Jump to content

New Maps - HORRID!


God of Caching
Followers 11

Recommended Posts

I haven't checked other areas but I have noticed something that might make things harder for the Reviews at least the one for the Virginia Beach area. There are a couple of Military Bases in the area. On the old maps they bases were outlined so you could clearly tell where their boarders are. None of the new maps that I saw show the fence lines of areas off limits to the general public.

 

But why in the world do reviewers need to see all the existing caches around the cache to be reviewed on the map view? There are other tools for distance checking.

Viewing a single cache on google maps still works via gc.com and moreover, even if this were not the case, one could use google maps directly.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I think the Open Street Maps are terrible. The cache pop up boxes on them look very poorly designed and in contrast to the nice rounded edges found elsewhere. OSM's satellite data is painfully slow and outdated in a good majority of my state, where Google Maps had 2011 USDA 1m data. At least you can copy the coordinates directly off a cache page and paste them in to a browser tab in Google Maps and have the better sat imagery. Does this also affect API usage in Google Earth? Not that it was very handy with the 100m skew anyway...

 

What is the price difference in real dollars if a realistic number of users were willing to pay for it?

Sigh, OSM does not have satellite data. You, like so very many others here are confusing the OSM map with the default setting which is MapQuest. Your post should say you think the MapQuest Maps are terrible.

 

Bigger Sigh. I think the views available are sub-standard. I don't care if OSM aggregates Bing, MapQuest, or TerraServer--the views are sub-standard compared to what Google provides. I don't need user-added trails and I don't have the desire to "just join up and add your own data to OSM," as many have suggested. For my state (and for many other's it seems) the OSM data (regardless of where it comes from) is simply not as good Google's.

 

I love the concept of "Open Source." I even like the idea of community editable information ala Wiki as a map-layer, I just don't like the way OSM implements either. Perhaps a few years from now I'll have a completely different opinion of OSM but for now it feels chintzy. This is 2012, Internet GIS is mainstream and Google Maps gets it right from usability and interactivity perspectives, while OSM seems like a cut-rate knock off to me. Could I go download the USDA data and manipulate it in ArcGIS and build my own layers, sure--but why take the time when GM has it all done for me and includes a free robust client to do just that?

 

My kvetches are minor--more like annoyances as coordinates can be cut and pasted, its only "one" more step. The GM link in the "Other Maps" on the cache listings is also nice, it will have to do for now.

Edited by shak3zula
Link to comment

Satellite view is ok here, but so INCREDIBLY slow to fill in as to make it almost useless.

 

But why do you need to view tons of caches with satellite view at the same time? If you want to see where a specific

cache is located it suffices to view the satellite view just showing this single cache.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

There's also the question of how long these other services will be free. They aren't selling any advertising on the GS pages. I'm certain that Google knows it has competitors, and I expect they priced their service to undercut anyone else who is charging enough to make a living. And with Google charging for map loads, the other services will be hit with all the freeloaders like GS dumping Google for the next free service in line. How long before GS has to change again anyway, running away from paying for services? My guess is that within a year or two, there won't be any free service for this purpose which even comes close to being acceptable. GS has gone to all this work only to postpone the inevitable. Servers and bandwidth cost a lot of money, and someone pays for them or they go dark.

 

I think Edward is spot-on here. The popularity of location-based utilities (like the geocaching website) and mobile apps (tablets and smart phones) is really, really bad news for us all. A few years ago you could run a free tile server and maybe get a few hundred, or a few thousand hits per hour. Now you have millions of people using androids and iPhones as their car GPS... Lay users just don't understand the gravity of the problem. Not even google can afford to provide the scale required for millions of tile server hits per second for free. The CPU and bandwidth costs to serve up tiles at this volume are simply staggering. One by one, every free map service has been utterly crushed into non-existence by user demand. Our appetite far outstrips our ability, or willingness to pay... The free tile server model started to crumble about two years ago, when a few regional/niche tile servers had to send out cease-and-desist letters to mapping software authors like mobac and Locus. Since then the closures of free services has come like an exponential tidal wave. More and more previously free map services have had to go to an API Key model to stem the tide. Once one goes away, then all those thousands, or millions, of users simply migrate to the next free tile server they can find, until we crush that one, which then has to stop providing free tiles too. The tidal wave has become so large that not even google can take it any more. Map tiles have become the crack cocaine of a mobile society.

 

As for performance, this is another place where the free model is breaking down... Tile server operators do not want you to cache (temporarily store) tiles locally, and their ToS will usually prohibit this. I think that is the problem we are having, and will continue to have with the aerial images on the geocaching website. Caching of just-viewed tiles is probably prohibited and thus, every time you zoom in and out, or pan your map, you are reloading a fresh set of tiles even if you just had that tile loaded seconds ago. Again, this is the way of the future, no free tile server can afford to allow local caching of tiles any more.

 

Again, I don't think we really understand the size of the problem. It isn't JUST geocachers, it's millions of us worldwide, roving from free server to free server like a band of marauders. The "everything free all the time" model is not sustainable. It never was.

Edited by Sky King 36
Link to comment

There's also the question of how long these other services will be free. They aren't selling any advertising on the GS pages. I'm certain that Google knows it has competitors, and I expect they priced their service to undercut anyone else who is charging enough to make a living. And with Google charging for map loads, the other services will be hit with all the freeloaders like GS dumping Google for the next free service in line. How long before GS has to change again anyway, running away from paying for services? My guess is that within a year or two, there won't be any free service for this purpose which even comes close to being acceptable. GS has gone to all this work only to postpone the inevitable. Servers and bandwidth cost a lot of money, and someone pays for them or they go dark.

 

I think Edward is spot-on here....

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst all this angst and all this blaming Groundspeak for a problem they didn't cause. Thank you, paleolith and Sky King 36!

 

--Larry

Link to comment

My biggest beef w the new maps is that sat/topo maps. I know a lot of people use it to distinguish landmarks around the area near caches or to place caches. I use google maps for zeroing in gz as close as I can when I place caches. The topo map looks like my 5 yr old drew it in pre-school. Tons of cacher use topo when planning out a cache run locally or on trips and the current map is appalling. Not sure how many cachers use landmarks but I know many in my area find them very useful when caching and the new mapquest aerial is blurry at best. Definitely not a fan of any of the new maps especially the topo and sat maps. Use those gajillions of dollars you make off the members and work a deal out w your next door neighbor to get us better maps back!

Link to comment

There's also the question of how long these other services will be free. They aren't selling any advertising on the GS pages. I'm certain that Google knows it has competitors, and I expect they priced their service to undercut anyone else who is charging enough to make a living. And with Google charging for map loads, the other services will be hit with all the freeloaders like GS dumping Google for the next free service in line. How long before GS has to change again anyway, running away from paying for services? My guess is that within a year or two, there won't be any free service for this purpose which even comes close to being acceptable. GS has gone to all this work only to postpone the inevitable. Servers and bandwidth cost a lot of money, and someone pays for them or they go dark.

 

I think Edward is spot-on here....

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst all this angst and all this blaming Groundspeak for a problem they didn't cause. Thank you, paleolith and Sky King 36!

 

--Larry

 

:lol:

Edited by ray461
Link to comment

My biggest beef w the new maps is that sat/topo maps. I know a lot of people use it to distinguish landmarks around the area near caches or to place caches. I use google maps for zeroing in gz as close as I can when I place caches.

 

They and you can still do that at the moment. Those who complain that they can't are just not aware of what the gc.com offers them and that there is a map link on each cache page and that moreover google maps can also be used outside of gc.com.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

My biggest beef w the new maps is that sat/topo maps. I know a lot of people use it to distinguish landmarks around the area near caches or to place caches. I use google maps for zeroing in gz as close as I can when I place caches. The topo map looks like my 5 yr old drew it in pre-school. Tons of cacher use topo when planning out a cache run locally or on trips and the current map is appalling. Not sure how many cachers use landmarks but I know many in my area find them very useful when caching and the new mapquest aerial is blurry at best. Definitely not a fan of any of the new maps especially the topo and sat maps. Use those gajillions of dollars you make off the members and work a deal out w your next door neighbor to get us better maps back!

 

I've never seen a topo map that didn't look just like the current topo maps.

Link to comment

I've complained about the beta maps for a year until I got banned from the voting forums. Let's see if I can express myself in these forums.

 

Groundspeak has now replaced the lousy beta maps with something even worse. These maps are SOOOOOOOOOO slow to be almost unusable. And satellite views without street names - come on. Can't click on caches with iPad. Can no longer use back door to get to the original maps for pocket queries.

 

But at least I can go to various geocaching.com pages and get linked to twitter, facebook, digg, buzz, del.icio.us, reddit, stumbleon, flickr, youtube and my email server. It's really hard to cache with the new Groundspeak pages, but I'm socially connected all over the freakin place. Makes you wonder what Groundspeak priorities are. Wish it was geocaching.

Link to comment

Caching with online maps is CHEATING! You are supposed to use a GPSr, not use a bird eye view from Google.

 

Back in the old days we'd have to print out every page and decript the hints BY HAND! Most of the GPSr units back then didnt even have maps. You're all spoiled! :mad: :mad: :mad::rolleyes::P

 

If you remember, Google Maps themselves didn't even exist until 2005. We did actually have 3rd party Buxley's Geocaching maps, but TPTB squashed that like a little bug. :ph34r:

 

And incidently, I just got my first mapping handheld GPS 2 months ago. :lol:

Link to comment

Caching with online maps is CHEATING! You are supposed to use a GPSr, not use a bird eye view from Google.

 

Back in the old days we'd have to print out every page and decript the hints BY HAND! Most of the GPSr units back then didnt even have maps. You're all spoiled! :mad: :mad: :mad::rolleyes::P

 

If you remember, Google Maps themselves didn't even exist until 2005. We did actually have 3rd party Buxley's Geocaching maps, but TPTB squashed that like a little bug. :ph34r:

 

And incidently, I just got my first mapping handheld GPS 2 months ago. :lol:

I say we give them all a copy of FM 3-25.26, a paper map, and compass. Make them find the right coords that way. ;)

Link to comment

My biggest beef w the new maps is that sat/topo maps. I know a lot of people use it to distinguish landmarks around the area near caches or to place caches. I use google maps for zeroing in gz as close as I can when I place caches.

 

They and you can still do that at the moment. Those who complain that they can't are just not aware of what the gc.com offers them and that there is a map link on each cache page and that moreover google maps can also be used outside of gc.com.

 

 

Cezanne

 

It's a convenience thing for most of us. Yes technically there are ways to get the data on Google. I firmly expect to see the embedded Google maps on the cache pages disappear within months so I'm not really paying attention to that. They already started that process with the update before last that "leaflet" map up top. Yes for viewing one at a time you can use the "View on Google Maps" linky and that will be fine and dandy for most people looking at one cache. People trying to plan out an outing by, say, checking for a cluster of caches on one side of a river or mountain to bookmark are not going to find one at a time click back and forth very helpful.

 

Me? I've got Birdseye on my GPS and a GSAK database with the closest 30,000 caches on it. I'll just use my GPS screen for "Google" Satellite view since it's the same provider anyway.

My comments about lack of satellite view around here isn't a condemnation of Groundspeak as much as a "did you guys realize" thing. But Groundspeak is in a tight spot as Yahoo, Google, Bing all want money for their mapping products which would drive our PM costs through the roof. Still, it always hurts to take steps that seem backward when you got used to "the good life".

 

Same as if you took all the mapping GPS units away from cachers these days they would howl about how difficult it is to find a cache with just an arrow and distance ... but that's how it all started.

 

Link to comment

I'm optimistic and hopeful the new maps will work much better soon. The way they are currently, can't last long or these forums are going to go on complete overload.

 

Hopefully Groundspeak keeps us updated often!

 

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.

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.

 

Why? They did not get any money at all up to now. Why should they offer their service completely for free for such a heavy user?

I would not refer to GS as client of Google.

 

Cezanne

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.

Maybe the account rep showed the CEO how much they were getting paid for those 2 million site visits.

Link to comment

There's also the question of how long these other services will be free....

I think Edward is spot-on here....

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst all this angst and all this blaming Groundspeak for a problem they didn't cause. Thank you, paleolith and Sky King 36!

 

--Larry

 

:lol:

Laugh all you like.

 

Welcome to the real world.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Yes we can export caches off to Google Earth and use from there, but isn't the goal of geocaching to spend more time out caching and less time in front of the computer?

 

I don't like the new maps, in my area they're full of mistakes, and that will be BECAUSE they're open source. Anyone can update them. How is that good?

Link to comment

Honestly, I can't imagine how the change would ever affect the way I cache. It's like going to the eye doctor and doing the "which of these is clearer- 1... or 2?" thing.

 

When I'm on the ground, in the woods, with my GPS in my hand looking for caches the last thing on my mind will be the presence or lack of Google maps on this website.

 

+1

 

(And as far as the eye check thing....they are always the same :) )

Link to comment

I haven't checked other areas but I have noticed something that might make things harder for the Reviews at least the one for the Virginia Beach area. There are a couple of Military Bases in the area. On the old maps they bases were outlined so you could clearly tell where their boarders are. None of the new maps that I saw show the fence lines of areas off limits to the general public.

 

But why in the world do reviewers need to see all the existing caches around the cache to be reviewed on the map view? There are other tools for distance checking.

Viewing a single cache on google maps still works via gc.com and moreover, even if this were not the case, one could use google maps directly.

 

Cezanne

I wasn't refering to distance from other caches but rather identifying if a cache is placed inside an area that is off limits to the general public, like a military base. These new maps seem to be lacking this information and if a reviewer is using these maps and isn't aware of this they could inadvertently approve a cache that is placed inside the "fence-line" of a military base or other areas that are against the guidelines.

Link to comment

I haven't checked other areas but I have noticed something that might make things harder for the Reviews at least the one for the Virginia Beach area. There are a couple of Military Bases in the area. On the old maps they bases were outlined so you could clearly tell where their boarders are. None of the new maps that I saw show the fence lines of areas off limits to the general public.

 

But why in the world do reviewers need to see all the existing caches around the cache to be reviewed on the map view? There are other tools for distance checking.

Viewing a single cache on google maps still works via gc.com and moreover, even if this were not the case, one could use google maps directly.

 

Cezanne

I wasn't refering to distance from other caches but rather identifying if a cache is placed inside an area that is off limits to the general public, like a military base. These new maps seem to be lacking this information and if a reviewer is using these maps and isn't aware of this they could inadvertently approve a cache that is placed inside the "fence-line" of a military base or other areas that are against the guidelines.

 

Yes, I understood, but for viewing a single cache not only the reviewers, but 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.

 

So check e.g. this link

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=N+21%C2%B0+29.374+W+158%C2%B0+01.531+%28GCT41M%29+

which is obtainable directly from here

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6a7dbb3f-3b49-47a2-9eee-f11cbd457df6

by clicking on Google maps (not geocaching.com Google maps)

 

Nothing has changed.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Yes we can export caches off to Google Earth and use from there, but isn't the goal of geocaching to spend more time out caching and less time in front of the computer?

 

Just click on the Google map link directly available on each cache page. No export necessary at all.

BTW: One can easily go caching with no maps at all.

 

I don't like the new maps, in my area they're full of mistakes, and that will be BECAUSE they're open source. Anyone can update them. How is that good?

 

The default is Mapquest which is not open source at all.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

It's a convenience thing for most of us. Yes technically there are ways to get the data on Google. I firmly expect to see the embedded Google maps on the cache pages disappear within months so I'm not really paying attention to that.

 

Maybe yes, maybe no. Apparently most users seem to be too lazy to use the indivual links and are not even aware of their existence.

Personally, I would not mind at all to copy the coordinates manually into a google map interface.

 

I have never ever needed things like arial view or very precice maps for an overview of an area just to plan which caches to visit.

If I need things like satellite view, I only need them for a single cache.

 

Personally, I think that not enough cachers would be willing to pay considerably more for getting the old status back as many of them either have other ways to map the caches or are not interested into such maps at all. (There are many PMs who are not frequent cachers any longer - they like to be able to obtain PQs, have ignore lists, but are not dependent on special maps at all).

 

People trying to plan out an outing by, say, checking for a cluster of caches on one side of a river or mountain to bookmark are not going to find one at a time click back and forth very helpful.

 

For that purpose not the very best maps are needed.

 

But Groundspeak is in a tight spot as Yahoo, Google, Bing all want money for their mapping products which would drive our PM costs through the roof.

 

It's true that in the long run all those will want to get money for what they provide.

By using the ressources in a more economical manner and by setting up a GS server with open data a workable solution in the long run could be possible.

 

It is not necessary to use the personalized maps for whatever purpose - some even want to get information on the most recent log from these maps.

So by increasing the awareness of cachers for what ends up as costly operations, the number of map views of the expensive form could be reduced to some reasonable amount.

The system as it is now is uncontrollable. It could happen that in a year from now each day the number of views rises to 5 million views or even higher and many of these views being unneeded ones that could well be avoided without really losing much, but just being a bit more considerate about map views and more knowledge about the system. Some cachers seem to be completely ignorant of the available options and seem to work only with personalized maps and nothing else.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Yes we can export caches off to Google Earth and use from there, but isn't the goal of geocaching to spend more time out caching and less time in front of the computer?

 

Just click on the Google map link directly available on each cache page. No export necessary at all.

BTW: One can easily go caching with no maps at all.

 

I don't like the new maps, in my area they're full of mistakes, and that will be BECAUSE they're open source. Anyone can update them. How is that good?

 

The default is Mapquest which is not open source at all.

 

 

Cezanne

 

Thats not how I prepare to cache. I look up the map with at ALL the caches in the area, not the individual ones, and plan out which caches I'm going to attack, in which order, and how best to find them. I've basically done all of the caches within a 100km zone of me, so when I'm going caching, I have to plan to get as good an experience as I can. If its a numbers run, I plan out the route I'm going to take. If its a multi, I look at a birds eye view to see likely trails that could be used, landmarks etc. If its a long hike, I have a look for the best possible route. But I do it all on the one map.

 

As I've said several times now. I will gladly pay more money on top of the Premium Membership I already have, just to have the maps stay as they are. They suit my style of caching.

Link to comment

Thats not how I prepare to cache. I look up the map with at ALL the caches in the area, not the individual ones, and plan out which caches I'm going to attack, in which order, and how best to find them. I've basically done all of the caches within a 100km zone of me, so when I'm going caching, I have to plan to get as good an experience as I can.

That's how I used to plan over a year ago. But as I started prepping for more specialized trips (going after date placed, D/T levels, number runs etc) I found that took too much time. Now I run a PQ of the area I am traveling to, load it in GSAK, filter whatever caches I want in or out, then post those results on Google Earth. It's much faster than doing it on the site and has the sat view over the street map. Then I can just use the GSAK usort feature to create my route and just load and print those caches.

 

Maybe GS will look into the cost of PM adding google maps back. I wouldn't be interested unless it was under $10 a year.

Link to comment
IMO we should not have to copy and paste coords into google maps to get better map detail, etc.

Why are you copying and pasting? There is a link on every cache page that opens that one cache in Google Maps. One click. Ta-da!

Wow. I never saw that link before. Thanks for pointing that out.

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.

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.

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.

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. Groundspeak could increase the cost of new memberships I guess or perhaps provide a new tier but I'm not sure enough people would pay enough money to make it work. Most people who have been caching for awhile have mapping software on their computer or remember how to use Google Earth.

Link to comment

...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...

 

A lot of people say that they are willing to pay a higher premium membership fee for Google Maps to be the default map. But I wonder exactly how much more premium membership would have to be to cover the added fee for Google Maps. 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 $20,000 a day. That comes to about $7,300,000 in a year. Unfortunately, I don't know how many Premium Members there are but the main page shows that there are about 5 million geocaches worldwide. Assuming that each geocacher was willing to pay "their share" of the Google Maps fee it would come out to roughly $1.50 per geocacher per year. I am sure there are far fewer Premium Members which would cause this amount to be much higher.

 

Some people will say that a couple more dollars is worth is and other will not.

 

I hope I did that math correctly.

 

Edited to fix mistakes in my math. Thanks CanadianRockies.

Edited by Glenn
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.

Link to comment

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

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...