Jump to content

New Maps - HORRID!


God of Caching
Followers 11

Recommended Posts

I work with companies like GS (no, they aren't a customer) for a living and I can tell you from deep subject matter expertise this is simply fundamentally flawed thinking. "We deliver our product primarily over the internet" is NOT a synonym for "inexpensive."

The flawed thought here is that there is no product, they are a listing service, they don't produce a thing, they LIST stuff that me and you produce.

Ah, the list *IS* the product.

Which has ZERO acquisition costs.

 

Again, products start from materials (if you made cakes you buy flour, if you make bouncy balls, you buy rubber), and those materials naturally have an acquisition cost, listing services don't have the same costs.

 

While you may say there is zero cost to acquire the list, there are costs to maintain and distribute it. Servers, coders, etc.

Link to comment

 

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.

Following that line of thinking then why doesn't GS offer each premium member feature à la carte? By charging $5 for each PM feature, if PMs sign up for all the features, GS could make a lot more money. I don't use every PM feature so it could end up saving some money.

 

I think that would a bookkeepers and developer's nightmare.

Link to comment

 

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.

Following that line of thinking then why doesn't GS offer each premium member feature à la carte? By charging $5 for each PM feature, if PMs sign up for all the features, GS could make a lot more money. I don't use every PM feature so it could end up saving some money.

 

I think that would a bookkeepers and developer's nightmare.

 

and why would that be? :unsure:

 

for the accounting part the system keeps track of options chosen and spit out the proper amount to charge, which would be done at the time of payment...i sure hope GC doesn't do their accounting manually

 

for developers shouldn't be a problem either...enable vs disable features

 

both are already being done for a long time now by countless businesses its not like trying to implement something unheard of

Edited by t4e
Link to comment
Assuming that the $2.9 million a year figure is correct for what it would take to use the Google Maps services based on the number of hits it would generated

I think this is a very big assumption. I just can't imagine that at eleventy-billion hits per day gspeak would be subject to the same rates quoted for clients quoted in thousands per month.

Link to comment
Assuming that the $2.9 million a year figure is correct for what it would take to use the Google Maps services based on the number of hits it would generated

I think this is a very big assumption. I just can't imagine that at eleventy-billion hits per day gspeak would be subject to the same rates quoted for clients quoted in thousands per month.

I agree. It would most likely be much more. Since that amount of traffic would require Google to dedicate entire servers to providing maps to just Geocaching.com.

Link to comment
Assuming that the $2.9 million a year figure is correct for what it would take to use the Google Maps services based on the number of hits it would generated

I think this is a very big assumption. I just can't imagine that at eleventy-billion hits per day gspeak would be subject to the same rates quoted for clients quoted in thousands per month.

I agree. It would most likely be much more. Since that amount of traffic would require Google to dedicate entire servers to providing maps to just Geocaching.com.

Just so we're clear, I totally agree that the absolute dollar value would be much more. But I also suspect that the per-hit rate would be less.

Link to comment
Assuming that the $2.9 million a year figure is correct for what it would take to use the Google Maps services based on the number of hits it would generated

I think this is a very big assumption. I just can't imagine that at eleventy-billion hits per day gspeak would be subject to the same rates quoted for clients quoted in thousands per month.

 

I agree. It's just that the $2.9 million a year figure was the closest I've seen to a reasonable approximation of what the cost would be. I also have no idea where the "125,000" premium members comes from but those are the numbers I had to work with. Really, the point wasn't to accurately predict what the increase in PM fees might be to but suggest that it could certainly be high enough to cause some current customers not to renew their membership, and probably more importantly, reduce the number of potential new premium members going forward.

Link to comment
Assuming that the $2.9 million a year figure is correct for what it would take to use the Google Maps services based on the number of hits it would generated

I think this is a very big assumption. I just can't imagine that at eleventy-billion hits per day gspeak would be subject to the same rates quoted for clients quoted in thousands per month.

 

Completely ridiculous. One of the worst rumors floating around here in years. I defy anyone to show me where any Groundspeak Employee has ever said they would have to pay 2.9 Million per year. Now if I asked you if you could show me people looking at a link on Google, and dividing 2,000,000 by 25,000 and multiplying by $4 (or whatever) to come up with 2.9 Million in a forum post, there'd probably be 100 examples. :P

Link to comment
Assuming that the $2.9 million a year figure is correct for what it would take to use the Google Maps services based on the number of hits it would generated

I think this is a very big assumption. I just can't imagine that at eleventy-billion hits per day gspeak would be subject to the same rates quoted for clients quoted in thousands per month.

I agree. It would most likely be much more. Since that amount of traffic would require Google to dedicate entire servers to providing maps to just Geocaching.com.

 

and why would they have to do that?...they already handled that traffic before :unsure:

Edited by t4e
Link to comment
Assuming that the $2.9 million a year figure is correct for what it would take to use the Google Maps services based on the number of hits it would generated

I think this is a very big assumption. I just can't imagine that at eleventy-billion hits per day gspeak would be subject to the same rates quoted for clients quoted in thousands per month.

I agree. It would most likely be much more. Since that amount of traffic would require Google to dedicate entire servers to providing maps to just Geocaching.com.

 

and why would they have to do that?...they already handled that traffic before :unsure:

 

You'll have to ask Google about that one. Google is one that decided that their API would no longer be a free service.

Link to comment
Assuming that the $2.9 million a year figure is correct for what it would take to use the Google Maps services based on the number of hits it would generated

I think this is a very big assumption. I just can't imagine that at eleventy-billion hits per day gspeak would be subject to the same rates quoted for clients quoted in thousands per month.

 

Completely ridiculous. One of the worst rumors floating around here in years. I defy anyone to show me where any Groundspeak Employee has ever said they would have to pay 2.9 Million per year. Now if I asked you if you could show me people looking at a link on Google, and dividing 2,000,000 by 25,000 and multiplying by $4 (or whatever) to come up with 2.9 Million in a forum post, there'd probably be 100 examples. :P

 

Let's assume here then, let's assume it's $2.9 million, heck why not bump it up to 3 million.

Let's assume there are 125,000 PM, heck, let's bump it down to 100,000.

Let's assume that PMs are the most active and use 1/2 the map views GS dishes out. (The other half are used by the millions on non PMs)

 

Now let's assume Google Maps went as a paid option.

 

Let's assume 1/2 of all PM members opted in. (This number doesn't matter as the math would be the same.)

 

That would mean map views would decrease by 75% as well as cost so now we're looking at $750,000/year.

Divide this by 50,000 paying members and you have $15.00/year using worst case assumptions.

 

I'd pay that.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

While you may say there is zero cost to acquire the list, there are costs to maintain and distribute it. Servers, coders, etc.

Sure there are, but no where near what you are being charged. This is a high profit business model.

 

Your intimate knowledge of the financials of Grounspeak is astounding. Are you their accountant?

Link to comment

Well, I for my part will discontinue my premium membership.

This bs is just not worth the money anymore.

 

Really? Because the maps changed geocaching is no longer enjoyable enough to pony up $30/year to support the site that most enables you to play the game and the premium member benefits have no value for you? Keep in mind that Google Maps interfaces is NOT a premium member benefit, only the map view filters are.

Link to comment

Yes.. but my point is that the maps are not one of the things premium members are paying for. They are/were a free perk.

Its always been a fact here that the premium members are carrying the free members.

 

If it weren't for the paying members, not only would there not be maps, there wouldn't be anything.

 

So don't for a second assume that the premium members didn't pay for the site, its development, and so on.

 

Psst... pssst... look around the edges of the GS page next time you load it. See all those pretty little advertisements? Yes, we PMs pay money. Advertising brings in more money.

Edited by Sioneva
Link to comment

Yes.. but my point is that the maps are not one of the things premium members are paying for. They are/were a free perk.

Its always been a fact here that the premium members are carrying the free members.

 

If it weren't for the paying members, not only would there not be maps, there wouldn't be anything.

 

So don't for a second assume that the premium members didn't pay for the site, its development, and so on.

 

Psst... pssst... look around the edges of the GS page next time you load it. See all those pretty little advertisements? Yes, we PMs pay money. Advertising brings in more money.

 

Not to mention all the trackables and tracking numbers sold for geocoins produced by third parties. I'm no accountant, but I'd imagine that the labor and material costs for a series of alpha-numeric codes is pretty cheap compared to the selling price.

Link to comment

Yes.. but my point is that the maps are not one of the things premium members are paying for. They are/were a free perk.

Its always been a fact here that the premium members are carrying the free members.

 

If it weren't for the paying members, not only would there not be maps, there wouldn't be anything.

 

So don't for a second assume that the premium members didn't pay for the site, its development, and so on.

 

Psst... pssst... look around the edges of the GS page next time you load it. See all those pretty little advertisements? Yes, we PMs pay money. Advertising brings in more money.

 

Not to mention all the trackables and tracking numbers sold for geocoins produced by third parties. I'm no accountant, but I'd imagine that the labor and material costs for a series of alpha-numeric codes is pretty cheap compared to the selling price.

 

Not that I'm the Groundspeak accountant, but I've said more that once the $2+ cut on every single Geocoin ever manufactured is probably a bigger revenue source than PM's. :P

Link to comment

Well, I for my part will discontinue my premium membership.

This bs is just not worth the money anymore.

 

Really? Because the maps changed geocaching is no longer enjoyable enough to pony up $30/year to support the site that most enables you to play the game and the premium member benefits have no value for you? Keep in mind that Google Maps interfaces is NOT a premium member benefit, only the map view filters are.

 

It's not just that, most changes made in the recent time have been a real step down...

All I'll say is Challenges...and there's a lot more.

The premium membership was hardly worth it before (for me),

but I won't financially support a website that I'm not happy with anymore.

As I said in another thread, it's not the Game of geocaching I have a problem with, but rather the way GS works in general...

That's just my opinion, and I very much doubt that my missing thirty bucks will change anything, but to speak metaphorically: if your favorite coffee shop stops selling your favorite coffee, would you still pay them?

Link to comment

Well, I for my part will discontinue my premium membership.

This bs is just not worth the money anymore.

 

Really? Because the maps changed geocaching is no longer enjoyable enough to pony up $30/year to support the site that most enables you to play the game and the premium member benefits have no value for you? Keep in mind that Google Maps interfaces is NOT a premium member benefit, only the map view filters are.

 

It's not just that, most changes made in the recent time have been a real step down...

All I'll say is Challenges...and there's a lot more.

The premium membership was hardly worth it before (for me),

but I won't financially support a website that I'm not happy with anymore.

As I said in another thread, it's not the Game of geocaching I have a problem with, but rather the way GS works in general...

That's just my opinion, and I very much doubt that my missing thirty bucks will change anything, but to speak metaphorically: if your favorite coffee shop stops selling your favorite coffee, would you still pay them?

 

I was with you until the end. This coffee shop still has coffee. If the coffee shop changed out the top of the market creamer for a less well known brand would you stop getting the coffee?

 

In this case, I want the cache listings (the coffee). Any tool that gets me those better is worth the premium price (PQs, Bookmarks, Ignore Lists, etc. - equate that to better ways to make and serve the coffee). In my case, the maps are nice to have, but I certainly don't need them to find caches. That's what I have a GPS for. Even if I did really need the maps for caching, these new maps would probably be sufficient. Which maps they provide as a perk are not going to change me desire for the large database of listings and the premium service ways to get to them.

Link to comment

Well, I for my part will discontinue my premium membership.

This bs is just not worth the money anymore.

 

Really? Because the maps changed geocaching is no longer enjoyable enough to pony up $30/year to support the site that most enables you to play the game and the premium member benefits have no value for you? Keep in mind that Google Maps interfaces is NOT a premium member benefit, only the map view filters are.

 

today is the maps who's to say what will they take away tomorrow, and the day after and so on?

 

I for one have been paying PM for the past almost 4 years for the sole purpose of supporting GC, there's two of us in the household paying for PM so i really don't need to, i probably run only a couple of PQ's on my account in the last 3 years, but i do renew every year because i believe GC does have some considerable expenses to keep this hobby going, i am even willing to pay around $5 more a year...however if they start taking things away i will reconsider my support

Link to comment

 

today is the maps who's to say what will they take away tomorrow, and the day after and so on?

 

I for one have been paying PM for the past almost 4 years for the sole purpose of supporting GC, there's two of us in the household paying for PM so i really don't need to, i probably run only a couple of PQ's on my account in the last 3 years, but i do renew every year because i believe GC does have some considerable expenses to keep this hobby going, i am even willing to pay around $5 more a year...however if they start taking things away i will reconsider my support

 

:rolleyes: If they kept the maps and started charging more, you'd reconsider your support as well. Either way, they can't win... seems like they decided to stick to their pledge that a free membership would always be available, instead. They promised us that... they never promised us a rose garden eternally free maps.

Link to comment

While you may say there is zero cost to acquire the list, there are costs to maintain and distribute it. Servers, coders, etc.

Sure there are, but no where near what you are being charged. This is a high profit business model.

 

Your intimate knowledge of the financials of Grounspeak is astounding. Are you their accountant?

No, but he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :huh:

Link to comment

 

today is the maps who's to say what will they take away tomorrow, and the day after and so on?

 

I for one have been paying PM for the past almost 4 years for the sole purpose of supporting GC, there's two of us in the household paying for PM so i really don't need to, i probably run only a couple of PQ's on my account in the last 3 years, but i do renew every year because i believe GC does have some considerable expenses to keep this hobby going, i am even willing to pay around $5 more a year...however if they start taking things away i will reconsider my support

 

:rolleyes: If they kept the maps and started charging more, you'd reconsider your support as well. Either way, they can't win... seems like they decided to stick to their pledge that a free membership would always be available, instead. They promised us that... they never promised us a rose garden eternally free maps.

 

you obviously can't read all i said :rolleyes:... bolded for you maybe that makes it more clear and you don't assume what i will or not do

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

 

today is the maps who's to say what will they take away tomorrow, and the day after and so on?

 

I for one have been paying PM for the past almost 4 years for the sole purpose of supporting GC, there's two of us in the household paying for PM so i really don't need to, i probably run only a couple of PQ's on my account in the last 3 years, but i do renew every year because i believe GC does have some considerable expenses to keep this hobby going, i am even willing to pay around $5 more a year...however if they start taking things away i will reconsider my support

 

:rolleyes: If they kept the maps and started charging more, you'd reconsider your support as well. Either way, they can't win... seems like they decided to stick to their pledge that a free membership would always be available, instead. They promised us that... they never promised us a rose garden eternally free maps.

 

you obviously can't read all i said :rolleyes:... bolded for you maybe that makes it more clear and you don't assume what i will or not do

 

My apology; I did miss that part. I don't think it would be as low as $5, but I concede you would be willing to pay more. I wouldn't be.

Link to comment

While you may say there is zero cost to acquire the list, there are costs to maintain and distribute it. Servers, coders, etc.

Sure there are, but no where near what you are being charged. This is a high profit business model.

 

Your intimate knowledge of the financials of Grounspeak is astounding. Are you their accountant?

No, but he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :huh:

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

:rolleyes: If they kept the maps and started charging more, you'd reconsider your support as well. Either way, they can't win... seems like they decided to stick to their pledge that a free membership would always be available, instead. They promised us that... they never promised us a rose garden eternally free maps.

 

As I have said in a past post in this thread, the free membership is actually a non-issue. If you read the Google Maps API ToS, it is very clear and explicit that non-pay websites have access to the API for free. The real problem is ONLY premium members, we are actually the ones that cause the problem for Google. I suggested in that past post that GS split the premium and basic users so that API licensing is based only on premium member usage.

Link to comment

Groundspeak has received a lot of feedback from the geocaching community regarding the recent changes to our maps, including recent improvements to our Pocket Query/Map integration. We understand that the change in maps was not ideal for many customers who were used to seeing Google maps on geocaching.com.

 

Please understand that we are committed to delivering exceptional functionality, including high quality maps. We are continuing to analyze available options for mapping while also actively working with MapQuest to improve the current functionality and service.

 

Link to comment
Completely ridiculous. One of the worst rumors floating around here in years. I defy anyone to show me where any Groundspeak Employee has ever said they would have to pay 2.9 Million per year.

 

Ridiculous is right. That number is based on a totally naive calculation with not enough information available. Apparently nobody has noticed that Google doesn't give any prices for their Maps for Business license - you have to contact them for more information and the price will be based on page loads. This is not the same as the excess usage fees on the regular Maps API. We don't know how much it would cost for them to keep Google Maps, but it's safe to assume that it's not $3m per year.

Link to comment
Completely ridiculous. One of the worst rumors floating around here in years. I defy anyone to show me where any Groundspeak Employee has ever said they would have to pay 2.9 Million per year.

 

Ridiculous is right. That number is based on a totally naive calculation with not enough information available.

 

It's equally ridiculous to assume that a few people claiming that they'll pay more for a membership is going bring back Google maps without knowing what the increased cost will be and how it might impact the number of current and future memberships.

Link to comment

:rolleyes: If they kept the maps and started charging more, you'd reconsider your support as well. Either way, they can't win... seems like they decided to stick to their pledge that a free membership would always be available, instead. They promised us that... they never promised us a rose garden eternally free maps.

 

As I have said in a past post in this thread, the free membership is actually a non-issue. If you read the Google Maps API ToS, it is very clear and explicit that non-pay websites have access to the API for free. The real problem is ONLY premium members, we are actually the ones that cause the problem for Google. I suggested in that past post that GS split the premium and basic users so that API licensing is based only on premium member usage.

Which would mean two different websites. Whether there are free memberships or not doesn't change the fact that GC.com is a pay website.

 

Thinking about the coffee analogy - it seems more like would you stop going there if they switched from serving the coffee in ceramic cups to paper cups? Same product, different packaging.

 

And, I'll call BS on the "there is no cost to aquire the list". There is a cost to have the servers that collect the data, the programing that went into developing the pages/forms used to enter the data, the bandwidth so we hiders can contact them to send the data, etc. etc. etc..

Link to comment

Which would mean two different websites.

 

Absolutely. That is exactly what I am suggesting. I do it all the time, where I set up two different front-end web servers with two (or more) completely different IPs, URLs, even different locations, and yet they all run identical code bases, all log in through the same authentication database, and all access the exact same back end resources. So both basics and premies have identical access to identical content, but they are truly logged in to two different websites with two different URLs. In fact one could easily configure apache so that everyone logs into the same geocaching.com server, and if you log in using premium credentials, your session is redirected to to the premium server's URL.

Edited by Sky King 36
Link to comment

In fact one could easily configure apache so that everyone logs into the same geocaching.com server, and if you log in using premium credentials, your session is redirected to to the premium server's URL.

Something tells me Apache is not part of Groundspeak's web stack, but more importantly, your proposed "Sky King Manoever" has a fatal flaw: Google's limits still apply whether or not a site is charging for access. Charging for access meant obtaining a Maps API for Business license (starting at $10,000 per year), but the new usage limits apply to everyone, free access or not.

 

Web sites and applications using each of the Maps API may at no cost generate:

  • up to 25,000 map loads per day for each API
  • up to 2,500 map loads per day that have been modified using the Styled Maps feature

If your application exceeds these usage limits you must respond in one of the following ways in order to continue using the Maps API in your application:

 

  • Modify your Maps API application such that the number of map loads generated per day is below the usage limit for each API that your application uses;
  • Enroll for automated billing of excess map loads; or
  • Purchase a Maps API for Business license

Link to comment

They are worse than horrid ,they are a step backwards ,we don't want to go back to the

old way,i will give up my premiumn membership if this does not improve by the time it

comes up, i can not even tell where the caches are, the maps are just lines no city info.

You cannot even see where the cache is,what county, and country roads. This is terrible

i guess all good thing must come to an end,AND THEY HAVE ON THESE MAPS.

Link to comment

If you read the Google Maps API ToS, it is very clear and explicit that non-pay websites have access to the API for free.

:blink: Say what?

Can you quote the section/subsection in the ToS that says this? I've looked through it many times, and I can't see anything saying this. The only thing remotely close that I can find is that the API implementation must be available to the general public free of charge, which it always has been on this site. This has nothing to do with basic vs. premium members. Whether a site is pay or non-pay, the usage limits still apply, and any related overage costs.

Link to comment

Is there a way to make one of the maps default? OpenMaps seems to work pretty well, but MapQuest sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

 

This seems to be a common request that was expressed several times just after the 2/14 update. There's a planned site update today so perhaps that might

be included.

 

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.

Link to comment

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

The only problem I see with this, is it overrides the cache type. Personally, I'd rather see the type of cache it is - making it a option might work. Or adding a colored background.

 

I thought about that too. Of course, caches which have been found or that one owns are also displayed with an icon that overrides the cache type although that isn't as much of an issue for a cache already found on one that you own.

Link to comment

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

The only problem I see with this, is it overrides the cache type. Personally, I'd rather see the type of cache it is - making it a option might work. Or adding a colored background.

 

I thought about that too. Of course, caches which have been found or that one owns are also displayed with an icon that overrides the cache type although that isn't as much of an issue for a cache already found on one that you own.

 

Make the background shape (square or circle for PM caches) blue.

Link to comment

I really hate these maps. No more quickly checking to see where a cache is located - this is the slowest loading map I have ever seen, which is why I didn't use it when it was first introduced. I understand the change because of cost, but these maps really suck. A lot of times I decide at the last minute to pick up a few caches depending on where I am going, I guess that isn't going to happen anymore.

Link to comment

I really hate these maps. No more quickly checking to see where a cache is located - this is the slowest loading map I have ever seen, which is why I didn't use it when it was first introduced. I understand the change because of cost, but these maps really suck. A lot of times I decide at the last minute to pick up a few caches depending on where I am going, I guess that isn't going to happen anymore.

 

Anyone know of a face palm emoticon?

 

There have been numerous responses in this thread as well as the several other threads in other forum sections that explain how, if you want to see a specific cache location with Google satellite imagery as a base map nothing has changed. From the mapping page it takes one click to bring you to a cache listing page, then one more click on the "Google Maps" link that still exists on every cache page to see the cache on a Google Maps layer. If you want to see multiple caches in an area where you are going, having Google Maps as a bay layer primarily only an aesthetic advantage, and in fact the cache icons are much easier to see if you're *not* viewing a bunch of green cache icons on a base map that is mostly green.

Link to comment

[rant]

At the risk of sounding pugilistic.... I have said this before, and I will say it again. All throughout this forum, all throughout the feedback forums, I hear the same sentence echoed over and over and over again. It takes many different forms, many different wordings, but it is always the same sentence. "I don't do it that way, and therefore I see no reason why you should do it that way." I just don't understand the "fun" of pointing out how others are doing it "wrong." I find this very disappointing, there's really no place for this here, and yet, it is almost the very ethos of the forums. How many threads in this forum are about "others are enjoying caching in ways that I don't, and it shouldn't be allowed?" It is unrelenting and we deserve better from each other.

[/rant]

 

To me, when I am going to go caching, having all the caches in a small area, like a park, overlaid on top of a aerial image of the area is the singular most important information tool available. I couldn't give a rip what the terrain right at the GZ looks like. I care a whole lot about what the terrain looks like as I move from cache to cache. I'll only be spending a few minutes at the GZs, but I'll be spending most of my day in the spaces between GZs.

 

I use information to help me make decisions. One of the most important decisions in a day of caching that I have to make is "How am I going to move from cache to cache? Which order will it be easiest to do them in?" Without a doubt, the aerial image with multiple caches is the single gold standard for the way I cache.

 

I have NeonGeo (gives me all the maps and images I need on my android). I use the greasemonkey scripts, so on my computer I still have access to all the maps I want too. So this problem with the maps doesn't really affect me personally. But I am just exhausted by the number of times in this thread I have heard that the aerial images are still available for each cache, and if you want to see multiple caches overlaid on aerial images, well, you just aren't thinking straight.

Edited by Sky King 36
Link to comment

 

* 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.

 

* 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.

 

* 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?

 

* 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.

 

A big yes to all three.

Link to comment

Anyone know of a face palm emoticon?

 

Just kick it old school.

 

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,

. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,

. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,

. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,

. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}

. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}

. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./

. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./

. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./

. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/

. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}

. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../

. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../

. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”

. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\

. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__

,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,

. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--

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...
Followers 11
×
×
  • Create New...