Jump to content

New Maps - HORRID!


Recommended Posts

I spend an hour on OpenStreets Map in my area last night updating roads, removing roads that are gone, moving some to trails, adding rivers, and trails.

 

It was kind of fun. (does that mean I am off my rocker?)

Not at all! I've had a great time improving the map in my area for over a year. Whenever I'm caching in an area where the trails either haven't been mapped, or are poorly mapped, I always add/edit them. Others in the area have started to do so as well, and the area is getting pretty well-mapped now.

Just make sure you don't map those little geo-trails leading to puzzle finals or multi stages! :laughing:

Link to comment

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

They are still available

e.g. google maps

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

or bing

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

or whatever you might wish.

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

Cezanne

In reply to JROgden during your planning you can read the cache pages. The cache page states quite clearly that a kayak or canoe is the preferred method of access.

Link to comment

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!

Link to comment

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 do not think that they will remove the links to the maps as the links directly link to the map sites and do not involve gc.com (that's a difference to gc.com calling the maps from their site). I am not talking about the small map on the bottom which is shown on each cache page. It makes sense to remove these maps anyway at least when they are shown by default without being requested.

 

But even in case they should remove the link - you can easily copy the coordinates into a google maps window yourself and obtain the same result.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I spend an hour on OpenStreets Map in my area last night updating roads, removing roads that are gone, moving some to trails, adding rivers, and trails.

 

It was kind of fun. (does that mean I am off my rocker?)

 

Yes it is fun but at the same time if you fill in all the map details you hardly need that map detail any more.

The problem comes when you want to go caching and don't want filling in the map detail to become a prerequisite, or if you are caching outside your immediate area.

 

The end of the day the "Geocaching.com Maps Beta" has less value to me now but it's hardly the end of the world. I know how to get the data I want to see on the map product I want to use.

The Geocaching.com API + GSAK are a handy combo, and I figure this change may just provoke a bit more app developers out there to McGuyver some method of using the Google Maps API and the Geocaching.com API to show us the info without using Groundspeak's domain to make the mapping API call. Who knows, a year from now we may see this all as a positive change.

 

Link to comment

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 do not think that they will remove the links to the maps as the links directly link to the map sites and do not involve gc.com (that's a difference to gc.com calling the maps from their site). I am not talking about the small map on the bottom which is shown on each cache page. It makes sense to remove these maps anyway at least when they are shown by default without being requested.

 

But even in case they should remove the link - you can easily copy the coordinates into a google maps window yourself and obtain the same result.

 

Cezanne

 

Ah, now you're expecting intelligence from the customer base. I'm remembering back to when they first added the dynamic Google map on the cache pages, and the outcry that people couldn't figure out to click somewhere else before scrolling .....

 

 

Link to comment

Hi GC's

 

Very disappointed on signing in today :( after reading the above posts has certainly dampened my interest , i don't think i will be renewing my premium membership when it runs out , unless the maps improve, shame as i was really getting into it.

 

BAFKGB

 

Yep, I might go the same route, but my membership just renewed, so I'm here for another year unless the mapping improves

Link to comment

I am completely baffled how I ever found a cache when I had no maps on the gps and the maps on the site were extremely primitive. I even managed to plan caching trips to Florida and California. You can still create pocket queries and open them in Google Earth. There are maps you can install on your computer. You can use GSAK or other third party programs. You can even request the Google Map API and devise your own solution. And by the way if everyone spent a bit of time fixing the maps in their local area, the maps of the areas you want to visit would be more useful. The solutions I don't think will happen is to stop offering free access, offering maps as a premium service, or raising the cost to everyone, but hey I've been wrong before.

Link to comment

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

 

Groundspeak - You need your own mapping satellite. Period.

 

I am a paying customer and I would be willing to accept an increase of five dollars to my Premium Membership -annually- if that's what it takes to make this happen.

 

I am also willing to help Groundspeak offset the cost of building and launching this satellite by volunteering my time to the Research & Development team. Just this afternoon I began working on a propulsion system with a form of propellant made from Diet Coke and Mentos mixed inside the bottle. I can also snap some pretty sweet aerials with my digital camera duct taped to my cousin's kite. I mean, I know it hasn't been perfected yet and I'm still beta testing, but I don't see anybody else coming up with anything. And seriously, it only has to work once.

Link to comment

I am completely baffled how I ever found a cache when I had no maps on the gps and the maps on the site were extremely primitive. I even managed to plan caching trips to Florida and California. You can still create pocket queries and open them in Google Earth. There are maps you can install on your computer. You can use GSAK or other third party programs. You can even request the Google Map API and devise your own solution. And by the way if everyone spent a bit of time fixing the maps in their local area, the maps of the areas you want to visit would be more useful. The solutions I don't think will happen is to stop offering free access, offering maps as a premium service, or raising the cost to everyone, but hey I've been wrong before.

 

That's like changing your own oil, some don't mind but some would rather pay for the convenience of having it done for them.

 

I used satellite view a lot and miss it, I can't use GSAK as I'm on a Mac and sure I can can open up Google Earth and view the caches there but are extra steps I'd rather not do and would pay to not have to do.

 

The other big problem is that although the maps do load on an iPad you can not click/tap a cache and bring up the info thus they are totally useless.

Link to comment

I like (even prefer) OSM, so the change isn't massive for normal maps...

 

However... Now there's no satellite imagery in the UK at all now ? That really sucks :sad:

 

I don't normally post, but that's pretty bad. How long before it's taken off the iStore app ? :sad:

 

Rf.

Edited by Razorfishy
Link to comment

Look peoples, every single cache page has a bunch of links to various mapping websites. Notice the 3rd link. That will open the Google Map with just that one cache marked.

 

online-map-links.png

 

Those that understand how these mapping sites work, will realize that these will not go away. The beta maps were using Google's maps integrated into the geocaching.com website. That is what Google started charging for.

 

Linking directly to the Google.com website, just like any other website, continues to be free.

Link to comment

I like (even prefer) OSM, so the change isn't massive for normal maps...

 

However... Now there's no satellite imagery in the UK at all now ? That really sucks :sad:

 

 

That's not really true. What's true is that in many places you can view a group of caches on a map using Google Maps as a basemap if you're viewing a map using this page: http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx. You can still discover a group of caches in an area (more easily done now than before the last update) and view them using OSM as a base map. Then select a cache of interest on the map, and from the cache listing page view that cache using Google Satellite maps as a base map. I'll contend that when viewing a group of caches, that they're much more visible when displayed on an OSM map than with a satellite view as a base map, and that once you zoom out enough such that you can see a few dozen or more caches on the map that the satellite imagery becomes much less functional for navigation than a non-satellite view. Sure, it's nice having those pretty views of the trees, green fields, and shimmering lakes, but when viewing a few dozen or so caches on a map I will suggest that the benefits of a high res satellite map are more aesthetic than functional. However, if you're just looking at a single cache and want to identify nearby features to help identify ground zero or some sort of physical impediment that might suggest the best approach to a cache, you can still do that using the Google Maps link that is on every cache page listing.

 

Actually, there's always been a disparity in the quality of the satellite images in different places in the world. I've found caches in places where you couldn't identify a building in a field using any of the satellite imagery I could find. It's just a lot worse with the Mapquest maps, so much so, I think that I think removing the Mapquest Aeriel layer as an optional basemap on the mapping page would be a good idea. It might take awhile to find a viable replacement but at least we'd all feel the pain equitably.

 

I think it's also worth mentioning that the OSM maps have the potential of being much more current than satellite maps. Here's a quote for a Google page about the Age of Satellite imagery.

 

"Google Maps uses the same satellite data as Google Earth. Google Earth acquires the best imagery available, most of which is approximately one to three years old."

 

However, if a new road is completed today that crosses a river, anyone can go out and collect the data for the road, submitted it to OSM, and it might show up on the maps the same day.

Link to comment

A couple of thoughts; you can always go to a cache page, copy the coordinates and paste into the search frame for Google Maps.

 

Suggestion for Groundspeak; On each cache page include a link in this format;

 

This link and many others (to other maps) are already available - it just requires cachers who open their eyes.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

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

 

Groundspeak - You need your own mapping satellite. Period.

 

I am a paying customer and I would be willing to accept an increase of five dollars to my Premium Membership -annually- if that's what it takes to make this happen.

 

I am also willing to help Groundspeak offset the cost of building and launching this satellite by volunteering my time to the Research & Development team. Just this afternoon I began working on a propulsion system with a form of propellant made from Diet Coke and Mentos mixed inside the bottle. I can also snap some pretty sweet aerials with my digital camera duct taped to my cousin's kite. I mean, I know it hasn't been perfected yet and I'm still beta testing, but I don't see anybody else coming up with anything. And seriously, it only has to work once.

My favorite post EVER!

Link to comment

I thought I would just add to the angst. There are many places in the world that Google maps aren't that good either. I have traveled to many places where the satellite views are 100's of feet off. The Google road maps are also not complete in many places especially in some of the overseas sites I have been too.

 

The new maps are different than the old and will take some getting used to but with the direct links at the bottom of each page we still have the resources available that we had on Monday.

Link to comment

I spend an hour on OpenStreets Map in my area last night updating roads, removing roads that are gone, moving some to trails, adding rivers, and trails.

 

It was kind of fun. (does that mean I am off my rocker?)

Not at all! I've had a great time improving the map in my area for over a year. Whenever I'm caching in an area where the trails either haven't been mapped, or are poorly mapped, I always add/edit them. Others in the area have started to do so as well, and the area is getting pretty well-mapped now.

Just make sure you don't map those little geo-trails leading to puzzle finals or multi stages! :laughing:

The creator of OSM lives in Seattle. He has regular get togethers where you can go out as a group and work on the maps. My brother attends a fair amount of them, and I believe he headed one of the outings. They have also been working on Mercer Island to be a little showcase of what OSM can do. My brother has filled in all of the docks, talk about work! :P Here's a link to Mercer Island: OSM Mercer Island.

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

Amid all the fuss, I went and looked at the maps near my place. Found some minor errors in a nearby regional park, so I went in and fixed them.

I went and looked at the maps near my place, too. There's a nonexistent road in my backyard. I haven't looked into how I fix it because I'm more worried about how it got there to begin with.
Link to comment

Amid all the fuss, I went and looked at the maps near my place. Found some minor errors in a nearby regional park, so I went in and fixed them. Then I added a couple of trails from GPS tracklogs I had kept.

 

It's awesome.

 

I love the new maps!

 

"The maps are great near my place" does not mean "The maps are great where you are".

Seriously this is a worldwide site and one should not assume the technology available in California USA represents the worldwide standard. For example I had to wait two years for the iPhone to launch here after Steve Jobs held it up on a stage in California. Google Map maker came here something like two years after it launched in the USA as well. Mapquest's satellite maps are abysmal here, and will likely be for some time. OSM maps are fortunately good here due to the injection of government maps (another thing that came years after the USA released their Tiger Maps).

 

As much as people are getting sick of hearing about how bad the new maps are, I'm getting sick of this logic that implies if it works for one person that's good enough.

Link to comment

What I hate the most (which was also true of the "Beta" maps) is that I can't ask for a numbered list of the caches shown. This is an extremely important function when planning a day's outing! I also often used satellite maps to find park entrances, parking areas, and other features that don't show on street maps. This is a real step backward!

Link to comment

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

Sure you do, you get a say with your $$$. If you don't like the new burger king fries, go to mcdonalds.

 

GS likes to work under the assumption that they are a monopoly.

 

All it will take is to lose about 1.7% of their current paying customers (1,700 of 100,000) to lose what they are saving by not paying google for the map api.

 

It is pretty sad when a company wants to pinch pennies to that level and doesn't believe it will have a negative effect on their bottom line.

Link to comment

What I hate the most (which was also true of the "Beta" maps) is that I can't ask for a numbered list of the caches shown. This is an extremely important function when planning a day's outing! I also often used satellite maps to find park entrances, parking areas, and other features that don't show on street maps. This is a real step backward!

Link to comment

FYI, straight from google:

 

3. How much does Premier cost?

Annual licenses start at $10,000 and include:

- For Public-facing websites or customer-facing extranets: 1 million map page views per year

 

A map page view is defined as a single load of the Google Maps JavaScript by your users' browsers. Page views are different from transactions, in that only the initial load is counted, subsequent activity such as pans/zooms or view changes do not incur extra page views. In the transactions model used in other solutions, transactions are billed for all activity on a map (pan/zooms and view changes). Therefore, on average a single page view equals about 4-5 transactions.

Link to comment

Think of it kinda like the Canadian healthcare system were you don't get a choice of when or even weather or not they will fund a life saving procedure for you. Where it's all based on if the government thinks that you'll be a productive enough member of society to justify the cost of saving your life.

 

i'll take it any day over the American healthcare system where you're pretty much as good as dead if you got no insurance.....ooh but wait this thread is not about the healthcare system, darn :rolleyes:

Link to comment

FYI, straight from google:

 

3. How much does Premier cost?

Annual licenses start at $10,000 and include:

- For Public-facing websites or customer-facing extranets: 1 million map page views per year

That really doesn't tell us much. We've already been told that the site is generating 2,000,000 hits per day. That's 730,000,000 hits per year. Since we don't know what the cost-structure is like within the Premier package, and they obviously would need something far beyond the lowest level, there's no way to know how much it would cost. It would be FAR higher than $10,000, that's for sure.

Link to comment

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

Sure you do, you get a say with your $$. If you don't like the new burger king fries, go to mcdonalds.

 

GS likes to work under the assumption that they are a monopoly.

 

All it will take is to lose about 1.7% of their current paying customers (1,700 of 100,000) to lose what they are saving by not paying google for the map api.

 

It is pretty sad when a company wants to pinch pennies to that level and doesn't believe it will have a negative effect on their bottom line.

 

I'm not always a huge fan of the changes that Groundspeak makes, but I have to say that I suspect there were many meetings and much in-depth investigation before deciding to commit to a change like this. It took time and money to make the change, and I'm sure they knew that many would revolt to such a change. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. We can do the math all day long, but all we are doing is guessing at the numbers. They didn't do this just to be mean to us, you know.

Link to comment

I have a major difficulty with the new maps. THERE IS NO SCALE. I cannot tell how far apart caches are anymore. We travel lots for caching and I am used to planning nice caching walks-all of a sudden that has become very difficult. Please, Groundspeak, give us back a scale.

 

+1.

 

And allow us to select the default map (I prefer the OSM of MQ).

Link to comment

Amid all the fuss, I went and looked at the maps near my place. Found some minor errors in a nearby regional park, so I went in and fixed them.

I went and looked at the maps near my place, too. There's a nonexistent road in my backyard. I haven't looked into how I fix it because I'm more worried about how it got there to begin with.

Oh, you didn't get the letter from the county? Seems to me that Arthur Dent had the same problem.

Link to comment

Amid all the fuss, I went and looked at the maps near my place. Found some minor errors in a nearby regional park, so I went in and fixed them. Then I added a couple of trails from GPS tracklogs I had kept.

As much as people are getting sick of hearing about how bad the new maps are, I'm getting sick of this logic that implies if it works for one person that's good enough.

 

You misunderstood me. The maps near my place are not particularly great; but the fact that I could correct errors is what makes them awesome.

 

Also, the implication that my post expressing my opinion about the maps meant that I was saying they are "good enough" for everyone is, well, faulty logic. Ironic.

Link to comment

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

Sure you do, you get a say with your $$$. If you don't like the new burger king fries, go to mcdonalds.

 

GS likes to work under the assumption that they are a monopoly.

 

All it will take is to lose about 1.7% of their current paying customers (1,700 of 100,000) to lose what they are saving by not paying google for the map api.

 

It is pretty sad when a company wants to pinch pennies to that level and doesn't believe it will have a negative effect on their bottom line.

 

I don't know if GS works under the assumption that they are a monopoly, but they pretty much are. You think that they decided to throw hundreds, if not thousands of man-hours of work in the trash can to save a couple pennies? I really doubt it. I'm sure they thought about the negative impacts and the reaction it would create and I'm sure if they thought they could do business with Google they would have. I'm wondering more about Google. Will they have the trucks pulling up to their loading docks loaded with cash, or will a carrier pigeon be able to carry the new found revenue?

Link to comment

I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to test drive the new maps in my well-populated, heavily-cached area.

 

...if they would actually load. Srsly - I'm in IT and know a utterly botched deployment when I see one.

 

See, there are these things called load testing and QA - GS should look into them.

Link to comment

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

Sure you do, you get a say with your $$$. If you don't like the new burger king fries, go to mcdonalds.

 

GS likes to work under the assumption that they are a monopoly.

 

All it will take is to lose about 1.7% of their current paying customers (1,700 of 100,000) to lose what they are saving by not paying google for the map api.

 

It is pretty sad when a company wants to pinch pennies to that level and doesn't believe it will have a negative effect on their bottom line.

 

By my math 1700*$30=$51000, a far cry from $3000000. And glad that you have the inside information as to how many paying customers Groundspeak has.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...