Jump to content

[FEATURE] Let premium members have access to google maps


DanPan
Followers 18

Recommended Posts

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

 

+1

 

The new maps are close to useless in Norway (except in some major cities) , and the satellite imagery is non existent. I can see the point in trying to save money following Google's new regime, but totally excluding Google maps as a choice strikes me as rash and uncreative. How about setting openstreet map as the default, but leave Google as a choice?

In any case, I want Google back. Geocaching.com has gone from being a website I use every day to being a site I go to for pocket queries every once in a while.

Link to comment
If the cost of PM access to Google Maps would significantly increase the cost of a premium membership, then I too would rather see a three-tiered system:

- Basic (free) members

- Premium (paid) members

- Premium Plus (paid extra) members

 

Those with Premium Plus membership could have access to Google Maps, and maybe additional benefits as suggested by Dr. House.

 

Fully support that! The new maps are completely horrid.

Link to comment

WHAT A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT!We have just signed up to renew our Premium Membership after 6 or more months of not being able to get out and about, so only just discovered Google maps are not available anymore. With only a basic GPS I loved the map preparation as much as the trek. Just SOOOOO disappointed.

Edited by Yewtwo
Link to comment

Related:

 

Foursquare Says Farewell to Google Maps, Joins OpenStreetMap Movement

Foursquare is parting ways with Google Maps in favor of crowdsourced maps created by the OpenStreetMap project.Foursquare announced the change in a blog postWednesday, explaining its decision to make the big API switch. To power the new maps, Foursquare is partnering with MapBox, a startup which calls itself “a beautiful alternative to Google Maps” and uses data from OpenStreetMap.

 

“As a startup, we also often think about how we can make life easier for other startups,” the Foursquare blog explains.

 

Foursquare says it chose MapBox for three reasons: its use of OpenStreetMap, which will continue to get better; it allows for design flexibility, so Foursquare can pick fonts and colors to match the rest of the app; and it’s powered by the open-source Leaflet java script library.

 

During the company’s January hackathon, one engineer proposed the question “What would the world look like if we made our own maps?” and answered it using data from OpenStreetMap, a crowdsourced global atlas.

 

Foursquare also sited Google Maps’ pricing as a reason they were looking to make a switch.

 

OpenStreetMap is one of the largest online group projects on the web. Google’s relationship with the project has thus far been tumultuous. For instance, someone with a Google IP address was found to be vandalizing the project, inputting false information in several cities, such as directing one-way street signs in the wrong direction.

 

LINK: http://mashable.com/2012/02/29/foursquare-openstreetmap/

Link to comment

Instead of paying Google why cant we get a fix for google earth overlay that shows Cache sites in the correct position

and we all use that instead or find a way for every one to add the cache tiles to there own map pages that way you can open Googlemaps from there server instead of going through GC portal no one to pay then :)

Link to comment

OpenStreetMap is one of the largest online group projects on the web. Google’s relationship with the project has thus far been tumultuous. For instance, someone with a Google IP address was found to be vandalizing the project, inputting false information in several cities, such as directing one-way street signs in the wrong direction.

 

This highlights my fear of relying on OSM. Look at all the crap on Wikipedia. How can I trust what is in OSM if anyone can add to and/or update the maps?

Edited by UncleJimbo
Link to comment

OpenStreetMap is one of the largest online group projects on the web. Google's relationship with the project has thus far been tumultuous. For instance, someone with a Google IP address was found to be vandalizing the project, inputting false information in several cities, such as directing one-way street signs in the wrong direction.

 

This highlights my fear of relying on OSM. Look at all the crap on Wikipedia. How can I trust what is in OSM if anyone can add to and/or update the maps?

 

How can I trust what is in Geocaching.com if anyone can pick up a cache and move it 50' away?

 

Seriously. I think your fears are misplaced, particularly if a one-way street sign pointing in a wrong direction (as the example given) prevents you from finding a piece of Tupperware in the woods.

 

The larger point is, bigger players in the online world than Groundspeak are being forced to abandon Google Maps due to a price squeeze.

 

We'd all be better served letting them figure out how to best navigate the new business landscape (so to speak).

 

 

Edited by Admonkey
Link to comment

First: I really miss the google maps!

 

Second: I searched for the problem which is: google wants ~US$7900 a day!

(http://www.notaboutthenumbers.com/2012/02/16/new-geocaching-com-maps-and-the-google-issue/)

 

Third: I concluded that is it google who is to blame. And the best choice we have is a boycott. (Initially Geocaching was a free game, remember?)

 

So I propose, the googlemap feature may be available as payable option but separated from the premium membership. I do not want to pay for google, who is using my behavior to make money!

The extra costs should only be paid by people, who really wants to.

 

Finally for all those, who don't like managing two tabs: there is a nice work around available:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290741&st=0&p=4976927&hl=google%20maps&fromsearch=1entry4976927

 

Cheers and out.

Link to comment

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

 

As a premium member, I have already demonstrated that I am willing to pay for extended services. I would expect that if my services have been reduced, my membership fee should also be reduced. However, if the cost of the services currently provided have increased, I don't mind paying my fair share to support them.

 

Groundspeaks solution to omit Google Maps because the price went up is akin to McDonalds reducing the size of their Large Fries, because the price of potatoes went up. I think people expect to get the same portions and see the price be adjusted, it is what we have all grown up with and have come to expect.

 

I throw in my vote --- PLEASE bring back Google Maps!! (I am will to support help support the cost through my membership fee)

Link to comment

I would have to agree, google maps is what I have grown used to, and it works, I have encountered several problems where there are needed pieces of the map missing, it is an annoyance, and really does need to be considered. If there were a fix for the google earth, that would also work, so long as it was about as reliable as the original beta map.

Link to comment
I think people expect to get the same portions and see the price be adjusted, it is what we have all grown up with and have come to expect.
Interesting... I can think of several products where I'm used to the price staying constant, and the portions being reduced. Then at some point, the price and the portion size go up and the cycle repeats.
Link to comment

I think people expect to get the same portions and see the price be adjusted, it is what we have all grown up with and have come to expect.

 

You haven't looked at ice cream then... The "Half-gallon" size is now 1.25 Quarts!

 

Google maps is still an option, you just need to search for it.

Link to comment

I agree that the new maps are seriously deficient. I read the post "About Google Maps" and searched a few places where I knew there are complex, improved trail systems and could find no trail mapping. I enjoy caching in remote areas, and before I go to a cache, I like to download as many caches in the area as possible to spread out the often considerable cost of driving to these areas. The Google maps that are still available only show the specific cache you are logged into. The Mapquest maps don't show bodies of water and other physical barriers in these roadless areas. You could get yourself into serious trouble by just trying to navigate in the mountains by direction without any idea of the terrain. I also would agree to a reasonable increase in membership fees to cover the cost.

Link to comment

I agree that the new maps are seriously deficient. I read the post "About Google Maps" and searched a few places where I knew there are complex, improved trail systems and could find no trail mapping. I enjoy caching in remote areas, and before I go to a cache, I like to download as many caches in the area as possible to spread out the often considerable cost of driving to these areas. The Google maps that are still available only show the specific cache you are logged into. The Mapquest maps don't show bodies of water and other physical barriers in these roadless areas. You could get yourself into serious trouble by just trying to navigate in the mountains by direction without any idea of the terrain. I also would agree to a reasonable increase in membership fees to cover the cost.

I would not agree to any membership fees to cover the cost of Google maps. They are still available for use. How much work you have to do to use them is purely a personal choice. So why should I pay more for Google maps that I get for no additional cost today just so you can get them because you don't wish to make the needed personal choices or expend the needed personal efforts?

Link to comment

I agree that the new maps are seriously deficient. I read the post "About Google Maps" and searched a few places where I knew there are complex, improved trail systems and could find no trail mapping. I enjoy caching in remote areas, and before I go to a cache, I like to download as many caches in the area as possible to spread out the often considerable cost of driving to these areas. The Google maps that are still available only show the specific cache you are logged into. The Mapquest maps don't show bodies of water and other physical barriers in these roadless areas. You could get yourself into serious trouble by just trying to navigate in the mountains by direction without any idea of the terrain. I also would agree to a reasonable increase in membership fees to cover the cost.

I would not agree to any membership fees to cover the cost of Google maps. They are still available for use. How much work you have to do to use them is purely a personal choice. So why should I pay more for Google maps that I get for no additional cost today just so you can get them because you don't wish to make the needed personal choices or expend the needed personal efforts?

I also don't think membership fees should be increased. jholly makes an excellent point.

Link to comment

The question we need to be asking is: What are Groundspeak going to do about improving the quality of the current mapping?

 

Yes, since Groundspeak dropped Google maps, the alternative has been vastly inferior to what we've been use to. We've even lost aerial/satelite imagery.

 

With regards to the normal mapping, we also have the option for OSM rather than MapQuest, (which is what I use most of the time). Cachers could also improve OSM maps by adding and editing the tracks from their GPSs to the OSM system as they would most likely be following footpaths and bridleways, (in the UK).

 

Another thought: Do Bing charge for there map content usage like Google do now? If not, why aren't we using that platform?

Link to comment

. Not enough coverage or detail? Okay, submit information to improve that. Others have indicated they will drop their premium memberships.

Totally agree with this. If people want the maps to improve, then it's up to them to do so.

 

If the maps are that bad, go on the OSM website and edit the map yourself. That's what I did, and our area looks perfectly fine with the new maps.

 

My biggest disappointment with the switch has been the loss of google's satellite imagery. They definitely were the leader in quality compared to other services. Nothing we can do to improve this (I can't afford to launch a satellite into space biggrin.gif )

Link to comment

The question we need to be asking is: What are Groundspeak going to do about improving the quality of the current mapping?

 

Yes, since Groundspeak dropped Google maps, the alternative has been vastly inferior to what we've been use to. We've even lost aerial/satelite imagery.

 

With regards to the normal mapping, we also have the option for OSM rather than MapQuest, (which is what I use most of the time). Cachers could also improve OSM maps by adding and editing the tracks from their GPSs to the OSM system as they would most likely be following footpaths and bridleways, (in the UK).

 

Another thought: Do Bing charge for there map content usage like Google do now? If not, why aren't we using that platform?

 

Yes, bing charges for their map content. How much? I'm not sure, their pricing isn't as clear as google's.

Link to comment

I think it is so unimportant which kind of map we use. The map is just an additional help to locate in general. You do not really need the map for going out and find the box. It is just useful to plan your day trip, nothing more. So for what is this conversation good for?

 

Napalmrocks

Edited by Napalmrocks
Link to comment

 

My biggest disappointment with the switch has been the loss of google's satellite imagery. They definitely were the leader in quality compared to other services. Nothing we can do to improve this (I can't afford to launch a satellite into space biggrin.gif )

 

Actually, come to think of it, that is sort of a disappointment for me too. You are completely right that Google really does lead in that category.

Link to comment

There's been a lot of discussion over charging more for access to Google maps, who should be able to access Google Maps, speculation about Groundspeak's revenue and a litany of other things. What's been unfortunate is the lack of meaningful feedback from Groundspeak on the issue.

 

Groundspeak's blog post about the higher quality of OpenStreetMap data completely overlooks the issue that most people seem to be upset about (myself included), and that's the lack of quality satellite/hybrid views. It's unfortunate that most people aren't able to articulate their frustration beyond "OMG Y U NO GOOGLE MAPS!?" and it's certainly not helping the matter.

 

Like it or not, but Google has done an excellent job with their maps. They've set the bar, and I don't see any problem with their desire to charge for the service they provide. Google is a business. They're not creating maps out of charity.

 

When people say "I want Google maps back," what I think they're attempting to say is that they want a return to the functionality that they've grown accustomed to. I don't think anyone would mind one bit if the aerial/satellite imagery was provided by another source. Whether it's from Google, Bing, Mapquest or some guy named Larry, high quality satellite/hybrid views are an important resource. How can Groundspeak bring this functionality back in a revenue neutral (or positive) manner? I'm not sure, but hopefully it's something they're actively working on while stonewalling the issue in public. Remember, Groundspeak is a business too. They're not running this website out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

I will say that the integration with Google maps was what sold me on the idea of Geocaching as a legitimate activity. It was so cool to be able to look at an aerial map with a bunch of icons on it, knowing that there were caches in places I go every day. Looking at a road map just doesn't evoke that same kind of reaction, and now that I'm an experienced cacher, just looking at a road map is much less useful.

 

Should Groundspeak charge a higher price for access to high quality satellite/hybrid maps? I don't think so. I do think that including it as a premium-only feature is a good idea. It would be a way to broaden the base of premium members, so while the annual rate per person wouldn't go up, you'd have more people paying, so overall revenue would increase.

 

Groundspeak, please address the mapping regression. Even if you don't have a solution right now, let us know what you're doing to work on it. It would go a long way with your customers and fans of the Geocaching hobby.

Link to comment

On Friday of last week, we reached an Agreement with Google to bring Google Maps back to Geocaching.com in a limited capacity.

 

Until our removal of Google Maps from Geocaching.com, map functionality was provided for both basic and Premium Members because those maps were free to us. Since we now have to pay for maps, this will be a Premium Member feature.

 

We're currently working on incorporating Google Maps back to Geocaching.com and expect to have the main map page re-enabled with Google Maps in the next 4-5 weeks. Google Maps will only be available on the main map page; not on the cache detail pages or other areas of the site.

 

We are still committed to the new Open Street Map system for all users. OpenStreetMap is freely and publicly editable in a similar way as Wikipedia. Anyone can change or add to the maps and thousands of people worldwide contribute on a regular basis.

 

Once the Google Maps are available on the main map page, we'll post an entry to our blog. We're looking forward to bringing back Google Maps as an additional service to support our Premium Members.

Link to comment

On Friday of last week, we reached an Agreement with Google to bring Google Maps back to Geocaching.com in a limited capacity.

 

Until our removal of Google Maps from Geocaching.com, map functionality was provided for both basic and Premium Members because those maps were free to us. Since we now have to pay for maps, this will be a Premium Member feature.

 

We're currently working on incorporating Google Maps back to Geocaching.com and expect to have the main map page re-enabled with Google Maps in the next 4-5 weeks. Google Maps will only be available on the main map page; not on the cache detail pages or other areas of the site.

 

We are still committed to the new Open Street Map system for all users. OpenStreetMap is freely and publicly editable in a similar way as Wikipedia. Anyone can change or add to the maps and thousands of people worldwide contribute on a regular basis.

 

Once the Google Maps are available on the main map page, we'll post an entry to our blog. We're looking forward to bringing back Google Maps as an additional service to support our Premium Members.

 

Good news - thanks for all the hard work on making the maps as good as possible!!

Link to comment

Thanks, Jeremy. You said:

 

Google Maps will only be available on the main map page; not on the cache detail pages or other areas of the site

 

Can you clarify? There used to be two links for google maps.

 


  •  
  • One, that was labeled "geocaching.com google maps" (or something like that) that was the google maps with the geocaches overlaid.
  • Another which is still there, "google maps" which is just a link with a single pin for the cache (no other caches listed.)

 

Will the second one still be available?

Link to comment

Thanks, Jeremy. You said:

 

Google Maps will only be available on the main map page; not on the cache detail pages or other areas of the site

 

Can you clarify? There used to be two links for google maps.

 

  • One, that was labeled "geocaching.com google maps" (or something like that) that was the google maps with the geocaches overlaid.
  • Another which is still there, "google maps" which is just a link with a single pin for the cache (no other caches listed.)

 

Will the second one still be available?

My interpretation of what Jeremy has said is that individual cache pages as you see them now, will not change. The only thing changing is that the main dedicated map page located at http://www.geocaching.com/map/ with now use Google Maps if you are a Premium Member

Link to comment

Can we opt out of having Google maps?

 

We currently use a GreaseMonkey script to overlay Google maps (and several others). It would be daft for Groundspeak to pay for something we don't actually need...

 

Mark

Some of us have just chosen not to use lubricated mammals to accomplish things.

Link to comment

Can we opt out of having Google maps?

 

We currently use a GreaseMonkey script to overlay Google maps (and several others). It would be daft for Groundspeak to pay for something we don't actually need...

 

Mark

If they bring Google maps back to PM, I will have no problem dumping my GM script. If they ask for more money for a PM I will be upset. If the ask for more money to allow PM's to get Google maps but what they have now for no increase of my PM my GM script will probably stay.

 

Edit: But then this begs the question is what we get back; the previous beta maps with all the warts and problems, the current leaflet framework with all its warts and problems or a whole new kettle of fish with new warts and new problems. Some times it is good to be wary of what you wish for.

Edited by jholly
Link to comment

Can we opt out of having Google maps?

 

We currently use a GreaseMonkey script to overlay Google maps (and several others). It would be daft for Groundspeak to pay for something we don't actually need...

 

Mark

If they bring Google maps back to PM, I will have no problem dumping my GM script. If they ask for more money for a PM I will be upset. If the ask for more money to allow PM's to get Google maps but what they have now for no increase of my PM my GM script will probably stay.

 

Edit: But then this begs the question is what we get back; the previous beta maps with all the warts and problems, the current leaflet framework with all its warts and problems or a whole new kettle of fish with new warts and new problems. Some times it is good to be wary of what you wish for.

 

jholly - Outside of the complains about satellite images loading slowly, and other map tile related issues, what other 'warts' does the Leaflet map have that need to be addressed?

 

-Raine

Link to comment

Can we opt out of having Google maps?

 

We currently use a GreaseMonkey script to overlay Google maps (and several others). It would be daft for Groundspeak to pay for something we don't actually need...

 

Mark

 

Some of us have just chosen not to use lubricated mammals to accomplish things.

 

Nomination to StarBrand for one of my all time favorite replies on these forums.

Link to comment

On Friday of last week, we reached an Agreement with Google to bring Google Maps back to Geocaching.com in a limited capacity.

 

Until our removal of Google Maps from Geocaching.com, map functionality was provided for both basic and Premium Members because those maps were free to us. Since we now have to pay for maps, this will be a Premium Member feature.

 

We're currently working on incorporating Google Maps back to Geocaching.com and expect to have the main map page re-enabled with Google Maps in the next 4-5 weeks. Google Maps will only be available on the main map page; not on the cache detail pages or other areas of the site.

 

We are still committed to the new Open Street Map system for all users. OpenStreetMap is freely and publicly editable in a similar way as Wikipedia. Anyone can change or add to the maps and thousands of people worldwide contribute on a regular basis.

 

Once the Google Maps are available on the main map page, we'll post an entry to our blog. We're looking forward to bringing back Google Maps as an additional service to support our Premium Members.

 

Good news indeed, maybe this will encourage more members to switch to a PM membership.

Link to comment

Can we opt out of having Google maps?

 

We currently use a GreaseMonkey script to overlay Google maps (and several others). It would be daft for Groundspeak to pay for something we don't actually need...

 

Mark

If they bring Google maps back to PM, I will have no problem dumping my GM script. If they ask for more money for a PM I will be upset. If the ask for more money to allow PM's to get Google maps but what they have now for no increase of my PM my GM script will probably stay.

 

Edit: But then this begs the question is what we get back; the previous beta maps with all the warts and problems, the current leaflet framework with all its warts and problems or a whole new kettle of fish with new warts and new problems. Some times it is good to be wary of what you wish for.

 

jholly - Outside of the complains about satellite images loading slowly, and other map tile related issues, what other 'warts' does the Leaflet map have that need to be addressed?

 

-Raine

You hit the big ones. The satellite view is definitely worse than Google's. A minor blemish is the scale does not move to the left when closing the left pane like the zoom controls. The other, and I realize it is a cost issue, is the topos. Google has better topo maps. I was not critical of your move that you made with the maps, it was completely understandable and I supported your moves. I am glad something was done to resolve the issues. I wait to see what is coming. Actually I find the Google maps with the leaflet framework to be quite nice. Oh, and can we have an option of turning on all the other caches in the area when viewing a PQ map? I really started liking that and miss it now that it was taken away by popular request.

Link to comment
Outside of the complains about satellite images loading slowly, and other map tile related issues, what other 'warts' does the Leaflet map have that need to be addressed?

 

I'll chime in here. I actually like the Leaflet and OSM maps; for everything but imagery I won't use Google any more. But the copyright notice on the bottom of the maps on the cache page appears to be regular HTML text, which, when resized to aid my old eyes, covers about 50% of the maps on the page. Which makes them useless. I recommend making the copyright notices bitmaps and overlaying them that way instead of using resizeable text.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 18
×
×
  • Create New...