Jump to content

New Maps - HORRID!


Recommended Posts

Maybe they should reinstate the Google Maps interface, but ONLY for Premium members? That way people are paying for the Google fees. Of course, it might also mean charging an additional $5/year for the PM...

 

For what it's worth, I'd pay more for the Google maps interface. Outside of the USA, and outside of cities, the currently-available map coverage is patchy, and there's little if any ariel photos.

Edited by sshipway
Link to comment

... all cachers still have the normal Google maps available (map and satellite view). So until now nothing has changed. What has been changed is that Google maps is not any longer available on the personalized map showing all caches. I more and more get the feeling that many cachers are using these maps showing all caches just because they do not know that there are maps showing single caches as well or since they are too lazy to use the individual map links...

 

I wouldn't necessary say that nothing has changed. The default map was changed in an effort to drive down the amount of traffic that Geocaching.com is giving to Google Maps. Groundspeak is banking on the assumption that people will use the default map presented to them. Sure, the "power users" will click around and use whatever map they feel comfortable with but most users will go with the default map presented to them.

 

Every map has it's strengths and weaknesses. I was simply pointing out a weakness in the new default map that people should be aware of.

 

What I pointed out is that Google maps are still available on the cache pages. So it is not adequate to whine about missing satellite view and bad map quality. Google maps can still be used. I am definitely not a power user at all. I think that the personalized maps are rather used by power users than by users like myself.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

OpinioNate made an Announcement called About Google Maps where he said that "Geocaching.com averages well over 2,000,000 hits to Google per day". With Google Maps new pricing structure that would mean Geocaching.com would have to pay Google about $10,000,000 a day. That comes to about $3,650,000,000 in a year....

 

I hope I did that math correctly.

I think you had an error in your math. Based on $4 per 1,000 hits (with the first 25,000 being free), I come up with $7,900 per day and $2,883,500 per year. Not cheap, but not as bad as your calculations show.

Ah, I see where my math was wrong. I didn't divide by 1000 so I was counting each hit instead of each 1000 hits. I also used the higher $10 amount because not only do I know know which maps Geocaching.com uses but, unlike Groundspeak, I doubt Google Maps is going to lock their prices.

Link to comment

OpinioNate made an Announcement called About Google Maps where he said that "Geocaching.com averages well over 2,000,000 hits to Google per day". With Google Maps new pricing structure that would mean Geocaching.com would have to pay Google about $10,000,000 a day. That comes to about $3,650,000,000 in a year....

 

I hope I did that math correctly.

I think you had an error in your math. Based on $4 per 1,000 hits (with the first 25,000 being free), I come up with $7,900 per day and $2,883,500 per year. Not cheap, but not as bad as your calculations show.

 

Maybe it is time for Groundspeak to create that fabled "Platinum Membership". $10,000/year includes Google Maps. :)

 

.

Link to comment

On another note, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in a Google office today listening to the conversation between CEO and Account Rep as to what the account rep did to try and keep a client that was providing 2 million site visits per day.

He got a promotion. Geocaching.com hits are unwanted, non-revenue bearing hits.

 

We need to understand how and why google, bing, whoever, actually make money by selling mapping. Let's say I am google... If you use my maps via MY website, it gives me a chance to collect info about you, it lets me pop banner ads... These are things advertisers (my customers) are willing to pay for. This is the very essence of the google model... I give you something for free, and I sell information about your use of it to a third party for enough money that it pays for your service. So... if you access my map server via geocaching.com, that is no good for me, it is a financial loss. I can't generate any revenue by selling your location, because my advertisers know that by virtue of the way the tile was called up, you probably aren't actually there at that location. In other words, I did all the work to render, store, and deliver the map tile to you and I get nothing, bupkiss, nada in return. I have costs, but no revenue.

 

OK, so, what if you use your iPhone or android as a GPS while you are out driving around... the Google ToS doesn't allow me to collect your route info and sell it to others. BUT I am very, very sneaky... if I let you use my tile server as the background map while you are out driving around--that is different. That IS information that I can collect, and can sell for a very nice premium to others. If I can figure out how to link your identity to your location and travel habits, and do it without having to ask for your tacit approval... That is an absolute goldmine, and it is a revenue source that generates HUGE revenues for google. I can't track your movements but I CAN, and DO, track each and every tile request and sell THAT information to my customers, because that implies your location.

 

OK... so... What if you are driving around town, but, you are using a navigation app on your phone that knows how to cache tiles in memory and redisplay them if you drive back into that area? Nooo! That's no good, remember, the people paying for you to have access to that map tile are paying good $ to know where you are, and if you pull the tile out of your device cache, the customers won't have anyway of knowing where you are... I NEED the tile request, it is how I track your whereabouts without your permission. This is why tile storage in any form is a violation of the ToS of map servers like Google and Bing.

 

I hope this explains why standalone web pages (like gc.com) and standalone apps (like locus, Groundspeak, etc.) are the absolute enemy of tile server providers like Google and Bing.

 

Google is in the business of providing you online services that allow them to track your actions and movements in a way that are valuable enough that others are willing to pay them for the information. Read the ToS for gmail, or google voice... The explicitly tell you that they DO mine your e-mails and voicemails for information about you. The "magic" of google is that they provide free services that are useful enough that people are willing to abandon their privacy concerns in order to get them for free. Our appetite for free stuff online has become a sea change in our society that no one besides google saw coming.

Edited by Sky King 36
Link to comment

Got to agree with the original poster. I'm pretty sure if the Google maps aren't reinstated soon then i'll not bother renewing my premium membership. Yeah fair enough I could run grease monkey via Firefox but why should I switch browser and start running scripts. Bad move GS!

Link to comment

 

I was thinking the same thing. In fact, someone could even go out and place a cache, create a track log while out placing it, upload the tracklog to OSM, then submit the cache listing and once it's published finders will have a route to follow all the way to the cache.

 

Another reason open source maps are not a good idea. With all the people out there who like to post spoilers, even going so far as to create spoiler websites, I predict it won't be long at all before the maps are littered with "hiking trails" that coincidentally have the same names as the nearest mystery caches. Won't be long till all the multi-caches on the map appear to be trailheads with dead end trails leading away from them too.

Link to comment

I am pretty sure I will get hate mail for this, but I would be willing to pay much more for a membership, if.... maps were speedy, reliable, easily usable by techno challenged individuals like myself. I will hold off judging til things have settled down a bit, but if they don't improve A LOT, I will be unhappy. Heck, double the annual fees AND make it members only, everyone has to pay .... and before you have hysterics, that's five (5) dollars a month. Think about how much you pay a month for batteries, or gas, or trade items, or any of the other ways you shell out for geocaching. The extra money could be used for the maps, and for a variety of other things that might be needed. You could have a free trial period of a month or so, but then, pay up, buddy. Five dollars a month is still the cheapest entertainment in town. I don't really understand why Groundspeak lets people play for free forever. I don't remember any geocaching guarantees in the constitution, or the bible, or in any other authority I can think of.

 

Alternatively, make the premium memberships 50 bucks, and the ordinary one $25. Would still probably solve the paying for map costs.

 

Point to ponder.... people also respect things more if they have to pay for them....

 

Let the hate posts begin.

Except that the real cost google wants only would amount to about 50 cents per year per premium member (assuming 100,000 premium members, a number that was verified about a year ago).

 

That in no way justifies any kind of price increase for gs/gc customers.

Link to comment

OpinioNate made an Announcement called About Google Maps where he said that "Geocaching.com averages well over 2,000,000 hits to Google per day". With Google Maps new pricing structure that would mean Geocaching.com would have to pay Google about $10,000,000 a day. That comes to about $3,650,000,000 in a year....

 

I hope I did that math correctly.

I think you had an error in your math. Based on $4 per 1,000 hits (with the first 25,000 being free), I come up with $7,900 per day and $2,883,500 per year. Not cheap, but not as bad as your calculations show.

Those numbers ONLY apply to low volume customers (those that occasionally bump the 25k hits per month).

 

High volume customers only pay pennies compared to those rates.

 

Ask google for a custom quote, you'll see.

Link to comment

I am pretty sure I will get hate mail for this, but I would be willing to pay much more for a membership, if.... maps were speedy, reliable, easily usable by techno challenged individuals like myself. I will hold off judging til things have settled down a bit, but if they don't improve A LOT, I will be unhappy. Heck, double the annual fees AND make it members only, everyone has to pay .... and before you have hysterics, that's five (5) dollars a month. Think about how much you pay a month for batteries, or gas, or trade items, or any of the other ways you shell out for geocaching. The extra money could be used for the maps, and for a variety of other things that might be needed. You could have a free trial period of a month or so, but then, pay up, buddy. Five dollars a month is still the cheapest entertainment in town. I don't really understand why Groundspeak lets people play for free forever. I don't remember any geocaching guarantees in the constitution, or the bible, or in any other authority I can think of.

 

Alternatively, make the premium memberships 50 bucks, and the ordinary one $25. Would still probably solve the paying for map costs.

 

Point to ponder.... people also respect things more if they have to pay for them....

 

Let the hate posts begin.

 

Except that the real cost google wants only would amount to about 50 cents per year per premium member (assuming 100,000 premium members, a number that was verified about a year ago).

 

That in no way justifies any kind of price increase for gs/gc customers.

 

Heck, I would be willing to pay 20x that, what irks me is we never got the option.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I don't know what the figures are but if it's only going to cost me an extra $10 or so a year for the google maps, bring them back. The new ones are crap. Try using them for rural areas in Australia!

 

No, I'm not adverse to change, I'm all for change, so long as it's for the better.

 

Yes, I realise Google are going to charge but they are a company out to make profit, that's the way it is, they'll do whatever the market will bear in order to charge whatever they can. Capitalism at work.

 

If the charge for premium members is relatively minimal to have the Google maps, why not at least offer it as an option?

Link to comment

I'm going to have to agree that these new maps are wretched. I cache in Central Pennsylvania near Penn State, where we have some of the best aerial maps due to the Penn Pilot program and various state subsidies. We also have had an extensive 2nd and 3rd growth foresting initiative that saw much of the area developed, then abandoned, razed and replanted, leaving a treasure trove of old trails, foundations and historic sites to be found. Much of the local non-urban caching here led you on these old abandoned roads and to abandoned towns. Google maps (and in some area Bing maps) had clear, crisp aerial depictions that loaded quickly, with respectable detail allowing you to find these gems, and were updated at least somewhat often. In looking over my caching areas in Mapquest, the resolution is undeniably lower, the colors are muted and washed almost to the point where you can't tell canopy from grassland, and the load times are abhorrent. There are some building still showing on Mapquest and OSM that were demolished in July 2008, and an entire housing development that went up Oct 2008-May/Jun 2009 is still showing as a wooded lot in Mapquest. Four new roads were added in northern State College in the past 2 years, of which 2 show up in Google, and none show in Mapquest. I can understand the switch to a free service, but to one that so clearly is not updated routinely, is of poorer quality with lower-resolution images, that tiles inconsistantly if at all, and is slower as well... poor decision Groundspeak. Poor poor decision.

Link to comment

Much of the local non-urban caching here led you on these old abandoned roads and to abandoned towns. Google maps (and in some area Bing maps) had clear, crisp aerial depictions that loaded quickly, with respectable detail allowing you to find these gems, and were updated at least somewhat often.

 

If you want to find these gems, you can still do so. Use the link to Google maps from the cache pages.

For example for this cache you found recently

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=38e847a8-db5e-49aa-8f77-59c364bf1a5e

click on Google maps to the left of the map on the bottom of each cache description

This leads you to this map display

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=N+40%C2%B0+36.382+W+077%C2%B0+27.947+%28GC1DNVG%29+

You can also access Bing maps and whatever you wish from there.

 

There is no need to see 200 caches in aerial mode at the same time. This just waste ressources. However, if you still want to perform such actions, you can still do it by using a tool outside of gc.com.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Google instigated a payment system for maps. 1000 pageviews for $4 if the web link I found is right. The first 25,000 is free, and Groundspeak has said in another post they have 2,000,000 a day. That is about $8,000 a day, $250,000 a month or close to $3 million a year. Not much choice there.

 

That is a lot of money to just start paying. Of course they could increase your membership for the first time in years to more than 9 cents per day.

or let more people in on platinum membership. that still has google maps :ph34r:

Link to comment

 

There is no need to see 200 caches in aerial mode at the same time.

 

Cezanne

 

That's a good point. If are looking at 200 cache on a map, you'll have to zoom out to a point where you can see all the caches on the map and at that point the satellite imagery is not going to be very useful. Satellite imagery can be very useful when you're just looking at one cache, which you can still do. Perhaps, if you're just looking at 10 caches instead of 200 the benefits of satellite imagery will be more significant, but looking when looking at 100 caches at a time or more, the non-satellite view maps work much better.

Link to comment

 

I was thinking the same thing. In fact, someone could even go out and place a cache, create a track log while out placing it, upload the tracklog to OSM, then submit the cache listing and once it's published finders will have a route to follow all the way to the cache.

 

Another reason open source maps are not a good idea. With all the people out there who like to post spoilers, even going so far as to create spoiler websites, I predict it won't be long at all before the maps are littered with "hiking trails" that coincidentally have the same names as the nearest mystery caches. Won't be long till all the multi-caches on the map appear to be trailheads with dead end trails leading away from them too.

 

That's quite a stretch. OpenStreetMaps has allowed public editing of maps for seven years. You'd think there'd be all kinds of bogus edits, the equivalent of wiki-vandalism, such as changing the route of a super highway so that it goes into the middle of a lake. Can you show me some examples of when this has happened?

 

More likely, geocaching event mapping parties will start to crop up where events are set up specifically to get a bunch of geocachers together to improve mapping data in a large park.

Link to comment

Hopefully Groundspeak keeps us updated often!

Ha! You're an optimist. I think GS is terrible about keeping it's PAID users in the know.

 

No hate, just some facts. When Jeremy instituted premium memberships he promised that there would always be a free option and that once you purchased a premium membership the price to you would not increase.

He also promised to bring back virtual caches in instead instated faux virtual caches "challenges", some thing NO ONE WANTED.

 

And here is why OpenStreetMap is cool - one cacher has found the path, they can edit OSM, add the path, and the next cacher will be able to find it. Without using the satellite imagery. So if OSM doesn't show them, you can add them fairly easily.

 

Agree. There are some local Management Areas that have loads of trails that Google doesn't show. A local hiker/biker added many of them to the OSM!

 

Perhaps GC.com can post a Knowledge Book article (or how-to video) on how to add data to OSM. We are all out in the woods, probably storing our tracks as a matter of course. I bet in a couple of weeks us cachers can make significant improvements in the off-road portions of themaps.

 

I was thinking the same thing. In fact, someone could even go out and place a cache, create a track log while out placing it, upload the tracklog to OSM, then submit the cache listing and once it's published finders will have a route to follow all the way to the cache. Of course, the challenge for the CO would be to hide the cache such that even with a route to follow all the way to GZ, it would still be hard to find.

 

To get idea of the potential impact that a small community of people can have on OSM consider the following. On Jan. 12, 2010 there was a devastating 7.0 earthquake that struck Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. This is what the OSM maps looked like prior to the earthquake:

 

4274264767_c9933d12c5.jpg

 

A call for assistance from the OSM mapping community was sent out asking help in improving the map data to aid NGS and otehr international agencies respond to the crisis. Within 3 days there were over 800 edits made. Here is what the map looked like on Jan. 15, 2010.

 

4274264771_6873e16fa0.jpg

Great! All we need is a Global Earthquake and we will be good to go.

 

Furthermore, I don't know why they just don't make the maps a premium feature. Cut out all the people that want to play for free from viewing the maps and it just might get us out of the top .35% that google wants to charge. When you think about it maps are nice, but they are not required anymore then a .GPX file is. They are a premium feature. Make maps (with google) a premium feature and cut out maps for people who want to play for free.

Link to comment

Heck, I would be willing to pay 20x that, what irks me is we never got the option.

Hi, welcome to Capitalism. It's an American thing. I didn't get a say when Burger King changed to thicker cut fries last December. I don't get a say when Starbucks starts and stops selling it's season flavors. Think of it kinda like the Canadian healthcare system were you don't get a choice of when or even weather or not they will fund a life saving procedure for you. Where it's all based on if the government thinks that you'll be a productive enough member of society to justify the cost of saving your life. Apparently Google Maps just wasn't cost effective enough to be saved.

Link to comment

What about this - reinstitute Google maps for premium members, but not make them the default. Then, the hybrid and satellite views are available when users need them, but for most of the standard queries, we can use these other maps. This way, the views are available when you need them, but by not making them the default, it cuts down on the number of hits against Google's server.

 

As for you guys who talk about the good old days, that was before you might have a thousand caches in an area supersaturated. I regularly use the maps and satellite views in the Minneapolis area, because the urban caches are often placed adjacent to private property. Looking at a normal street map, you see it in the middle of a block. When I switch to other map views, I realize that the place I planned to park and walk in from is actually private property and someone's backyard. Such research is almost mandatory in an urban setting.

 

I don't mind the OSM views (although I hate the blue highways; blue should ALWAYS only be water on a map!). But I want the option to be able to do Google maps at least once or twice a day.

Link to comment

Well I hate that I can't use the Satalite feature, which I would often use to get a more accurate picture of the area I'm cacheing in, even when the site switched over to the Beta map choice, I used to old format as I found it more user friendly...while I certainly understand the reasons behind the change, it does indeed feel like this is a huge step back~ :(

Link to comment

As for you guys who talk about the good old days, that was efore you might have a thousand caches in an area supersaturated. I regularly use the maps and satellite views in the Minneapolis area, because the urban caches are often placed adjacent to private property. Looking at a normal street map, you see it in the middle of a block. When I switch to other map views, I realize that the place I planned to park and walk in from is actually private property and someone's backyard. Such research is almost mandatory in an urban setting.

 

I still manage to cache reasonably without the personalized cache map and I live in an urban area. I agree that for urban caching satellite views are helpful (even though the accuracy your are used to is not avaible in my area even for the very, very best maps) and good maps as well, but they are still available on the cache pages. When I want to narrow down cache A, I do not need to see cache B, C, D, E, F etc at the same time. It appears to me that too many cachers ignore the maps links on the cache pages because using the personalized map is the only thing they I am aware of on gc.com.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

As for you guys who talk about the good old days, that was efore you might have a thousand caches in an area supersaturated. I regularly use the maps and satellite views in the Minneapolis area, because the urban caches are often placed adjacent to private property. Looking at a normal street map, you see it in the middle of a block. When I switch to other map views, I realize that the place I planned to park and walk in from is actually private property and someone's backyard. Such research is almost mandatory in an urban setting.

 

I still manage to cache reasonably without the personalized cache map and I live in an urban area. I agree that for urban caching satellite views are helpful (even though the accuracy your are used to is not avaible in my area even for the very, very best maps) and good maps as well, but they are still available on the cache pages. When I want to narrow down cache A, I do not need to see cache B, C, D, E, F etc at the same time. It appears to me that too many cachers ignore the maps links on the cache pages because using the personalized map is the only thing they I am aware of on gc.com.

 

Cezanne

 

You may not see the need, but others do as they cache different to you! Sorry but your comments to people complaining are starting to get irksome. There's no need for the global maps for the way YOU geocache, but for others there is a need. No ones forgetting the maps on each cache. I use them on rare occasions when im going out seeking singular caches and I look them up on my phone. But that's about it. They're useless to me otherwise as I can't see all the other caches around it. Your generalisations about those complaining really aren't helping your cause. I have replied to you on several occasions with how I used the global maps and why I use them over the cache page ones and yet you're still posting that there's no need for them. Not cool.

Link to comment

What a horrible surprise I had today logging in to find some caches via the map. I HATE mapquest, why isn't there an option to switch to Google maps? This may cause me to not renew my subscription when it runs out. HORRIBLE.

 

And to the people saying that satellite maps are useless.... maybe to you but to me who plans my route out they are VERY useful. I do have a good memory and having that as an option is NEEDED.

 

Edit: I will not be renewing when it comes up- I just dislike this feature that much. [Edited by moderator to remove forum guideline violation.]

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

As for you guys who talk about the good old days, that was efore you might have a thousand caches in an area supersaturated. I regularly use the maps and satellite views in the Minneapolis area, because the urban caches are often placed adjacent to private property. Looking at a normal street map, you see it in the middle of a block. When I switch to other map views, I realize that the place I planned to park and walk in from is actually private property and someone's backyard. Such research is almost mandatory in an urban setting.

 

I still manage to cache reasonably without the personalized cache map and I live in an urban area. I agree that for urban caching satellite views are helpful (even though the accuracy your are used to is not avaible in my area even for the very, very best maps) and good maps as well, but they are still available on the cache pages. When I want to narrow down cache A, I do not need to see cache B, C, D, E, F etc at the same time. It appears to me that too many cachers ignore the maps links on the cache pages because using the personalized map is the only thing they I am aware of on gc.com.

 

Cezanne

 

You may not see the need, but others do as they cache different to you! Sorry but your comments to people complaining are starting to get irksome. There's no need for the global maps for the way YOU geocache, but for others there is a need. No ones forgetting the maps on each cache. I use them on rare occasions when im going out seeking singular caches and I look them up on my phone. But that's about it. They're useless to me otherwise as I can't see all the other caches around it. Your generalisations about those complaining really aren't helping your cause. I have replied to you on several occasions with how I used the global maps and why I use them over the cache page ones and yet you're still posting that there's no need for them. Not cool.

 

With all due respect, I think you're confusing "need" with "expectation".

Link to comment

Maybe, but:

- current maps are full of mistakes IN MY AREA

- are slow loading

- and aren't as good as Google maps,

- to get to Google earth takes too long and isn't live,

- Google Earths compasses and zoom function also have a habit of spinning around out of control on me

- and uses too many resources on my net book,

- cache page Google does hold other caches,

-and that open source maps can't be trusted as a true and accurate representation just like wiki isn't everything.......

 

All of these points still stand and are accurate and valid reasons for complaining.

 

Let me pay to keep Google.

 

In fact it would be benficial to gc.com if only a small number of peeps took up a 'paid for' Google add-on. They would drop out of the 0.35% and be able to keep the profits rather than give it to Google. So maybe I should just smile and nod at all the people who say there's no need and petition gc.com in private :-)

Link to comment

What a horrible surprise I had today logging in to find some caches via the map. I HATE mapquest, why isn't there an option to switch to Google maps? This may cause me to not renew my subscription when it runs out. HORRIBLE.

 

And to the people saying that satellite maps are useless.... maybe to you but to me who plans my route out they are VERY useful. I do have a good memory and having that as an option is NEEDED.

 

Edit: I will not be renewing when it comes up- I just dislike this feature that much.

I'd also like to say that I use the terrain view a lot as well when planning hikes into uncertain terrain and Google maps 3d relief shading has it down compared to any other services.

 

A great example: http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?ll=44.87359,-68.94345

There's a cache, black stream paddle, the is on a stream, can you determine this via Mapquest or the other "maps" available to us?

 

I just tried to search for caches in Washington State along certain mountain ranges and caches wouldn't load let along many portions of the map. This is just unusable...

Edited by Keystone
removed forum guideline violation
Link to comment

You may not see the need, but others do as they cache different to you! Sorry but your comments to people complaining are starting to get irksome.

 

I guess you did not read carefully what I wrote. I was not writing about my own way of geocaching - I can do without maps at all, also without the google maps and other maps on the cache pages.

 

No ones forgetting the maps on each cache.

 

Many are and do not even know that the links are there. You can check both in this forum and the German speaking one that lots of cachers have not even been aware of the existence of these links.

 

I use them on rare occasions when im going out seeking singular caches and I look them up on my phone. But that's about it. They're useless to me otherwise as I can't see all the other caches around it.

 

If you read carefully what I wrote you will realize that I never suggested to you to use the map showing a single cache on your phone when you want to see all caches.

 

If someone is however complaining that do not have access to aerial views any longer, or even are concerned that the reviewers cannot check any longer whether a cache is located in some forbidden area, then this clearly shows that these people do not use the maps which are still there and can be used for these purposes very well.

 

 

Your generalisations about those complaining really aren't helping your cause. I have replied to you on several occasions with how I used the global maps and why I use them over the cache page ones and yet you're still posting that there's no need for them. Not cool.

 

That's only what you understood, definitely not what I wrote. I can fully understand the frustration of those who suffer from the changes even though I am personally not minding the changes. I cannot give back anything to those who feel deprived. I just tried to explain to those who are missing satellite views and Google maps to check e.g. whether a cache is located on private property that there is still a way to reach their goal. It might not be their preferred one, but it is one and I thought better than nothing.

 

I think that the map issue is a very complex one. Groundspeak will need some time to try to find a workable solution that makes as many cachers happy as possible while not ending up in

some situation where Google and other map companies can dictate any prices they want.

 

I do not think that it does help Groundspeak if each day 100 people complain that there are no Google maps and no satellite view for their area even though this is not true.

 

In my opinion, the direction into which one needs to move is to outsource some of the mapping activities away from gc.com to each geocacher.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

What the heck GS?? What's the deal w the new maps?? That is a very horrid map feature. You folks make plenty of $$ off the swag, events, premium memberships, etc... to afford decent maps for your site. Why would make your site less user friendly instead of moreso?? Bad move IMO. <_<

 

Can't agree more about the sad downgrade of the maps. I never adopted the previous map "improvement" but this stuff makes that look like a million bucks. I don't know the politics or economics behind this decision, but the poor quality of the aerials doesn't bode well for my caching future. A bad move, and just at the time when the sport is booming. (Did you see the national car commercial featuring geocaching? Way cool!)I hope geo...com can come up with a better solution in time. There are so many tiles missing in the close zooms that it is disheartening. Please, geopeople, sell your souls to the Devil, but get us back our Google Maps. We deserve them. :anitongue::mad:

Link to comment

 

I'd also like to say that I use the terrain view a lot as well when planning hikes into uncertain terrain and Google maps 3d relief shading has it down compared to any other services.

 

A great example: http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?ll=44.87359,-68.94345

There's a cache, black stream paddle, the is on a stream, can you determine this via Mapquest or the other "maps" available to us?

 

But if you only want to check the black stream paddle cache why in the world are you not using the map links on the cache page?

They are still available

e.g. google maps

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=N+44%C2%B0+51.765+W+068%C2%B0+57.060+%28GC315QE%29+

or bing

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&sp=point.44.86275_-68.951_GC315QE

or whatever you might wish.

 

All the maps that have been available before February 14 are still available.

 

 

The only loss happened with respect to the map which shows all the caches in an area. This is of course a problem for some when planning cache tours,

but it is not a problem for your example and so many other examples brought up in this thread.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

From C's recent post "The only loss happened with respect to the map which shows all the caches in an area. This is of course a problem for some when planning cache tours,

but it is not a problem for your example and so many other examples brought up in this thread."

 

We who have wide ranging travels appreciated having the earlier rendition of maps as it made routing through unfamiliar areas just a bit easier.

 

Having some idea of street names / intersections was beneficial.

 

**( The first maps I pulled were devoid of this information, however, I am beginning to see street names appear. Soooooooo I surmise things may improve.)**

Edited by humboldt flier
Link to comment

Cezanne..... Just like you think I missed your point I think you've completely missed everyone else's, including mine.

 

I do not think that I missed yours as I said that I can understand why you are missing something when caching with your phone. If you understood that I was telling you or someone

else what you need, you certainly misunderstood my intention. I was just arguing with respect to what people wrote what they want to do and not with respect what I would like to do.

 

I just claimed that those who complain that no satellite view is available any longer and that they cannot see whether a cache is lying in a stream are

wrong. They still can use these maps even though many of them are not aware of this. My idea when pointing out these links is not make these people be happy with Groundspeak's changes, but just tell them that the situation is less bad (that can still be bad) than they seem to believe.

 

Some of the frustration in this thread is legitimate because those people are now missing something they cannot replace easily. That's however not the case for all

the complaints here. That's a fact and there is nothing to be missed.

 

If I were Groundspeak, I would try to eliminate all sorts of unnecessary map loadings, including also the automatic ones on each cache page. I'd include a switch that needs to be turned on on each cache page to show the default Google map. I guess there are many other ways to dramatically cut down the number of map views. As I am not Groundspeak, what I would do has no effect at all.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

From C's recent post "The only loss happened with respect to the map which shows all the caches in an area. This is of course a problem for some when planning cache tours,

but it is not a problem for your example and so many other examples brought up in this thread."

 

We who have wide ranging travels appreciated having the earlier rendition of maps as it made routing through unfamiliar areas just a bit easier.

 

Having some idea of street names / intersections was beneficial.

 

**( The first maps I pulled were devoid of this information, however, I am beginning to see street names appear. Soooooooo I surmise things may improve.)**

 

For me, there are roads that just aren't there on the map, and roads that connect on the map don't IRL (2 examples of this within 2kms of me). There's street names that are straight out wrong (Marama Ave Street it says instead of Marama Ave South) and street names that changed 10 years ago still have the old names. Schools missing, schools not named as schools (just says St Johns.... doesn't say St Johns Girls School), churches are the same. Areas marked as trees aren't accurate (I use my place as an example here - its not right and is obvious from any Sat map) And google has property divisions. Oh yeah - and when I do 'Find my Location' it puts me in Dunedin - which is about 200kms away. I'll do a screenshot and mark in red everything thats wrong in someway - but I just don't have the time right now - maybe over the weekend.

 

Awesome.

Link to comment

If I were Groundspeak, I would try to eliminate all sorts of unnecessary map loadings, including also the automatic ones on each cache page. I'd include a switch that needs to be turned on on each cache page to show the default Google map. I guess there are many other ways to dramatically cut down the number of map views. As I am not Groundspeak, what I would do has no effect at all.

Cezanne

 

I guess thats why GC.com has flourished - it worked on catering all manner of caching styles, not just those of those who built the website :)

Link to comment

What a horrible surprise I had today logging in to find some caches via the map. I HATE mapquest, why isn't there an option to switch to Google maps? This may cause me to not renew my subscription when it runs out. HORRIBLE.

 

And to the people saying that satellite maps are useless.... maybe to you but to me who plans my route out they are VERY useful. I do have a good memory and having that as an option is NEEDED.

 

Edit: I will not be renewing when it comes up- I just dislike this feature that much. At least Opencaching.com uses Bing, a service not that much better than mapquest but at least it has aerial views.

I'd also like to say that I use the terrain view a lot as well when planning hikes into uncertain terrain and Google maps 3d relief shading has it down compared to any other services.

 

A great example: http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?ll=44.87359,-68.94345

There's a cache, black stream paddle, the is on a stream, can you determine this via Mapquest or the other "maps" available to us?

 

I just tried to search for caches in Washington State along certain mountain ranges and caches wouldn't load let along many portions of the map. This is just unusable...

Here's an example of the same location, notice that the first map, Mapuest does not depict the stream. mapexample.png

Link to comment

You can see the depression where the stream is in the mapquest map, but nothing more. That ain't cool. Imagine going out for a cache and not knowing there's a stream blocking your way. That the easy route is actually a different way to avoid the stream that the locals all know about, but you don't cos you're not local.

Link to comment

These new maps bite!

 

Can't scroll around with the aerial maps

Aerial pics don't always load

no road names, no hybrid

Can't even find the dirt roads I need to travel to get to some of these caches.

 

Groundspeak should try to strike a deal with google. I'd go $20 for a premium, or make satellite imagery for premium only, or both!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...