Jump to content

Geocaching.com site update Feb 14th, 2012

OpinioNate

By OpinioNate,
in Release Notes

Followers 26

Recommended Posts

xc runner

+xc runner 0

Posted
Posted

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

 

aaa.png

Link to post
Rynee

+Rynee 0

Posted
Posted

Two thoughts:

First, you can always paste the coordinates into google maps. I know, it is an extra step, but it is do-able.

Second, MY C:GEO DOESN'T WORK NOW!!! So I guess I just donated $10 toward getting google maps back when I bought the much overpriced geocaching app for my android. You're welcome.

 

C:geo does work WWW.CGEO.org/livemap.html click on the video link

Link to post
Rynee

+Rynee 0

Posted
Posted

I wonder how much C:Geo contributes to the extra hits that pushed GC to the level of beingi unable to afford the Google product anymore.

I don't pretend to know how c:geo gets their data, but I doubt they're using the maps page. I would expect that they're using the individual cache pages, which shouldn't add any Google Map hits to the total. The only hits in question are those of the dynamic maps, which can only come from either the full-fledged maps page, or by clicking the "View Dynamic Map" link on the cache page.

 

The old maps used text data to display where caches were on the map CGEO used that old data when GS dropped Google maps that old map data disappeared. That have been given the api but have hesitated using it due to the limitations it puts on basic members only being able to view three caches a day what people don't know is there is two versions of the Api the GS version and the 3rd party version. The difference between the two is that the 3rd party version limits the amount of caches a basic member can view and also only traditional cache types. Now the official Groundspeak app basic members can view as many caches as they want and all cache types in other words no limits.

Link to post
Artemis&Apollo

+Artemis&Apollo 0

Posted
Posted

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

 

aaa.png

 

So if a greased monkey can make this work why can’t Groundspeak?

Link to post
sailorsam20500

+sailorsam20500 0

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Rynee

+Rynee 0

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
jholly

jholly 1

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Rynee

+Rynee 0

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
Zop

+Zop 9

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Lil Devil

+Lil Devil 12

Posted
Posted
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:

Link to post
Zop

+Zop 9

Posted
Posted

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:

 

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.

Link to post
stantastic

+stantastic 0

Posted
Posted

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...

Link to post
wanzong

+wanzong 0

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
two bison

+two bison 23

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
crazycachingcouple

+crazycachingcouple 0

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by crazycachingcouple
Link to post
Semper Questio

+Semper Questio 3

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
Misha

+Misha 0

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
Jeremy

Jeremy 4

Posted
Posted

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."

Link to post
Artemis&Apollo

+Artemis&Apollo 0

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to post
dfx

+dfx 10

Posted
Posted

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:

Link to post
Artemis&Apollo

+Artemis&Apollo 0

Posted
Posted

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:

 

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.

Link to post
korey99

+korey99 0

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to post
Acyducy

+Acyducy 0

Posted
Posted

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

 

aaa.png

 

So if a greased monkey can make this work why can’t Groundspeak?

 

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

Link to post
mcgillz

+mcgillz 0

Posted
Posted

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!

Link to post
Dr. House

+Dr. House 0

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
edscott

+edscott 17

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Artemis&Apollo

+Artemis&Apollo 0

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Rynee

+Rynee 0

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
SkateScout

+SkateScout 0

Posted
Posted

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)

B) 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.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 26
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...