Jump to content

New Maps - HORRID!


Recommended Posts

 

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

 

 

That's just crazy. Am I to believe you'd expect someone to deny themselves all the menu items at a restaurant because one menu item, and a minor one at that, changed?

Link to comment

Ironically... google premier pricing applies to web sites that charge for access. Think about that... people have been proposing that Groundspeak only provide google maps for premium members. In actuality, the opposite is true. That is, GS could offer google maps to basic members and force only its premium members to suffer through the new maps.

 

Sooooo, here's a thought, let's name it the "Sky King Maneuver" in case it takes off, so that I can get credit for it... (A take-off on Star Trek's "corbamite maneuver") Consider a bifurcated web server. When you log in to geocaching.com, we all go to the same place. Same features, same URLs... But once you click on a map link of any kind... Then we go two places:

 

Basic members go to http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?xxxxxxxx
Premium members go to http://premium.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?xxxxxxx

 

See where I am going with this? By taking the massive free traffic and separating it from the much smaller number of us that are "premies", you move a huge block of the traffic into the base google API. Only premium traffic would incur any fee structure because google does not require premier for free public access web sites.

 

Free memberships stay free, premium memberships maybe go up to $35, and we're all happy again.

Edited by Sky King 36
Link to comment

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?

 

As I see it any money that GS pays for Google Maps means that there is less money for other areas of the Geocaching website. To me the maps are a very small part of the website.

Link to comment

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?

 

As I see it any money that GS pays for Google Maps means that there is less money for other areas of the Geocaching website. To me the maps are a very small part of the website.

 

yeper

Link to comment

As I see it any money that GS pays for Google Maps means that there is less money for other areas of the Geocaching website. To me the maps are a very small part of the website.

If that were true, there wouldn't be a 6 page thread on it just a day or two after the change.

 

Ah, but that's the initial grumble period of any change. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

A tad disappointed since the map doesn't even show the road that 4 of my caches are on. Instead of driving, people are going to think that you have to walk 10 miles to get to them. And the aerial view is completely outdated. We've had logging done in the past year by us and it doesn't even show that on the aerial view! I do use topo quite a bit, so I'm happy about that!

Link to comment

See where I am going with this? By taking the massive free traffic and separating it from the much smaller number of us that are "premies", you move a huge block of the traffic into the base google API. Only premium traffic would incur any fee structure because google does not require premier for free public access web sites.

 

I do not think that the largest part of the usage of the Google maps API comes from basic members. The personalized cache map makes mainly sense for PMs as they can filter out their finds. Personally, I would not even use that map if I were able to filter. I'm neither needing PQs, nor specially prepared maps or whatever. I still cache very similarly as back in the early years and I do not have any issues with that. Most of those who suffer now belong to the group of PMs who are very dependent on the personal cache map on gc.com, do not know much about alternatives and are somehow relucant or not able (for whatever reasons) to switch over to methods of planning their trips that makes me independent of the services of gc.com except probably PQs (but actually, there are even PMs who are not bothering to deal with PQ as the maps seem easier to handle with them). What has changed definitely from the early times is that back then the vast majority of geocachers were very knowledgeable with regard to using PCs. This is not true any longer.

 

There might be some need for some tool that appeals to the less computer literate target group better than say GSAK and similar tools.

With the enormous growth rates of geocaching, it will become pretty unrealistic to expect that all services can be directly offered at gc.com even though this would be a nice thing for those who do not like to care about anything themselves.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Geocaching survived and thrived before the maps, and will continue to do so now. Yea, they are a bit slow and different to use but it's not Groundspeak's fault.

 

You probably survived and thrived before the internet. Wanna go back? :unsure:

 

Here's an interesting tidbit. A 21 year old would never know a time when there wasn't an internet, and even when there wasn't the web. The other day, my 8 year old son asked me, "what's a cassette?"

Link to comment

As I see it any money that GS pays for Google Maps means that there is less money for other areas of the Geocaching website. To me the maps are a very small part of the website.

If that were true, there wouldn't be a 6 page thread on it just a day or two after the change.

 

And that's just this thread. In the Release Notes forum the thread for the latest release is up to 9 pages. Only two other release note threads have had more. One was the release note for an update last August (10 pages). That was the update that launched Challenges. The other, and current leader with 13 pages, was for the May 2011 release which included a significant change in the look and feel of the site and also included a major change in the maps functionality.

Link to comment

I have spent the last couple days updating my local town, talk about roads not being correct. It's actually alot of fun. I do not like the mapquest maps, but the OSM maps have the potentional to be amazing. As long as people continue to contribute they have massive potential.

 

As far as all these people complaining, these maps aren't going anywhere, geocaching isn't going anywhere. Learn to adapt, that is if you want to continue to cache. Imagine what it must have been like when caching first started, they didn't have these fancy-dancy maps anyways.

Link to comment

Geocaching survived and thrived before the maps, and will continue to do so now. Yea, they are a bit slow and different to use but it's not Groundspeak's fault.

 

You probably survived and thrived before the internet. Wanna go back? :unsure:

 

Here's an interesting tidbit. A 21 year old would never know a time when there wasn't an internet, and even when there wasn't the web. The other day, my 8 year old son asked me, "what's a cassette?"

 

Reminds me of an episode of "Arthur", where the teacher is discussing Thomas Edison. He says Edison invented the phonograph. When asked what a phonograph was, the teacher responded that it was a disk of plastic with grooves in it, and when you run a needle over it, it produces sound. Binky Barnes (class bully) then says "You're making that up!"

 

Very funny.

Link to comment

I do not think that the largest part of the usage of the Google maps API comes from basic members.

 

I agree with some of your points, but not sure about this one. As PMs we have access to some serious tool firepower that makes us less reliant on the map API. The tools I use that reduce my reliance on the GC maps, are PQs, and NeonGeo. Basic members don't have access to PQs and their use of any mobile tool, like NeonGeo, is quite limited.

 

Originally I was a GSAK-centric cacher, my geocaching revolved around PQs imported into GSAK. More recently I have become a very NeonGeo-centric cacher. I was still using the GC map view as my primary "day planning" tool, but for now it is unusable for me so I have become a heavy user of the GSAK google maps plugin again.

 

 

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:

I've know no one that was denied lifesaving care in the US. Just like I know no one that is being prevented from using Google Maps. In Canada your pretty much screwed because there are no other options (than to go to another country the like US and pay for it there). In the US there are other insurance companies and there is also the option of going in to debt if need be but you don't have to seek healthcare outside the US. On the Internet there is plenty of other map servers, there is third party software, and there are other geocaching websites. There are options. Just because Geocaching.com decided to reduce their use of Google Map doesn't mean you have to too.

Link to comment

I do not think that the largest part of the usage of the Google maps API comes from basic members.

I agree with some of your points, but not sure about this one. As PMs we have access to some serious tool firepower that makes us less reliant on the map API. The tools I use that reduce my reliance on the GC maps, are PQs, and NeonGeo. Basic members don't have access to PQs and their use of any mobile tool, like NeonGeo, is quite limited.

 

Note that I was referring just to the personalized cache maps, not the maps reachable by clicking a link from each cache page (these views do not create costs).

 

What I meant was this: In a cache dense area the personalized geocaching maps are not helpful at all if one cannot filter out caches that has one already found.

This turns the personalized cache maps just into a collection of colourful dots. In my area I would not even get the idea to use this map for my caching.

 

In a simplified world, I divide basic members into three groups as follows

 

(1) basic members that cache only very irregularly. They do not create much traffic.

 

(2) basic members who cache in the style of the old days (with printouts of selected caches, typing in coordinates manually into the GPSr) etc. These group has no need for PQs, mass mapping tools, and other geocaching tools. For example, in my own planning I just select one or two caches I want to visit and use then nearest unfound and that's it.

 

(3) basic members who are caching a lot and want to make use of modern planning tools like GSAK and others. Most of them are knowledgeable enough to find their own way to obtain what they need. I know that several from this group have built up their own cache data bases and mapping tools.

 

The remaining ones typically become PM after a short time of being basic members.

 

Of course, not everyone fits into this picture, but it roughly describes the situation from a macroscopic point of view.

 

I am aware of the fact that PMs in theory have available more freedom with respect to which tools they could use outside of gc.com, but I think that the subgroup of PMs that are not very knowledgeable about computers in general and about using diverse tools for geocaching is the main group that suffers from the current situation.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
In a simplified world, I divide basic members into three groups as follows

 

I do agree that it is best to think of cachers in "strata" and not as one big bunch of homogeneous users (OBBOHU?) I tend to think of cachers falling into one of six categories:

 

Occasional Urban

Occasional Hybrid

Occasional Wilderness

 

Fanatic Urban

Fanatic Hybrid

Fanatic Wilderness

 

No one set of tools, no one style of cache, no one kind of map, no one kind of GPS will probably appeal to all of these. I get so tired of how judgmental people get about the ways in which others enjoy caching. How many thousands of "why in the **** would you ever need that?" posts have there been in these and the feedback forums. I am so disappointed with how many times someone says "I could really use a tool that does X" and the response they get is simply a watered-down form of "I don't understand why you'd need that, there must be something wrong with you." If you are an occasional urban cacher, then almost nothing I do--the way I use GSAK, the way I use PQs, the way I use maps online--none of it will make any sense to you at all. We could just as well be on different planets.

 

And maybe therein lies the very core of the problems so many of us avid cachers have had with updates over the past few years. I feel like every time I use any Groundspeak product--whether it's their app or the website--I end up thinking to myself, "these guys just don't understand me. They don't understand how I cache, how I use information, how I plan, how I log... they just don't get ME." I have said this before, I feel like the website is designed by people who are familiar with caching, not by people who are avid cachers.

Edited by Sky King 36
Link to comment
No one set of tools, no one style of cache, no one kind of map, no one kind of GPS will probably appeal to all of these. I get so tired of how judgmental people get about the ways in which others enjoy caching. How many thousands of "why in the **** would you ever need that?" posts have there been in these and the feedback forums. I am so disappointed with how many times someone says "I could really use a tool that does X" and the response they get is simply a watered-down form of "I don't understand why you'd need that, there must be something wrong with you."

This. You've managed to say what I've been feeling and trying to figure out how to say for so long this past year :lol:

This is the forum. This is why I know many people who have willingly and forcefully pulled themselves out of the forums - it's too much drama. It's unavoidable. *sigh*

anyway...

Link to comment

Geocaching survived and thrived before the maps, and will continue to do so now. Yea, they are a bit slow and different to use but it's not Groundspeak's fault.

 

You probably survived and thrived before the internet. Wanna go back? :unsure:

 

Here's an interesting tidbit. A 21 year old would never know a time when there wasn't an internet, and even when there wasn't the web. The other day, my 8 year old son asked me, "what's a cassette?"

Man that is some really modern technology. Does he know what a 8-track is? or a 45 rpm record?

Link to comment

Again, a huge Geocaching.com fan! So much fun, but... The cost for the GOOGLE map service has been quoted at approx. 3 million a year. What has not been quoted is the profit Groundspeak receives and the fact that much of the profit comes from the efforts of volunteers. I will probably be doing a GOOGLE EARTH routine, that being transposing the Coordinates from one format to another, and viewing the cache locale with great detail. I came aboard the "premium train" after a very short iniation period. With all the problems and low quality of ALL forms of the new mapping options, I can see people not getting hooked and moving on to other outdoor excersizes...

 

Hopefully I am jsut over reacting and as soon as the kinks are worked out, the maps will load in less than 10 minutes, and i can spend more timw out caching than trying to get a viaual idea of wher in the world the cache is...

Link to comment

Again, a huge Geocaching.com fan! So much fun, but... The cost for the GOOGLE map service has been quoted at approx. 3 million a year. What has not been quoted is the profit Groundspeak receives and the fact that much of the profit comes from the efforts of volunteers. I will probably be doing a GOOGLE EARTH routine, that being transposing the Coordinates from one format to another, and viewing the cache locale with great detail. I came aboard the "premium train" after a very short iniation period. With all the problems and low quality of ALL forms of the new mapping options, I can see people not getting hooked and moving on to other outdoor excersizes...

 

Hopefully I am jsut over reacting and as soon as the kinks are worked out, the maps will load in less than 10 minutes, and i can spend more timw out caching than trying to get a viaual idea of wher in the world the cache is...

So if your going to do it a cache at a time why don't you just click the google map link to the left of the lower map on the cache page? Seems simpler to me than the Google Earth thing. And if your determined to use Google Earth, why are you going to all the work of transposing coordinates? The coordinates listed on the cache page work just fine in Google Earth.

Link to comment

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?

Not to derail the thread, but I want to briefly state that in addition to deciding to charge for the maps, Google is also pulling Google Labs. And we all know about the recent change in their privacy policy. I don't know what is driving it, but there seems to be a lot of change going on over there.

 

Any response to this message, though, should probably become a new thread.

Link to comment

Again, a huge Geocaching.com fan! So much fun, but... The cost for the GOOGLE map service has been quoted at approx. 3 million a year. What has not been quoted is the profit Groundspeak receives and the fact that much of the profit comes from the efforts of volunteers. I will probably be doing a GOOGLE EARTH routine, that being transposing the Coordinates from one format to another, and viewing the cache locale with great detail. I came aboard the "premium train" after a very short iniation period. With all the problems and low quality of ALL forms of the new mapping options, I can see people not getting hooked and moving on to other outdoor excersizes...

 

Hopefully I am jsut over reacting and as soon as the kinks are worked out, the maps will load in less than 10 minutes, and i can spend more timw out caching than trying to get a viaual idea of wher in the world the cache is...

So if your going to do it a cache at a time why don't you just click the google map link to the left of the lower map on the cache page? Seems simpler to me than the Google Earth thing. And if your determined to use Google Earth, why are you going to all the work of transposing coordinates? The coordinates listed on the cache page work just fine in Google Earth.

 

So how does one transfer a group of caches on to google earth maps?

I have a Mac and that GSAK stuff is Windows only.

Link to comment

No one set of tools, no one style of cache, no one kind of map, no one kind of GPS will probably appeal to all of these. I get so tired of how judgmental people get about the ways in which others enjoy caching. How many thousands of "why in the **** would you ever need that?" posts have there been in these and the feedback forums. I am so disappointed with how many times someone says "I could really use a tool that does X" and the response they get is simply a watered-down form of "I don't understand why you'd need that, there must be something wrong with you." If you are an occasional urban cacher, then almost nothing I do--the way I use GSAK, the way I use PQs, the way I use maps online--none of it will make any sense to you at all. We could just as well be on different planets.

 

 

Here here!!! My sentiments exactly.

Link to comment

Again, a huge Geocaching.com fan! So much fun, but... The cost for the GOOGLE map service has been quoted at approx. 3 million a year. What has not been quoted is the profit Groundspeak receives and the fact that much of the profit comes from the efforts of volunteers. I will probably be doing a GOOGLE EARTH routine, that being transposing the Coordinates from one format to another, and viewing the cache locale with great detail. I came aboard the "premium train" after a very short iniation period. With all the problems and low quality of ALL forms of the new mapping options, I can see people not getting hooked and moving on to other outdoor excersizes...

 

Hopefully I am jsut over reacting and as soon as the kinks are worked out, the maps will load in less than 10 minutes, and i can spend more timw out caching than trying to get a viaual idea of wher in the world the cache is...

So if your going to do it a cache at a time why don't you just click the google map link to the left of the lower map on the cache page? Seems simpler to me than the Google Earth thing. And if your determined to use Google Earth, why are you going to all the work of transposing coordinates? The coordinates listed on the cache page work just fine in Google Earth.

 

So how does one transfer a group of caches on to google earth maps?

I have a Mac and that GSAK stuff is Windows only.

 

There's a version of GPSBabel (a command line utility that does a lot of heavy lifting under GSAK) for OSX. You'd have to use the "Save as a Pocket Query" option on the maps, then when the PQ runs you'll have a GPX file that can be converted to KML and opened with Google Earth. Ideally, Groundspeak could provide a "Save as KML" option from the maps, and you could associate KML files with Google Earth and save a few steps.

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.

 

If Google had advertised this change in their terms of use for their API well in advance, I'd agree with you.

 

But when a third party up and announces, "Oh, by the way, that part of your infrastructure that you've been using for free? I'm going to start charging you hundreds of thousands of dollars for it. When? Oh, next week," you scrape together the best results you can in the time you have.

 

I may not be in IT, but I'm in the Army, and I'm quite familiar with having to completely adjust planning and execution based on the last minute decisions of others. Executing a hasty plan and then making adjustments is better than letting the mission grind to a halt.

Link to comment

 

So how does one transfer a group of caches on to google earth maps?

I have a Mac and that GSAK stuff is Windows only.

 

Create a Pocket Query, save it to your computer and import it into Google Earth. How you do that on a mac I don't know - but thats what you do

And if you don't want to burn a PQ, you can download .loc files from the search page and import these into Google Earth.

Link to comment

So how does one transfer a group of caches on to google earth maps?

I have a Mac and that GSAK stuff is Windows only.

 

Create a Pocket Query, save it to your computer and import it into Google Earth. How you do that on a mac I don't know - but thats what you do

And if you don't want to burn a PQ, you can download .loc files from the search page and import these into Google Earth.

 

Gotcha!!

 

I found MacCaching for Macs, it was able to take the LOC file and has the satellite/hybrid feature. It's a bit clunky, but these rural caches on logging roads just don't always show up IF you can get the aerial pics to load.

 

I'll try to open with Google Earth next.

Thanks for the input, it really helped!

Link to comment

I thought I'd show some pics that illustrate why I think the new maps are crap. Maybe they're great for other people doing whatever they do but, for me, they're useless at best. I fond my caches by looking at where they are on a map and working out what roads I need to drive down to get to them. If I'm lucky I might even be able to use Google streetview to have a look first so I recognise the area when I get to it.

 

First, here is a pic of the new map with the cache symbol on it. Anyone care to guess what road I should be on?

 

geomap.png

 

Now we have Google Earth with the LOC file loaded. Slightly better.

 

gearthmap.png

 

 

Now let's have a look at the Google map of the same area. Unfortunately I now have to bugger about trying to relate the location of the cache from the other two maps onto this one so I have some idea of where I'm going.

 

goomap.png

 

As I said, maybe they're great for other people, but for me they're worthless. Maybe somebody can tell me an easier way to find caches in country areas.

Link to comment

Now let's have a look at the Google map of the same area. Unfortunately I now have to bugger about trying to relate the location of the cache from the other two maps onto this one so I have some idea of where I'm going.

 

goomap.png

 

As I said, maybe they're great for other people, but for me they're worthless. Maybe somebody can tell me an easier way to find caches in country areas.

 

I guess I don't understand. Why don't you just display the cache on the Google Map? There is a link to do so on the cache page.

 

The only thing you cannot easily do any more is display ALL caches on the same Google Map. One at a time is trivial.

Link to comment

 

I guess I don't understand. Why don't you just display the cache on the Google Map? There is a link to do so on the cache page.

 

The only thing you cannot easily do any more is display ALL caches on the same Google Map. One at a time is trivial.

 

Ahhh, stupid me, I completely missed that link. (Watch as I smack myself in the head!)

 

Still, my complaint still holds because, while I can see a particular cache on Google map, I can't, as you say, see all surrounding ones and if I plan to go out and find several spread over many square kilometres I'd have to look at each one individually and then manually mark each one on one map I can print out.

 

Then again, maybe I've missed something else ....

 

 

 

Link to comment

If Google had advertised this change in their terms of use for their API well in advance, I'd agree with you.

They did, back in October, its February.

 

In computer times, thats almost an eternity.

Oct. - Google announces

Nov. - Groundspeak looks at alternatives, sends emails, negotiates license.

Dec to Jan - Groundspeak gets mapping to work.

Feb. - Users warm up the tar and pluck the chickens.

 

Looks pretty close to internet time to me.

Link to comment

Poor, poor, poor! The new maps are slow beyond belief...I actually gave up waiting for the topo map to load after 5 minutes of waiting. The aerial views are fuzzy to the point of being pretty much useless, and the new street maps are lacking detail...most notably street names. I would rather pay an increased membership fee than put up with this. When my membership comes up for renewal, I will seriously be reconsidering paying for this quality.

Link to comment

I'll give the new maps a go but anticipate I will not renew my membership, much less my Premium membership. I understand Geocaching.com's reasoning and acknowledge that the time of "free" internet products is rapidly coming to a close. But, I am not a techie and appreciated using Google maps for geocaching. Oh well, I have other hobbies I can pursue, enjoy and spend monies on.

 

I understand that the internet is now changing. Companies like Google are having to change how they do business to prove to advertisers that their monies are producing new and repeat customers. Unfortunately, I do not know how we users can effect changes in these decisions made by faceless and monolithic entities. We can't spend the time contacting advertisers who use Google about our displeasure; I doubt whether they would care even if we could. So it must be left to the slow and imperfect wheels of commerce to work this through. (It seems to me that determining whether internet adverts actually work is a difficult thing to do. But as I said, I am not a techie so it may be quite possible. Perhaps someone can educate me about this?) Therefore, I'll see whether I enjoy Geocaching anymore; perhaps I'll determine I should spend my time and money doing something else. It was fun while it lasted. Who knows, I may be pleasantly surprised that I can adapt to the changes and keep on geocaching.

Edited by CSUSGeog86
Link to comment

To me, at least, $30 isn't going to break the bank. I'll continue to support a website and a hobby that I really enjoy. Plus I like PQs.

 

I'm not going to stop supporting GS just because they changed the maps.

 

+1

 

Seriously folks, the google maps aren't gone. People keep complaining about it, over and over again in multiple threads, but the google maps are still available on every single cache page.

 

The google maps are STILL available directly from every single cache page!!

 

Sure, it only shows you the single cache you are looking at, but for most people it probably is good enough for the short term. Perhaps Groundspeak will put something in place for premium members in the future, who knows. I think it would be reasonable to have people set up a "mapping account" and pay for each view the market rate. So those who don't care, don't pay. Those who do, do.

Link to comment

Wow, I didn't even finish the first page...... I came to the forum tonight to complain about the maps and the Google Sat maps gone. But wow, I don't want to pay more for my membership either. So I will learn to use the new maps, and hope that they find some better ones soon, but stop all the complaining people! Millions a year is not worth it. Keep caching on!

Link to comment

cacheon.jpg

 

I will be - but I won't be trusting the maps to be accurate. I won't be expecting a fast loading website. And I won't be expecting maps to show full detail any more. I'll be prepared for the possibility of accidentally entering private property. I'll be prepared for 'new' roads to have been put in 10 years ago that didn't show up when I was planning my caching trip to be there when I go out..... and likewise for those that disappeared 5 years ago to not necessarily be deleted from the map.

Link to comment
I never look at those maps - they only have 1 cache on them.
I find it interesting how different people use the site differently.

 

Same here. I have rarely used the maps in any capacity, so I always feel like one of the lucky ones when these map updates occur.

 

My question is: has Groundspeak yet produced a set of maps that were embraced and considered "functional"? Almost every map update gives birth to an onslaught of threads of how the new map sucks. For those of you who are dependent on maps, you have my sympathy...but there are alternatives to the maps GS provides. Maybe it's time to start exploring those alternatives.

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...