Jump to content

[FEATURE] Let premium members have access to google maps


DanPan

Recommended Posts

I almost exclusively use satellite view to plan my caching trips and also print that map for reference. I find it annoying but not surprising that people in the USA are getting a better service even though we probably pay at least as much for the membership. All in all I believe that we ALL have been given a very poor alternative to Google maps. I would pay more for my yearly membership but I do agree that if google maps are becoming financially impractical, the free membership should be looked at. After all, only a small number of people are at the moment supporting this business financially and a large amount of people benefit from it. I imagine there would be those who'd just stop caching altogether but I am also convinced that a large number of people would pay. I became a PM after only 3 weeks because it seemed only fair to pay for a good service and support the site.

Only letting PM members have access to Google maps seems a sensible alternative. Please listen to your supporters.

Link to comment

Let premium members have access to google maps, and non-premium members can have access to the poor-mans maps.

 

I can understand the need for generating revenue to cover servers, bandwidth usage, employees, and general business expenses and the like. No problem.

 

I also understand that everyone contributes to this site, regardless of whether they are "Basic" members or "Premium" members. I assume, and probably not in error, when I say the number of "Basic" memberships far exceeds the number of "Premium" memberships by far. With this in mind, it is logical to assume that "Basic" members contribute more to this site than "Premium" members by virtue simply based on the numbers? When I say contribute, I'm inferring to the number of caches submitted, threads responded to, assistance given which (again) benefits all members. I mean isn't what this site is really about ... GeoCaching and not GeoCashing? Agreed? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

The elitist undertone I sense when "Basic" members are referred to as being "poor" or deserve nothing better than "poor-mans" maps is not conducive nor productive to growth, community or sense of "belonging" to the site as a whole. "Basic" members are members none the less. No one member is more important than the next, deserving of perks, or respect, simply based on ability to pay. We all enjoy the hobby, camaraderie and social aspects that GC.com provides us, regardless of being labeled with the title "Basic," "Premium," or simply "Member." It degrades the great collection of people who gather here routinely.

 

My intention is not to belly-ache, complain or rant. This may have been mentioned before in the forum, if so I apologize. I want to suggest that maybe the site should consider requiring everyone pay something to access the site, be "equal" or "more equal" than what it seems to be at the moment. Have everyone simply pay $10/year for example which would guarantee equal access, equal "benefits," etc. across the board and rid the site of the atmosphere of "US" and "them".

Edited by MuskokaGuy
Link to comment

So, the answer given by many on this forum is too RAISE RATES for premium and let the others use "POOR MAN MAPS"??? Is that an accurate statement of the definition of the terrible MAPQUEST maps? Now there needs to be an "OCCUPY GEOCAHE.COM"??? I am of the opinion the the cost of paying for GOOGLE is not prohibitive to the Groundspeak.com corporation. The apps that are paying Groundspeak to appear in so many spots on the website more than offsets the overhead. Garmin has found a gold mine setting on the GC home page. The issue is the corporate disregarding members, and their opinions, on major decisions concerning the geocaching.com website. That "BETA" message was not a mesaage, but rather, a smokescreen, desensitizing members while deals were being made with MAPQUEST.

 

I'm hooked, I love caching as it has been designed by the crew at Groundspeak. But, I can use GOOGLE EARTH to get trully accurate shots of the cache and co ordinates with just a small amount of configuring. Premieum membership is fun and the added extras give much to the caching experience, but the basic, "POOR MAN'S PACKAGE", if it will even exist in the future, gives basic info, enough for this "POOR MAN" to go stumbling about in the widerness. Finding alternative sites is not an option that I would entertain without more corporate grab for cash. And the gang at GROUNSPEAK are justfied in expecting a profit from their ideas and efforts. I am concerned that "profit" is a constantly moving target, as has been seen by M. Zuckerman, et al.

 

Please return GOOGLE as an option for mapping.

Link to comment

guys, why not just change the map view to OpenStreetMap. This looks similar to google maps and has much more info including trails for hiking which are updated on a regular basis my the community.

 

You can't simply shift people over to OSM, pushing the problem off on a non-profit to keep $ in your pocket! Geez!

Link to comment

And just as a side-note, if Groundspeak had initially sent an email out to Premium Members explaining the situation and asking for a vote for poorer maps or increased cost, I am sure the majority would have been in favor of increased costs.

 

I wouldn't be sure of that. I like the new maps better (the openstreetmap ones) as they have trail maps on them, and can be updated.

Link to comment

I plan on just entering the coordinates into the maps section of google, which seems to work for now if I want to see a good aerial of the caches Im looking at. Good enough for me.

 

Why not just click on the "google maps" link that is already on every single cache page? It's still there, and unlikely to be ever removed?

Link to comment

one question, I just submitted a cache and when you put in the coords and press show on map, it is google maps which is used!

 

on a side note, why cant we all sign up for our own API key and then be given an option to enter it on our profiles which then adds google maps to the list

Link to comment

[Edited by moderator]

 

How about [edited] ADAPT!

 

You would hate my Wilderness Survival Class.

 

When I tell you to please grab your GPSR and remove the batteries and throw them into this Zip-Lock bag. Now show me where we are on the Map!

What do you mean you didn't bring a Map & Compass? Now the FUN will really begin!

 

Everyone needs to Adapt to what you have on hand. [Edited]

 

Why do you need GOOGLE MAPS? Explain why only that map system can serve your purpose?

 

If you cannot Adapt, then go find something else to do.

 

Those that live by the battery with die by the battery, those that know Map & Compass shall survive long after the battery dies.

 

Sorry for being so harsh [edited]

:P

Edited by Keystone
removed forum guideline violations
Link to comment

I'm very dissapointed in the new direction. It seemed for awhile we had the option of switching over to google maps while the new map program was just in "beta" mode. But today I tried to use the maps and was so frustrated in the application that I just gave up. I was not able to even load any of the other options (MAPQUEST, AERIALS, etc.) that are now supposed to be selectable via radio buttons on the right side of the screen. The default maps seemed to change again from even a week ago. Way slow and almost unusable. [Edited by moderator to remove forum guideline violation]

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

Normally when a thread gets this long I don't bother posting. BUT, I'm hoping that with more comments, Groundspeak will see a pattern and try to come up with a workable solution.

 

Yes, I can use the new maps. Do I like them? No. They pretty much suck when it comes to loading, if they load at all. One positive for me is that the icons show up on the map on my work computer. Before, with the beta-map, they did not because of the firewalls.

 

I would be willing to buy into a tiered membership. I don't think I'd do $50/year but I'd do $40/year.

Maybe there should be a "Limited Time" Free membership of 3 months or 6 months and then ease in with a $20 for the remaining portion of the year. When you get to your One Year usage, you have to decide if you want the $20/ year Basic (which is equivalent to the Free Membership), or the $40/year Premium Membership. Basic members would get the OSM maps, Premiums get the Google Maps and the other PM add-ons.

 

I have learned a bunch of work arounds in the last three days but I really don't care for any of them. Very time consuming and I already spend too much time looking at this stuff (according to my wife). I'm still old school. I use an eTrex H and instead of printing off the cache page, I have a notebook and write down the basic info I need to get to the cache. I spent two hours today taking notes for a three hour caching trip tomorrow. Between slow load or no load maps and my work arounds, I spent a lot of time writing down a lot of information.

 

I won't ever stop geocaching because "My name is Nelomo and I'm a cacheholic" but it sure would be nice if we and Groundspeak could work something out to get Google Maps back or quickly help develop the OSM into something that is better.

 

Let's get this thing worked out. Please.

Link to comment

You know MtnMutt I agree with the gist of your argument, but you will have to forgive me that I do find your tone and supposed outrage amusing. You seem to forget that this is not an outdoor survival forum and a lot of paying premium members may do their geocaching almost exclusively in/close to cities. That is their choice, one you can mock but that will say a lot more about you, than them.

 

I have the skills that you describe, yet still use a GPSr or a smartphone with online maps to do the little caching I have the time to do. Especially for planning before I head out. And I too intensely dislike the new maps. I have no problem adapting to the new situation, I just don't see the point of adapting to map quality and loading speed that I would expect more than a decade ago. And I am immensely displeased by how Groundspeak handled this situation, mostly because a lot of premium members live outside of the US where even the slow loading outdated Mapquest maps may not be adequate to the point they are in the US. I am hoping it is a temporary solution, because this is a downgrade, not and upgrade by any stretch of the imagination.

 

This might be actually my first post in this forum and its sole purpose is to let Groundspeak know that they need to work with their paying customers to find the middle ground. By having premium members you have entered a two way street. Sure, nowhere did they promise google maps, but the customer base is dissatisfied. I understand Groundspeak is not in an easy position here but then again they must have foreseen the free google map party would come to an end, certainly for heavy users. I will not stoop to threats of not renewing my membership to force change, but it is a viable option come August. Let's see how the situation develops but while I enjoy geocaching, my life is not defined by it to any meaningful degree.

Good luck to you all.

Link to comment

Let premium members have access to google maps, and non-premium members can have access to the poor-mans maps.

 

Nice... So, instead of EVERYONE getting to enjoy the map and service, only the people who can afford it should get access to easily readable information.

 

A part of this game that makes it alluring is that it's almost free. Many cachers I know are low income and this is an alternate form of affodable entertainment. Get off your high horse.

Link to comment

Let premium members have access to google maps, and non-premium members can have access to the poor-mans maps.

 

Nice... So, instead of EVERYONE getting to enjoy the map and service, only the people who can afford it should get access to easily readable information.

 

A part of this game that makes it alluring is that it's almost free. Many cachers I know are low income and this is an alternate form of affodable entertainment. Get off your high horse.

No, give EVERYONE a high horse! And a bicycle! Why should only people who can afford them have high horses and bicycles?

Link to comment

I disagree with this entirely. A part of what makes Geocaching alluring to many people is it's affordability. It's an almost free game. As someone who is growing increasingly frustrated with the new map system (I find it buggy, laggy, and very difficult to 'see' the area of interest I'm trying to focus on), what am I supposed to do? Stop caching when I get frustrated and inable to 'lock onto' caches of interest because I can't afford the membership? THATS a GREAT way to encourage new members into the community.

 

Summary: I do NOT like the new map system, but making something that's almost unreadable as the only thing that non-subscribers can access is NOT the answer. Everyone adds to this community. By limiting the non-PM's accessibility you limit a large portion of those who help make the game what it is.

Link to comment

The new maps, Yep they suck. Does it bother me? no, not really. I don't use them all that often and can get along without them. (I am a big GSAK user) That said, I would be Ok with increasing my PM fee a few dollars for the maps back, but I would prefer to get more PQs or larger PQs instead.

 

I like the idea of a tiered membership, maybe even create two more ties. $20.00 (less perks that current) and $40.00 with more perks. For the Maps though, they should be the same across the board. I don't like the idea of "Good maps" only for PM users or even top-tier Members. It would just increase the animosity we already see too much of between PM and non-PM members.

 

I became a PM a week or so after I started caching, not because of all the perks, I had no idea what any of them really were. I became a PM because I could afford to support Groundspeak for a hobby I enjoyed.

 

-TWT

Link to comment

Agreed, as a premium member the new maps suck. I would love to have access to the old style. It never loads the caches right, and moving around on it is clumsy at best.

You don't have Google maps? Strange, I do.

 

Negative, no google. However i'm not so much upset about the maps themselves, i don't mind the openstreetmap view, however the change greatly reduced how well the caches show up on my map. They used to render just fine, now if i move my mouse half the time they don't even show up. If the cache's and map function themselves operated at the same quality level as before i'd be content adjusting to the map change itself but when function lags because of it i'm not impressed at all.

 

And i'm on a 4 month old decked out iMac so it's certainly not a hardware issue.

Edited by gtmiller87
Link to comment

Agreed, as a premium member the new maps suck. I would love to have access to the old style. It never loads the caches right, and moving around on it is clumsy at best.

You don't have Google maps? Strange, I do.

 

Negative, no google. However i'm not so much upset about the maps themselves, i don't mind the openstreetmap view, however the change greatly reduced how well the caches show up on my map. They used to render just fine, now if i move my mouse half the time they don't even show up. If the cache's and map function themselves operated at the same quality level as before i'd be content adjusting to the map change itself but when function lags because of it i'm not impressed at all.

 

And i'm on a 4 month old decked out iMac so it's certainly not a hardware issue.

Perhaps you should spend a little time poking around in the Geocaching Topics forum.

Link to comment

Agreed, as a premium member the new maps suck. I would love to have access to the old style. It never loads the caches right, and moving around on it is clumsy at best.

You don't have Google maps? Strange, I do.

 

Negative, no google. However i'm not so much upset about the maps themselves, i don't mind the openstreetmap view, however the change greatly reduced how well the caches show up on my map. They used to render just fine, now if i move my mouse half the time they don't even show up. If the cache's and map function themselves operated at the same quality level as before i'd be content adjusting to the map change itself but when function lags because of it i'm not impressed at all.

 

And i'm on a 4 month old decked out iMac so it's certainly not a hardware issue.

Perhaps you should spend a little time poking around in the Geocaching Topics forum.

Why do you keep beating around the bush in your posts? Telling people to poke around randomly does not help anyone.

I assume you are talking about the GreaseMonkey script for Firefox? If so, why don't you say so. If not, then what are you talking about?

Link to comment

I seem to be in the minority here, but I don't think that charging extra for google maps is any good. Google satellite imagery is nice, but can be accessed in geocache management software such as OpenCacheManager or (presumably) GSAK. I already have all the caches for the area in my OpenCacheManager database, so using it to plan trips instead of the geocaching.com maps is no big deal.

I would be happy with the maps if OSM was the default map and it had a scale on it. I already use OSM as the map on my garmin, and I am pretty impressed with its detail and accuracy, at least around here. Being a dude who just graduated from college and isn't making much money, I really would rather not drop any more money than necessary so that everyone else can have the beloved google maps back.

I would agree with the few previous posters who said that free membership ought to remain free; I know that for me, a lot of the fun is introducing the game to others who don't necessarily want to spend $30 on a new activity but still want to be able to participate with me.

Link to comment

I'm another premium member who will not be renewing my membership if this decrease in service (as I see it) does not get rectified. I'm unimpressed that this was not discussed or announced but presented as a fait accompli with those people who, under no obligation to, financially supported this website. When I donated my cash to the site, I did it because I liked the service it provided. I find the new maps completely unusable, since the satellite/hybrid map I consistently used will not load for me (I have a very good broadband connection and computer, so I know it's not that causing the problem), so I'm understandably no longer happy with the service. But hey ho, Geocaching.com already have my money...

 

I know I can technically still use Google Maps if I want to look up individual caches, but, um, without wanting to sound too petulant... I don't want to! I want to look at an entire satellite view of caches in my area. I don't want to be forced into the world of OpenStreetMaps. I barely have time enough in my life for going geocaching as much as I'd like--I simply don't want to become an amateur topographer, and I resent the many suggestions that I do so that I've seen made from OSM devotees to those (like me) who don't care to become part of their community. I have many hobbies and interests that I'm fairly certain hold no interest for many members of the geocaching community, which I find completely understandable. Why can't they grant me the same dispensation? I want the service I originally signed up to and paid for, it's as simple as that.

 

If anyone from Groundspeak/Geocaching.com is reading this, please bear in mind a rule of thumb used in the publishing world: For every one person who bothers to sit down and write a letter, there are usually at least 100 people in agreement yet haven't written in. I'd highly recommend that you contact all of your premium members and a ) ask their opinion of the new maps, and b ) ask if they will be renewing their membership. That may help you make some crucial decisions as to what action you take next.

Edited by Broomsticks
Link to comment

I too wish the return of Google maps. Here in New Zelaand, OSM maps are patchy and outdated.

 

However, I understand there would be a significant financial cost to Groundspeak for doing so, due to Google policy. Therefore, someone has to pay.

 

I would be willing to have a (small) rise in premium membership fees in exchange for Google maps becoming available to Premium members. That way, the people who pay for the service get the extra features - as it is with PQs, Bookmarks, API access, etc. I'm surprised thisoption has not occurred to GS (or maybe it has, and they're working on making a 2-tier map applicaiton....)

Link to comment

blimey, I stop caching for a few months over the winter, come back to the site today, and its been destroyed. what are these terrible maps! shocking decision by ground speak, yes I know Google maps are now expensive to use but.. at the very least give the Google maps to premium members. absolutely dire decision, they must know they have got this one wrong, sort it swiftly please.

Link to comment

I posted this idea on the GC.com Update thread, but perhaps it would have been better suggested here...

 

I think the new maps will likely be OK for the majority of users once the server load issues are worked out, but so far they are still painfully slow to work with.

 

If I may ask, are VR's now reviewing caches with these new maps or do their accounts still provide access to Google maps? I can't imagine their accounts would generate enough hits to push into the .35% and I would think these new maps aren't nearly as helpful and complete as the Google provided ones. If they are also using OSM, I suppose it makes Reviewer Notes on cache submissions that much more important as it pertains to land manager issues (ie. Railroad tracks or park boundaries that may not show up on these OSM tiles correctly).

 

I'm wondering also if a 3 tiered membership structure might work or was considered for the use of Google maps? There doesn't seem to be much question that their service is quite good (superior, perhaps?) to the rest of the mapping options available to the public, so perhaps leave it to the caching community to determine what level of service they'd be happy with and willing to pay for:

 

  1. Tier 1 - Premium Membership - Google map access, perhaps a few more PQ's run in one day and some extra value add options at GSP discretion: $50

  2. Tier 2 - Regular Membership - Access to PQ's x5 per day, OSM map tiling: $30

  3. Tier 3 - Basic Membership - No PQ's, OSM map tiling. This is your entry level free membership.

 

As others have mentioned, I'd also be willing to pay a premium to maintain the quality of maps that Google provides. I'm sorta surprised that some comminication to this effect wasn't asked of the general geocaching population to see if it would even be something that they might be interested in. While I don't understand fully the ramifications of Google's pricing structure with respect to how Groundspeak runs their accounting books, at face value, what I propose seems to be a sensible, viable option does it not?

$50 is way to much. Since they don't have a family plan that would be $100 a year for me and my wife.

 

Sadly because of the Google's pricing structure. $50 a year might not be enough to cover the cost of paying for the rights to use Google maps. Lets say you find 50 caches per month. I find over a 100 per month on average. For the last year I have found over 150 per month average.

 

The cost that a cacehr at 50 caches per month alone would add to the bottom line in costs to google maps, would well be over $50 a year to google alone. This would leave NO money left to pay the IT staff at Groundspeak to keep this web site operational.

 

Groundspeak doesn't set the costs for the use of google. Google does. Are they overpriced. Absolutely. figure it like this. Every single time you access google maps. It costs a penny.... now multiply that by the number of caches found in day. It adds up.

 

TGC

Link to comment

I like the idea of Tiered plans.

 

1. Premium Gold/Premium Platinum/Premium Plus... Whatever you want to call it. This plan would provide extra PQ's, as well as Google maps, with google satalite Hybrid modes as well. Charge whatever reasonable fee needed to cover the cost of paying google. Personally, I would be willing to pay up to $80 a year for this service level.

 

2. Premium Level... As it stands now. $30 a year. They don't get extra PQ's and they don't get Google maps.

 

3. Basic Membership... Exactly as it stands now... Free. No PQ's, No google Maps.

 

This would allow those who are WILLING to pay extra for google maps, do so. Still worried about costs, then have a pay as you go plan for google maps, with limited access. Similar to the way our smartphones are. I am lucky enough to have Unlimited Data with AT&T on my iPhone/iPad. Others are stuck at teh 2gb level.

 

You could do the same with google maps... A certain number of access per month. If you go over your charged more.

 

TGC

Link to comment

Let premium members have access to google maps, and non-premium members can have access to the poor-mans maps.

 

I can understand the need for generating revenue to cover servers, bandwidth usage, employees, and general business expenses and the like. No problem.

 

I also understand that everyone contributes to this site, regardless of whether they are "Basic" members or "Premium" members. I assume, and probably not in error, when I say the number of "Basic" memberships far exceeds the number of "Premium" memberships by far. With this in mind, it is logical to assume that "Basic" members contribute more to this site than "Premium" members by virtue simply based on the numbers? When I say contribute, I'm inferring to the number of caches submitted, threads responded to, assistance given which (again) benefits all members. I mean isn't what this site is really about ... GeoCaching and not GeoCashing? Agreed? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

The elitist undertone I sense when "Basic" members are referred to as being "poor" or deserve nothing better than "poor-mans" maps is not conducive nor productive to growth, community or sense of "belonging" to the site as a whole. "Basic" members are members none the less. No one member is more important than the next, deserving of perks, or respect, simply based on ability to pay. We all enjoy the hobby, camaraderie and social aspects that GC.com provides us, regardless of being labeled with the title "Basic," "Premium," or simply "Member." It degrades the great collection of people who gather here routinely.

 

My intention is not to belly-ache, complain or rant. This may have been mentioned before in the forum, if so I apologize. I want to suggest that maybe the site should consider requiring everyone pay something to access the site, be "equal" or "more equal" than what it seems to be at the moment. Have everyone simply pay $10/year for example which would guarantee equal access, equal "benefits," etc. across the board and rid the site of the atmosphere of "US" and "them".

 

While in therory, I do like your concept, because I have socialist ideals in some respects to things in life. Sadly this would not work in this case. For these reasons...

 

1. There are alot of cachers who would be unwilling to pay even the $10 a year and would stop caching completely.

 

2. Even for those willing to pay $10 a year, It would probably raise revnue currently, but it would also raise the number of users into the paid system. Increasing demand probably guessing here, but by at least 10 fold on the servers alone for the PQ system. It would also increase the useage of google maps as well, if google maps were to be included. Even by collecting 10 bucks a year. The amount of revenue generated WOULD NOT cover the cost of google maps. Every single access to google maps would cost Groundspeak a penny. Now think of how many caches are found by every single user every single month. I find at least 150 caches per month on average. I have published at the time of this post about 335 caches, which are found on average a total of 285 times per month. Figure that it can take 2 to 3 access of the maps per cache find. Your looking at my caches only generating about $10 a month to google alone. Yes google costs that much!

 

Unless the current 3rd party maps get better & can compete with google/bing. We are sadly going to be stuck without google or bing.

 

No one has mentioned or suggested Groundspeak/geocaching.com pick up bing. I haven't been able to find any pricing structure for bing. Maybe they are more afordable? Their maps are still quite good, and their satalite maps/hybrid are quite good as well.

 

I for one would be willing to pay up to $80 a year to be able to have access to either google &/or bing maps. To those who don't want to pay extra to have google/bing. Then don't, & don't get it google/bing maps.

 

For thsoe who think they will be able to get google/bing maps for NO added cost, or extra fees, & get it for free.... Give up... It ain't gonna happen. Google isn't going to give away their access to the maps API for free.

 

TGC

Edited by texasgrillchef
Link to comment

I like the idea of Tiered plans.

 

1. Premium Gold/Premium Platinum/Premium Plus... Whatever you want to call it. This plan would provide extra PQ's, as well as Google maps, with google satalite Hybrid modes as well. Charge whatever reasonable fee needed to cover the cost of paying google. Personally, I would be willing to pay up to $80 a year for this service level.

 

2. Premium Level... As it stands now. $30 a year. They don't get extra PQ's and they don't get Google maps.

 

3. Basic Membership... Exactly as it stands now... Free. No PQ's, No google Maps.

 

This would allow those who are WILLING to pay extra for google maps, do so. Still worried about costs, then have a pay as you go plan for google maps, with limited access. Similar to the way our smartphones are. I am lucky enough to have Unlimited Data with AT&T on my iPhone/iPad. Others are stuck at teh 2gb level.

 

You could do the same with google maps... A certain number of access per month. If you go over your charged more.

 

TGC

 

Agreed. I still wonder if this sort of structure was (or perhaps, is currently being) discussed as an option.

 

To me, the move to OSM seems to be a band-aid solution to avoid an increase in cost to the existing Premium Member. This "tiered" membership structure I suggested a while back allows for the flexibility of all interested parties to select that which works best for their perceived caching needs at a price that works for their budgets while also addressing the Google surcharge.

Link to comment

Here is one work arounds that I use. I agree they are not ideal. But they do work/help.

 

Workaround: requires the user have GSAK 8.0, iGeoKnife & an iphone &/or iPad.

 

1. I have a GSAK db of all the caches I have NOT found, in the state of Texas. Currently at about 44,000 caches. I have a seperate database for caches I have found (5k+) My hides, Disabled & Archived.

 

2. I have an iPad & iPhone both running iGeoKnife.

 

3. Each day, I run the status update for the disabled/archived db. Any cacehs that have become "available" I do a refresh on those caches & then move them to my Texas Unfound DB.

 

4. I then run the status update on Texas Unfound. Takes about 30-45 min. I then move any caches that have been disabled or acrhived to that DB.

 

5. I then save the DB, and upload that DB to my iPhone & iPad.

 

6. I use iGeoKnife on my iPhone & iPad. It uses Google Hybrid maps, or Google Street maps. and will show up to 1000 caches per page view. It makes use of the GPS and shows you where you are on the maps. It shows you all the descriptions, and the last X number of logs for that cache. You can even ENTER your logs from this app. then when you get back home & sync... it will upload those logs to GSAK, and then allow you to send those logs to geocaching.com using the GSAK/Geocaching.com API.

 

It's not the most ideal method. But it works.

 

Hopefully soon, iGeoKnife will get API functionality to it. Once that happens we can just bypass using geocaching.com maps completely as well as the geocaching.com app!

 

TGC

Link to comment

I like the idea of Tiered plans.

 

1. Premium Gold/Premium Platinum/Premium Plus... Whatever you want to call it. This plan would provide extra PQ's, as well as Google maps, with google satalite Hybrid modes as well. Charge whatever reasonable fee needed to cover the cost of paying google. Personally, I would be willing to pay up to $80 a year for this service level.

 

2. Premium Level... As it stands now. $30 a year. They don't get extra PQ's and they don't get Google maps.

 

3. Basic Membership... Exactly as it stands now... Free. No PQ's, No google Maps.

 

This would allow those who are WILLING to pay extra for google maps, do so. Still worried about costs, then have a pay as you go plan for google maps, with limited access. Similar to the way our smartphones are. I am lucky enough to have Unlimited Data with AT&T on my iPhone/iPad. Others are stuck at teh 2gb level.

 

You could do the same with google maps... A certain number of access per month. If you go over your charged more.

 

TGC

 

Agreed. I still wonder if this sort of structure was (or perhaps, is currently being) discussed as an option.

 

To me, the move to OSM seems to be a band-aid solution to avoid an increase in cost to the existing Premium Member. This "tiered" membership structure I suggested a while back allows for the flexibility of all interested parties to select that which works best for their perceived caching needs at a price that works for their budgets while also addressing the Google surcharge.

 

I get the feeling that Groundspeak/gc.com was kinda caught with their pants down type thing. Even though google gave everyone in the CE field plenty of notice. Because GS/GC.com wasn't able to find a satisfactory solution & implement it quick enough. They just fell back to using OSM before the google deadline to save them millions of dollars in fees they couldn't afford. So yes I agree... OSM seems to be the band-aid fix. Whats funny, is that they try to build it up as being better than google or bing, & it isn't. People who are colour blind have issues viewing OSM. Since OSM is "Free" because its open source. ADA rules don't apply. However... I am curious to see that since Groundspeak isn't open source or a non-profit company, how the use of OSM applies with ADA rules. Guess it depends on ones POV. Just like wheel chair ramps are required for all buisness for use by their customers & even employees, there are some that still have the POV that wheel chair ramps shouldn't always be required by every company, or that the ADA only applies to wheel chair ramps & nothing else.

 

One other note GS/GC.com is NOT very good at communication with its members/cachers. Heck Apple in all of its horrible control gives apple users better communication on whats comming in the future! We all know their will be an iPad 3, and iPhone 5. We may not know when, or exactly whats going to be added, but we KNOW its coming! We even get leaks about whats going to be on it, as well as updaets to the next iOS (5.1) which will be released soon I am sure. Complaints about GS/GC.com communication have been going on in the forums every since I have become a cacher. That probably won't change. Makes ya wonder though...

 

I know the math well enough to know that Google maps is EXPENSIVE.... One of the reasons I suggested BING. What are their fees like? More expensive, less expensive than google? Is GS/GC.com checking into the Pros & Cons of Bing?

 

I honestly don't believe that most cachers understand how much it really COSTS to use google. Think of google and accessing their maps, the same way you think of using Data on your smartphone when you DON'T have an unlimited data plan. Google doesn't have an "Unlimited" plan. So the more google maps you use, the more you pay. Just like data on the smartphone. You go over your 2gb plan, or whatever limited plan you have, you pay through the NOSE for it! Google is the same way.

 

TGC

Link to comment
I fully understand that Google have started charging for their maps, but you know what, I paid Groundspeak for a service which included these maps and now Groundspeak aren't delivering it. To me this seems very unfair.

 

Nowhere in the "Premium Membership" section does it say that a particular set of maps is a PM benefit.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=5

 

"Maps" are not exclusive to PM's, so I don't see the connection between the two.

 

There's nothing in your premium membership that has been compromised by this change.

 

 

B.

 

this "See a complete list of benefits." implies that only PM members have access to the maps

 

i have no idea if that is true though, i've only been a regular member for couple of weeks and i wasn't even caching during that time, as soon as i went out for my first one i became PM

 

if that were true i don't see how the current PM's can generate 2 million loads per day in excess of the 25K free to make GC pay the suggested $3mil/year

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

Link to comment

Let's give Groundspeak some time to work out the bugs in the current system before asking them to set up a new 3-tiered system.

 

And all of you who want a 3-tiered system - you saw what the cost of Google would be for one avid cacher, ~$10/month or $120/year. Are you really willing to spend that much for Google? And are you willing to chip in a bit more for the programming time that Groundspeak uses to implement that new third tier?

 

So your new Premium-Plus membership might cost you the original $30/year + $120/year for Google + some additional cost for the necessary programming to make the system work. So how does $150-$170/year sound? How many current premium members are going to pony up for that?

 

I'm sure that Groundspeak has their hands full right now working on the new system. Shall they set that work aside and first work on some premium 3-tiered system? A system that most will be unwilling to pay for?

Edited by square_peg
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...