New Maps - HORRID!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

* Replace the +/- zoom control with a slider/picker that allows one to go directly to a zoom level rather than single stepping with each click.

 

I'd rather have the slider added, not as a replacement. When using a mouse I like a slider but when using a touch pad I end up over-sliding and need the one step per click option.

 

That's really what I meant. The control would have a +/- at the top and bottom, a slider that can be dragged up/down (zoom in/out), and can be clicked on the slide bar to go directly to a specific zoom level. In other words, exactly how the Google Maps zoom control works now.

 

* Add a "Save as KML" link for easy importing into Google Earth.

 

Without the 100 meter or whatever it is variance please. Since the aerial view tile supplier for the current maps is not really ready for prime time Google Earth is the only easy option for some folks. Let them have the caches displayed as accurately as possible.

 

I just played with this a bit. I exported one of my GSAK database (using a custom export with GPSBabel) to a kml file and dropped into a directory that's accessible via my web server. Then I pointed my browser at it, and it prompted me with a dialog box to select an application to open the kml file. I selected Google Earth and it launched Google Earth and loaded all the caches in. Seems like it wouldn't take a great deal of work to add a "View Cache in Google Earth" link that dynamically produces KML from the caches on the map.

 

 

* Show caches which the owner has logged a DNF (and no subsequent Found It) as a blue frown face

 

First, this information on what caches a person has logged a DNF on should be available as a PQ option as well as on the maps.

Second, why not have found/DNF caches displayed with the original cache type icon with either a check mark or a 'X' in the corner of the icon denoting found/not found like some other applications do?

 

 

Agreed. Adding "Logged a DNF" would be a nice addition the PQ criteria. That lead me to another idea. Suppose that instead of clicking on the name of a PQ from the list on the mapping page, each line had a check box next to it. Selecting multiple check boxes could add the results of multiple PQs to the mapping page (with an option to remove duplicates). It would be a great way to create a single PQ from two or more that overlap some regions. One could create a PQ of caches with a logged DNF as well as one of "all caches not found in a 10 mile radius" and with a single click turn on/off any of the PQ layers.

[+Team Cache Divers]

I CAN'T STAND the New Maps!!!! They don't work, take way toooooooo long to load and they don't work more than half the time. Why did they change? These new maps SUCK!!!!! I wanted my voice to be heard with all the others. Hopefully they listen to us. I just renewed my premium account and have been a premium member since 2004. And I did like the google maps they worked well and gave good aerial photos. Hope they change back SOON!

[+niraD]

Why did they change?

Once again, please see OpinioNate's post About Google Maps in the Announcements forum.

[+klopps]

GoogleEarth folks, if you want a hybrid, go to your profile-quick view page. Right hand column, you can choose to view the caches in GoogleEarth. There. Some problems/complaints solved. I imagine that, as always, this will get sorted out over the next week or so as it always does. Step away from the edge...

Thanks for this. i for one did not realise you could do this. Its better than nothing.

 

I also cannot get anything on the Mapquest Ariel, except when its so zoomed out its useless.

[knowschad]

One of the best write-ups I have seen so far...

 

http://www.notaboutt...e-google-issue/

 

Otherwise, +1 to Sioneva

I agree... nice, clear explanation, especially for those who didn't even know what an API is. Thanks!

 

Here is a quote from the article:

 

"Heck, if I was going to see an increase in operating costs for a business of US$2.9million a year, with no increase in revenue to make up for it, I'd say no too."

 

But why can't they increase their revenue? Offer up a maps option and charge for it. Some will pay, some won't but you'll increase your revenue and decrease Google map views at the same time. If as they say the premier licence is $10,000/year I'm sure 5,000 members would ante up an extra $5.00, heck I'd be willing to bet it would be a lot more and since it would only be a fraction of who used the maps before their map view cost would go down too.

People keep tossing around the "maps option and charge for it" idea like it could be implemented tomorrow - that's a pipe dream! It would take a lot of man-hours to program, many more to test (which means people paying extra for possibly buggy service for a while) and headaches from people switching to which level service and other complaining about $/maps/service (just like they are doing now - but more so).

 

There are so many other options to use for maps, I can't see where the anger over such a change comes from. I use MS Streets & Trips, MapSource with both city maps and locally produced trail maps (NW Trails), NG Topo!, and online sat views - the maps on GC.com are a very small part of the equation. GC.com has had to adapt to a changing world (many times) and so do we - get over yourselves already, it's not the end of the world.

 

Firstly, they had lots of warning to come up with options but more importantly, great for the many other options, me, I want to come to 1 site and have things there for me (especially if they were there before). I have no problem paying for convenience.

 

I shop at grocery stores that charge more but have no line ups, I pay to have stuff delivered, I pay for oil changes and I pay for movers when I move and I'm not the only one so what may not be a big deal to you is an inconvenience to others. Yeah I'll get around it, but quite frankly I'm not happy that I have to.

Do you seriously think that Groundspeak did not do feasability studies and have many internal discussions about various ways of paying for the maps?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

GoogleEarth folks, if you want a hybrid, go to your profile-quick view page. Right hand column, you can choose to view the caches in GoogleEarth. There. Some problems/complaints solved. I imagine that, as always, this will get sorted out over the next week or so as it always does. Step away from the edge...

Thanks for this. i for one did not realise you could do this. Its better than nothing.

 

I also cannot get anything on the Mapquest Ariel, except when its so zoomed out its useless.

 

Unfortunately, it's not much better than nothing. If you look at the the "How to View Cache in Google Earth" link just below the "Download Google Earth Viewer" you'll get to page with the following text:

 

"Please Note: The coordinates used in Google Earth are only an approximation and can be up to 100 ft from the actual location. The Geocaching Google Earth feature is a tool for viewing geocaches in a general location. Do not use the coordinates in Google Earth for finding or placing geocaches."

[+Castle Mischief]

Why did they change?

Once again, please see OpinioNate's post About Google Maps in the Announcements forum.

 

It's been mentioned a few times in this thread too.

[+Ike 13]

 

Unfortunately, it's not much better than nothing. If you look at the the "How to View Cache in Google Earth" link just below the "Download Google Earth Viewer" you'll get to page with the following text:

 

"Please Note: The coordinates used in Google Earth are only an approximation and can be up to 100 ft from the actual location. The Geocaching Google Earth feature is a tool for viewing geocaches in a general location. Do not use the coordinates in Google Earth for finding or placing geocaches."

 

(I know not everyone can use GSAK but) GSAK has a GE macro that puts them right where they are supposed to be. I've been using Google Earth as my main planning tool since I started going for specific caches for challenges. I use it for all trips large and small.

[+The A-Team]

Unfortunately, it's not much better than nothing. If you look at the the "How to View Cache in Google Earth" link just below the "Download Google Earth Viewer" you'll get to page with the following text:

 

"Please Note: The coordinates used in Google Earth are only an approximation and can be up to 100 ft from the actual location. The Geocaching Google Earth feature is a tool for viewing geocaches in a general location. Do not use the coordinates in Google Earth for finding or placing geocaches."

Why do you need to see the exact locations in Google Earth? As far as I can see, the most commonly mentioned reason in these topics for why people find the Google Maps so necessary is for routing between caches. An error of 100 ft shouldn't affect your ability to do so.

The maps on this website were never intended to be used for finding caches. The whole point of geocaching is to use a GPS to locate the cache, not satellite images. All the maps (or related mapping solutions) need to do is show you the general location. You can find the exact spot with your GPS once you're on site.

[PirateKel]

I wasnt going to complain about the map because I just figured there were so many other people.

 

Well... I have been dealing with the fact that only portions of the map even load all the way (in any setting)

To look for a cache, I just take the coords and use something else.

 

However, today it is uber annoying that I cant check the map correctly to see if I feel that the complain about my cache is valid. Please go back to the other one. It wasnt great, but at least it all showed up!

[+CanadianRockies]

As far as I can see, the most commonly mentioned reason in these topics for why people find the Google Maps so necessary is for routing between caches. An error of 100 ft shouldn't affect your ability to do so.

I use Google Maps to find walking paths from city streets to greenspaces behind houses. It saves lots of time versus driving around the neighborhoods in search of the path entrances. And finding the right path can save you lots of walking. Google Maps also is useful for finding alleys.

[+Silverheels]

NOW LOST IN THE DESERT!!!

No layer choices will work ...can't get topos like we did. Do most caching off road and need topos since everything is blank on map. Had great luck before finding our way through canyons, washes and around huge mountains. Now can't do anything..

[+pppingme]

Do you seriously think that Groundspeak did not do feasability studies and have many internal discussions about various ways of paying for the maps?

Nope, not at all. They have a reputation for doing things on the cheap, and then turning around and trying to squeeze money out of others (Garmin chirp for one).

 

The only discussions they had were how they could find another free map service without any consideration to how much of a sudden load they would impose on them.

 

They won't consider paying for maps until they see a significant loss of customers, and by then it may be too late.

 

All attitudes that someone who thinks they are a monopoly have.

[jholly]

Do you seriously think that Groundspeak did not do feasability studies and have many internal discussions about various ways of paying for the maps?

Nope, not at all. They have a reputation for doing things on the cheap, and then turning around and trying to squeeze money out of others (Garmin chirp for one).

 

The only discussions they had were how they could find another free map service without any consideration to how much of a sudden load they would impose on them.

 

They won't consider paying for maps until they see a significant loss of customers, and by then it may be too late.

 

All attitudes that someone who thinks they are a monopoly have.

I'm glad we have people like you here on the forum that have intimate knowledge of the internal discussions and workings of Groundspeak and are not afraid to share them. Your insightful posts are very enlightening.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Unfortunately, it's not much better than nothing. If you look at the the "How to View Cache in Google Earth" link just below the "Download Google Earth Viewer" you'll get to page with the following text:

 

"Please Note: The coordinates used in Google Earth are only an approximation and can be up to 100 ft from the actual location. The Geocaching Google Earth feature is a tool for viewing geocaches in a general location. Do not use the coordinates in Google Earth for finding or placing geocaches."

Why do you need to see the exact locations in Google Earth? As far as I can see, the most commonly mentioned reason in these topics for why people find the Google Maps so necessary is for routing between caches. An error of 100 ft shouldn't affect your ability to do so.

The maps on this website were never intended to be used for finding caches. The whole point of geocaching is to use a GPS to locate the cache, not satellite images. All the maps (or related mapping solutions) need to do is show you the general location. You can find the exact spot with your GPS once you're on site.

 

Agreed on both points. I mentioned the note on the page in case someone assumed it would be a viable tool for finding caches. A lot of people *do* rely on satellite imagery to find caches, which when I've usually trotted out the Google Maps image of a cache location in Costa Rica which shows a large area where the terrain is completed obscured by cloud cover (that's what happens in a rain forest). Google Maps, as good as they are, still have issues that just don't make them a globally reliable means for finding caches.

[+cx1]

 

Why do you need to see the exact locations in Google Earth?

 

Hmm, could be I like to know what side of a street a cache is on so I know where to park.

Or maybe I want to know if it is inside out outside an area that is not open at night.

Could be I would like to see if maybe it is a LPC or not.

Might be nice to see what side of a river the cache is really on considering locally the bridges to cross the river are 14 to 20+ miles apart.

All of this is information I should be able to glean from simply viewing an accurate aerial image of the cache location.

 

Technically we don't need any maps at all. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for them to be as useful and accurate as possible. The current maps while allowing to see caches accurately positioned on a map have terrible aerial tiling support compared to what we had with Google. This whole mapping mess really opened my eyes to how great the Google maps really were. Using Google Earth is a tool that can help bring back decent aerial imagery support.

Why do you need to keep this method of getting aerial imagery from being as accurate as possible?

[+The A-Team]

Why do you need to see the exact locations in Google Earth?

 

Hmm, could be I like to know what side of a street a cache is on so I know where to park.

Or maybe I want to know if it is inside out outside an area that is not open at night.

Could be I would like to see if maybe it is a LPC or not.

Might be nice to see what side of a river the cache is really on considering locally the bridges to cross the river are 14 to 20+ miles apart.

All of this is information I should be able to glean from simply viewing an accurate aerial image of the cache location.

But why do you need to see all the surrounding caches at the same time that you want to determine the above? If you want to see this type of information, you can still easily link from any cache page to a Google Map displaying the exact location. Yes, it would be more convenient to have it all in one spot, but it really isn't that inconvenient.

 

Why do you need to keep this method of getting aerial imagery from being as accurate as possible?

To be honest, I think it would be great if they'd remove the intentional error. That being said, I understand why they've done it. From what I understand, using the Google Earth interface hits the database pretty hard. If it used exact locations, people could use it to retrieve bulk cache information rather than by using Pocket Queries. Groundspeak would much rather we use PQs (less hit on the database), so they've introduced the intentional error to dissuade over-use.

[+Ambrosia]

You can still access google satellite images from every single cache page, people!!!

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!!

 

[+Ambrosia]

There. I feel better now. At least for a little while...

[+Hooty Who]

The new mapquest maps are terrible. You can't even use the aerial maps, as soon as you bring them up or zoom in they whole map doesn't show up, just a few grids. Google maps were 10 times better. I'm sure some type of discount could and should be worked out with google. I like to zoom in on GZ in areas that we aren't familiar with. It really is disappointing to loose such a valuable feature.

 

Please Please !!!! work out a solution.

[+Castle Mischief]

The new mapquest maps are terrible. You can't even use the aerial maps, as soon as you bring them up or zoom in they whole map doesn't show up, just a few grids. Google maps were 10 times better. I'm sure some type of discount could and should be worked out with google. I like to zoom in on GZ in areas that we aren't familiar with. It really is disappointing to loose such a valuable feature.

 

Please Please !!!! work out a solution.

 

There may have been a few solutions already posted in this thread.

[+cx1]

 

But why do you need to see all the surrounding caches at the same time that you want to determine the above?

 

Because if I am already there to get one cache it is nice to see if there is another nearby.

If I am going to a park to get 3 caches it would bother me to overlook the 4th one since I may not make it back to that park.

Switching to another map seems very inefficient just to see additional caches when the technology is there to easily see all the nearby caches on a map style I find the most useful.

 

From what I understand, using the Google Earth interface hits the database pretty hard. If it used exact locations, people could use it to retrieve bulk cache information rather than by using Pocket Queries. Groundspeak would much rather we use PQs (less hit on the database), so they've introduced the intentional error to dissuade over-use.

 

Perhaps you could explain this a little better because I do not quite understand. Groundspeak does not host (yet) the map tile images.

On a street map I can view an area with 500 caches.

On a poor aerial map I can view the same 500 caches.

Yet seeing those same 500 caches on Goggle Earth would generate more load on the Groundspeak server so the server takes the additional step of altering the data prior to displaying it?

And couldn't the person retrieving bulk cache information via Google Earth also retrieve this same information off of the regular maps which have the correct coordinates?

I am also not understanding how much more difficult it is for the server to generate a KML file opposed to a GPX. They are both simple text files.

[+Sky King 36]

You can still access google satellite images from every single cache page, people!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!!

We know!!! That isn't the point, person!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!! Other people may just have legitimate uses legitimate uses for multi-cache maps even if you don't.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Sky King 36

[+hzoi]

The new mapquest maps are terrible. You can't even use the aerial maps, as soon as you bring them up or zoom in they whole map doesn't show up, just a few grids. Google maps were 10 times better. I'm sure some type of discount could and should be worked out with google. I like to zoom in on GZ in areas that we aren't familiar with. It really is disappointing to loose such a valuable feature.

 

Please Please !!!! work out a solution.

 

There may have been a few solutions already posted in this thread.

 

Pssh. That would require reading in order to find those solutions. Much easier to just complain and hold your breath until Groundspeak fixes it for you.

[+Ambrosia]

You can still access google satellite images from every single cache page, people!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!!

We know!!! That isn't the point, person!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!! Other people may just have legitimate uses legitimate uses for multi-cache maps even if you don't.

Oh, I know it's nice to see all the caches on the map, I use this feature all the time. It's just that people in this thread keep acting like there's no way to see satellite details anymore. It's more of a process now, but it's possible. Just click on the cache info on the multi cache map, then click on the google map from there. Tedious, but not the end of the world.

[+paleolith]

But why do you need to see all the surrounding caches

Why do you need to go geocaching? Everything discussed here is about fun. The new map service makes it a lot less fun for a lot of us. That's the bottom line for me.

 

For a lot of us, the fun isn't just in counting smilies. It's about discovering new places, and part of that happens on the ground and part of it happens from looking at maps.

 

In this context, pointing out that I can find the geocaches another way is irrelevant. If you were paying me to find geocaches, then of course we would discuss what methods are most cost-effective. But you aren't paying me, and frankly I would not be interested in geocaching for pay.

 

Compared with many hobbies, geocaching is a very cheap way to have some fun. Pinching the nickel to make it less fun doesn't make sense to me.

 

Edward

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

But why do you need to see all the surrounding caches at the same time that you want to determine the above?

 

Because if I am already there to get one cache it is nice to see if there is another nearby.

If I am going to a park to get 3 caches it would bother me to overlook the 4th one since I may not make it back to that park.

Switching to another map seems very inefficient just to see additional caches when the technology is there to easily see all the nearby caches on a map style I find the most useful.

 

But you can still do that, just not with every map type your little heart desires.

[+Sky King 36]

It's about discovering new places, and part of that happens on the ground and part of it happens from looking at maps.

Well Said. +1

 

and frankly I would not be interested in geocaching for pay.

Speak for yourself, buster! I can take cash, paypal, checks, and most major cards.

[+hukilaulau]

 

Compared with many hobbies, geocaching is a very cheap way to have some fun. Pinching the nickel to make it less fun doesn't make sense to me.

 

Edward

Wait, this part just doesn't make any sense. Unless you're saying Groundspeak should spare no expense or cost to make sure your game stays cheap for YOU. Is that it?

[+cx1]

 

But you can still do that, just not with every map type your little heart desires.

What does the size of my heart have to do with wanting the caches displayed in Google Earth to be accurate?

 

On February 13th I could view nice aerial imagery showing the detail I wanted while viewing multiple accurately placed cache icons on a map completely within the geocaching website. I can not still do that today.

Allowing the KML generated for viewing in Google Earth to be accurate would a viable alternative.

It seems counter to the entire concept of mapping to intentionally display locations incorrectly.

[+The A-Team]

Allowing the KML generated for viewing in Google Earth to be accurate would a viable alternative.

Feel free to suggest it in the Feature Discussions and Suggestions forum. That's what it's there for. You'll be more likely to receive a response from Groundspeak there than buried deep in this topic.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

But you can still do that, just not with every map type your little heart desires.

What does the size of my heart have to do with wanting the caches displayed in Google Earth to be accurate?

 

On February 13th I could view nice aerial imagery showing the detail I wanted while viewing multiple accurately placed cache icons on a map completely within the geocaching website. I can not still do that today.

Allowing the KML generated for viewing in Google Earth to be accurate would a viable alternative.

It seems counter to the entire concept of mapping to intentionally display locations incorrectly.

 

Your original post, which is what I was commenting on:

 

Because if I am already there to get one cache it is nice to see if there is another nearby.

If I am going to a park to get 3 caches it would bother me to overlook the 4th one since I may not make it back to that park.

Switching to another map seems very inefficient just to see additional caches when the technology is there to easily see all the nearby caches on a map style I find the most useful.

 

For the purposes of seeing nearby caches at the same time, the maps still allow you to do that. You won't be missing any nearby caches.

 

Can you do it on an aerial view...no. But you won't miss any caches.

 

And guess what, years ago, before google maps (or maps of any real kind of maps on this site), people went out caching with some waypoints manually loaded into their receivers (which had no maps), and found caches. And if they missed one, it was an excuse to go out caching again. It was wonderful.

 

Way too much angst over maps.

[+cx1]

 

 

Can you do it on an aerial view...no.

 

Way too much angst over maps.

 

And on the 13th I could. And there is a way I could use Google Earth to accomplish basically the same thing but for some reason they want to introduce inaccuracy to the cache locations if one wishes to use the Google Earth directly from the webpage. Seems silly and counter-productive.

What there is way too much of is some people wanting to trample on other people for suggesting an enhancement as unnecessary.

If you are happy with the new map system, great for you.

I believe the thread title is not "I love the new maps" though.

You find the feature of viewing multiple caches accurately listed on a good aerial tile as unnecessary. Great, don't use them if they become available again. But adding them will not negatively impact your geocaching so why be so against something that would have a positive impact on other cachers?

[+TerraViators]

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.

I'd gladly pay an increased membership to have the Google maps back. Am I alone?

[jholly]

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.

I'd gladly pay an increased membership to have the Google maps back. Am I alone?

I'm not standing with you.

[+Mitragorz]

It'd be nice if GS could work out a deal with Microsoft or Pictometry to make use of their "Bird's Eye" maps:

 

 

 

But... I used to do contract work for Pictometry, and I know that they aren't cheap. The maps sure are nice, though.

[+The A-Team]

It'd be nice if GS could work out a deal with Microsoft...

It has been mentioned several times in these topics that Bing is several times more expensive than Google.

[+Mitragorz]

[Edited by moderator to remove potty language.]

 

11 pages is a lot to sift through. When people mention Bing, I don't think of Microsoft. In fact, I don't think much of anything when I hear that name. Bing never caught on with me. When I want to see Bird's Eye maps, I just type in the web address that I learned back in my contract days: maps.live.com.

 

But you're right, it does redirect to bing.com/maps, and it surely says Bing Maps in the top left. I'll be damned!

Edited March 2, 2012 by Keystone

[+Castle Mischief]

But why do you need to see all the surrounding caches

Why do you need to go geocaching? Everything discussed here is about fun. The new map service makes it a lot less fun for a lot of us. That's the bottom line for me.

 

For a lot of us, the fun isn't just in counting smilies. It's about discovering new places, and part of that happens on the ground and part of it happens from looking at maps.

 

In this context, pointing out that I can find the geocaches another way is irrelevant. If you were paying me to find geocaches, then of course we would discuss what methods are most cost-effective. But you aren't paying me, and frankly I would not be interested in geocaching for pay.

 

Compared with many hobbies, geocaching is a very cheap way to have some fun. Pinching the nickel to make it less fun doesn't make sense to me.

 

Edward

 

I think it's just a tad more than a nickel.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

11 pages is a lot to sift through. When people mention Bing, I don't think of Microsoft. In fact, I don't think much of anything when I hear that name. Bing never caught on with me. When I want to see Bird's Eye maps, I just type in the web address that I learned back in my contract days: maps.live.com.

 

But you're right, it does redirect to bing.com/maps, and it surely says Bing Maps in the top left. I'll be damned!

 

And there is a link to Bing maps right from the cache listing. When it comes up, just select "Bird's Eye View" from the top left corner of the map.

 

These are usually far better than the Google Aerial maps for scoping out single caches.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Keystone

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

I'd gladly pay an increased membership to have the Google maps back. Am I alone?

 

No, you're not alone. How much more are you willing to pay? Would you pay $5 more a month? How about $10? If you could get Google maps back on the mapping page would would pay twice as much as you do now? How many current premium members would drop their membership if the cost went up $20 a month? How many potential new members would there be that would pay $30 a month for a membership but not $40 a month? Groundspeak isn't going to bring back Google maps if just a few caches are willing to pay more. They have to know how many members they'll have at a specific fee rate to know whether increasing the PM fee will be a viable business decision. Until that's known we don't know if increasing the membership fee in order to bring back google maps would be viable.

[+tenebrus]

OK, I'm only seeing one solution to the maps problem.

 

Groundspeak - You need your own mapping satellite. Period.

to work once.

 

Wait.. would that? Would that actually be cheaper than Google?

 

Forget the satellite view base issue and performance issue rendering map tiles there are a few things that could be done to improve maps in addition to being to select and persist a "default base map" other than Mapquest.

 

* Add a scale to the maps (yes, I know there's a Greasemonkey script that will do it)

* Replace the +/- zoom control with a slider/picker that allows one to go directly to a zoom level rather than single stepping with each click.

* Add a "Save as KML" link for easy importing into Google Earth.

* Show caches which the owner has logged a DNF (and no subsequent Found It) as a blue frown face

* Add a "Print Map" button.

* Add number labels to each cache icon that corresponds with the list of cache names (even if only available in the "Print" output)

* Sort the names of the caches from a Pocket Query alphabetically.

 

Re: FEATURE REQEUSTS:

* The scale should be added and (I think that) it can be added on GC's end.

* Similarly, having a slider/picker SAVES ON DOWNLOADED MAP TILES for the simple reason that you can skip over the unnecessary intermediate scalings. (Isn't the number of map hits what caused this problem in the first place?)

* ADDED TO YOUR LIST: I'd still like to see added to the list the Crtl+Click new tabs go to the background in Firefox. Instead, they now steal focus and in order to open a short run of caches, I need to return to the map tab manually for each cache opened. Needless hassle over here, but not a deal-breaker.

 

Oh, and a little thing called perspective for us posters: There are, at current, like 550 posts in this thread. Even if there were no repeat posters and all of us were premium members who pulled our renewals away, we might collectively save up that money and rent ourselves one Google Map tile to somehow share this month only. It's called perspective, people. Being louder doesn't make you more right, or an expert on the issue, or even worth listening to -- it just makes you a wheel so squeaky that maybe it's not worth oiling anymore and maybe a brand new wheel is dirt cheap and plain ol' easier to replace. So, in closing: Quit your twitching, gear up, and start caching again, Folks. Remember, YOU ARE THE SEARCH ENGINE. Duh.

[+B+L]

Being louder doesn't make you more right, or an expert on the issue, or even worth listening to

The same can be said about the use of bold fonts and all caps.

 

 

Hiking arguably has less to do with geocaching than driving does, but that didn't matter to the guy who was upset about the recent loss of the hiking forum. His frequent moaning about it was enough to get it restored.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Forget the satellite view base issue and performance issue rendering map tiles there are a few things that could be done to improve maps in addition to being to select and persist a "default base map" other than Mapquest.

 

* Add a scale to the maps (yes, I know there's a Greasemonkey script that will do it)

* Replace the +/- zoom control with a slider/picker that allows one to go directly to a zoom level rather than single stepping with each click.

* Add a "Save as KML" link for easy importing into Google Earth.

* Show caches which the owner has logged a DNF (and no subsequent Found It) as a blue frown face

* Add a "Print Map" button.

* Add number labels to each cache icon that corresponds with the list of cache names (even if only available in the "Print" output)

* Sort the names of the caches from a Pocket Query alphabetically.

 

Re: FEATURE REQEUSTS:

* The scale should be added and (I think that) it can be added on GC's end.

 

I just read a post elsewhere (the maps issue is being discussed in several other threads in different forum sections) from a Groundspeak employee which indicated that they plan on adding a scale with the next release. Apparently, the mapping framework they're using (called leaflet) has an API for managing interactive maps and the scale feature is something that was just added to the API. Leaflet is an open source library available from Cloudmade (a commercial company, a fairly new player in the interactive maps domain). I have to wonder if GS took a look at openlayers at all. I've built some apps with open layers and if I recall it had a very customizable scale feature that can be added to any map. It almost looks like GS mostly dumped the Google kool-aid and has filled their mini-fridges with Cloudmade kool aid instead.

[+tenebrus]

THOUGHT #1:

I'm with jholly in not wanting to pay more just to get Google Maps back. In fact, I went out today (since my last post in fact) and I (re)discovered a very useful alternative to using the Google maps to find my caches: the coordinates! Sure I used the OSMs to get the gist of where I going and an overview of the area. But then, I found 32 out of 32 caches using just the coordinates, a GPS receiver, a compass, and my good ol' fashion book of local street maps. Funny that... I had a good time doing it too. It seems that the OSM maps were good enough to start the journey on a good note. That's not exactly "horrid" to me. In fact, that's downright "useful," which is the general threshold that I have for being happy with the maps that geocaching.com chooses to use.

 

THOUGHT #2:

I see a lot of people here lamenting about all of the Google Map things that we no longer have and how much more they'd pay to return them. Imagine how much shorter this thread would be if we removed the posts focusing exclusively on Google Maps, Bing, Pictometry, price structures, etcetera. So... instead of all that, can we just keep the discussion on the topic of these new maps -- good or bad -- and maybe put those other comments in a better suited topic?

 

THOUGHT #3 (mostly for B+L):

Being louder doesn't make you more right, or an expert on the issue, or even worth listening to

The same can be said about the use of bold fonts and all caps.

While I do not deny that your response is true on the surface, I'd like to rebut with something deeper: your response seems to have added zero content that addresses the actual topic. As such, it can really seem to be passive-aggressively snide and hoping to come off as clever. But whether that is true or not is not really important. Instead, please regard Thought #2 above and keep it on topic. Thanks in advance.

[knowschad]

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.

I'd gladly pay an increased membership to have the Google maps back. Am I alone?

 

I have them back, and it didn't cost me a cent.

[+B+L]

THOUGHT #3 (mostly for B+L):

Being louder doesn't make you more right, or an expert on the issue, or even worth listening to

The same can be said about the use of bold fonts and all caps.

While I do not deny that your response is true on the surface, I'd like to rebut with something deeper: your response seems to have added zero content that addresses the actual topic. As such, it can really seem to be passive-aggressively snide and hoping to come off as clever. But whether that is true or not is not really important. Instead, please regard Thought #2 above and keep it on topic. Thanks in advance.

 

First you insult most of the participants in this thread. Now you're insulting me personally, but also asking that we keep it on topic. Are you really that self-unaware? No. Don't answer.

[AZcachemeister]

 

I have them back, and it didn't cost me a cent.

 

Me too, but I'm pretty sure I could have carried on regardless.

[+Guwapo]

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.

I'd gladly pay an increased membership to have the Google maps back. Am I alone?

 

I have them back, and it didn't cost me a cent.

 

Same here!!

[+Copaman]

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.

 

But for how much longer are those Google maps on the cache pages available? For all I know, the next update will do away with them as well. And based on my experience, it likely will!

 

I called it!