches but as a satellite or aerial view user I find the MapQuest aerial

view, while often sharper and more clear than Google's loads badly.

Often the area I want to see may include 4 or 6 tiles and it is not unusual that only some of the tiles will load, even if I leave it for a few

minutes. If you can get this fixed, I can live happily without Google satellite view!

Another concern, and it isn't just from the Valentine update, is that in aerial view, the icon for a traditional cache gets lost easily

in the greenery. Maybe an icon color change?

Everything else seems great.

Thanks for the continued effort to bring us the best!

February 23, 2012

I understand your need to escape Google's greedy clutches but as a satellite or aerial view user I find the MapQuest aerial

view, while often sharper and more clear than Google's loads badly.

Often the area I want to see may include 4 or 6 tiles and it is not unusual that only some of the tiles will load, even if I leave it for a few

minutes. If you can get this fixed, I can live happily without Google satellite view!

Another concern, and it isn't just from the Valentine update, is that in aerial view, the icon for a traditional cache gets lost easily

in the greenery. Maybe an icon color change?

Everything else seems great.

Thanks for the continued effort to bring us the best!

Wait. You get greenery when you select aerial view?

Here in Canada, all I see on the aerial map appears to be snow, even in the areas that aren't covered by the polar ice cap. This allows all cache types (save for virtuals) to stand out beautifully. It also furthers the myth for those folks who've never been here that we all live in igloos and drive dog-sleds, but that's not Groundspeak's fault.

I'd love to have a viable aerial view when looking at the beta maps, even if it did load worse than Google.

February 23, 2012

I am not so bothered since I simply load the caches into GSAK and GeoBucket to get good maps. Geo Bucket even works on my iPad.

3.2k · February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of risks of using an open and free API, eh?

I fixed it for you. If anything it should help you to understand and appreciate that ultimately APIs are neither "open" nor "free."

I appreciate that someone at Groundspeak is watching this thread, however a comment on what is going to be done to fix the issue and an idea of a time frame would have done a lot more to restore my faith in the organization.

7k · February 23, 2012

So why does the link on cache pages still say "Geocaching.com Google Maps", when they aren't, anyway? :unsure:

February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of risks of using an open and free API, eh?

I fixed it for you. If anything it should help you to understand and appreciate that ultimately APIs are neither "open" nor "free."

I appreciate that someone at Groundspeak is watching this thread, however a comment on what is going to be done to fix the issue and an idea of a time frame would have done a lot more to restore my faith in the organization.

Don’t hold your breath on the time frame. Maps have been an ongoing issue for over two years (going back to the 1/12/2010 release at least). Just look at the past release notes.

February 23, 2012

So Groundspeak finally realizes and appreciates the availability of risks of using an open and free API, eh?

I fixed it for you. If anything it should help you to understand and appreciate that ultimately APIs are neither "open" nor "free."

What gives you the right to alter what someone says.

Why are Groundspeak site still using Google http://www.Waymarking.com

1.2k · February 23, 2012

Why are Groundspeak site still using Google http://www.Waymarking.com

Different website with different traffic patterns.

-Raine

February 23, 2012

Hi,

i also do not like the new Map it is Slow and Most of the layers are crap.

But what i found much more interesting is that Groundspeak switch to an free (OSM) Map and does not

Provide an own Tile Server so that they bear the traffic. So from an Bird Eye View i think the summary is:

a) Not willing to Pay even for PM Users (or make the Map PM User only)

Use free map without benefit to the community

c) The "public" API is not as free as often told.

d) If someone check the Greasemonky Script code he will find that all Terms Of Use from Google are Violated.

And Groundspeak does not take action to stop this.

7.9k · February 23, 2012

But what i found much more interesting is that Groundspeak switch to an free (OSM) Map and does not

Provide an own Tile Server so that they bear the traffic.

From the Groundspeak post about the map change:

We also intend to build out our own tile server in the future which will speed up the loading of map tiles enormously.

2.6k · February 23, 2012

d) If someone check the Greasemonky Script code he will find that all Terms Of Use from Google are Violated.

And Groundspeak does not take action to stop this.

And why is it Groundspeak's responsibility to stop users using a user-written script for some other person or company's product from violating yet another site's TOU and just what do you expect them to do about it?

February 23, 2012

Please can someone tell me whether there is a way to add the scale back in? In unfamiliar areas it is really helpful to be able to see distances.

6.3k · February 23, 2012

Please can someone tell me whether there is a way to add the scale back in? In unfamiliar areas it is really helpful to be able to see distances.

Yoohoo :-)

I don't think it is possible at the moment, there was a reply somewhere saying that that's a feature of the underlying leaflet API and so out of Groundspeak's control, but there is a feature request in the leaflet development queue so it might appear at some point. I don't think any of the scripts that have surfaced for putting Google maps or the OS maps back have the ability to display a scale. It's unfortunate though because it's a very useful thing to have.

M:

3.2k · February 23, 2012

Why are Groundspeak site still using Google http://www.Waymarking.com

Different website with different traffic patterns.

-Raine

So if the premium member site and the regular site were separate, GC.Com could offer usable maps for premium members for an additional fee and perhaps pocket the extra profits if the traffic was below the where the fees kick in?

February 24, 2012

On the new maps, when you collapse the toolbar to the left, you begin to see the titles of the caches pop up in the left-hand upper corner of the map where they begin to stack up as you move the cursor over the map.

February 24, 2012

Just to try something new here:

Thank you guys at GS for offering an awesome service and a great site! I personally don't miss Google Maps, as OSM is much faster (not kidding, here in Beijing OSM is lightening fast, while Google Maps was a pain in the a**)! Sure, the quality of the maps is not always the same, but if Google choses to charge for a previously free service, there's no use in complaining. Already in the short time that I use the website, I have seen some improvements and I am sure you guys are doing your best to further improve it in the future. The PM is absolutely worth the money and I'll continue to be a PM in the future!

For all you other guys: If you get a free service (from Google) and they choose to charge for that, there's no need in blaming GS. If you guys would spend the time you are using to spam this board to improve the OSM maps, there would be hardly any reason to complain about. Sure the bad areal maps are the downside, but there are other solutions like GSAK, iCaching that still use Google Earth. Get used to the new situation!

Geocaching.com site update Feb 14th, 2012

Recommended Posts