List of cache names beside the map

February 15, 2012

OK, I can live with the new maps (I understand the cost issue). And I can live with downloads that are a bit slower (emphasis on "a bit"). I can live without a satellite view (though I really would like one). I can live without a distance scale (though I'd rather have one). I can live with flaky filters (I assume they are being fixed). And I can live with an auto-logout that seems to trigger every minute or so, so the map "forgets" which caches I have found or placed.

What I am having trouble living without is the list of cache names that used to appear beside the map. To me, this was one of the most useful things about the old-style maps. Every cache symbol on the map had a corresponding entry in the list of caches over on the right. And if I moused over a particular symbol on the map, the entry in the list lit up, so I could see the name of the cache in question, along with a link to the listing for that cache. I can't think of a reason why this list was removed - is there one?

In addition, if I moused over a particular cache symbol on the map, a menu popped up that enabled me to "Send to GPS" (among other things). What was gained by removing that feature? A Pocket Query IS NOT an adequate substitute for the ability to load an individual cache, or a few caches, right now, on the spot, before I head out.

As noted in another thread, being able to print the map with the list was also tremendously useful.

It is true that the Beta Maps did not show the list of caches, either. But after all, those maps were still in Beta, and I just figured that the feature hadn't been put back in yet. But suddenly here is the final product, and it still isn't there.

I don't get it. I can't believe that eliminating the list saved money in any way. I sure wish someone would explain to me why these changes were made. Why is this method "better"?

Pioneer Poodle

2k · February 15, 2012

That has been gone a while, I do think when that was removed, it immediately allowed a lot faster scrolling out and movement of the overall map. I admit, I liked that side list, but the trade off for the quicker map speed made up for it for the most part. Course, that was then.

7.3k · February 15, 2012

I can't remember the last time the list of caches was on the map.

It's been gone for quite some time. I liked it too, but obviously I've gotten used to them not being there, to the point that I had forgotten all about it.

B.

February 15, 2012

The cache names were on the map two days ago, right up until the map change. As I noted, they were never on the Beta map - but there was always the ability to close the Beta Map and go back to the old-style map with the list. That ability, of course, is gone now.

Pioneer Poodle

February 15, 2012

It sure was, using the Back to original maps feature. I never used the new Beta stuff, now I just have to. But I still miss the list as much as you do, It should be put back online!

February 15, 2012

Hi!

We would very much like to have the list back as well.

For us it was the easiest way to find out about the most recently published caches since the last time we looked at a region/city/...

We just scrolled to the end of the list and there they were.

Now we have to check every single Icon on the map again and again to see if it is a new cache or not and this only by name. There ist not even the GC-Code in the tooltip which would help to see if it is a recently published cache or an older one. Fot that feature you even have to click on every one of the icons. That's really not comfortable any more.

In the old forum we gave some of our votes to the same topic ("Please bring back the list besides the map") as did many others.

It seems this was forgotten...

Now, this is really time consuming, time wgich we would rather spend giong out finding some caches!

Greetings from Munich

Alkoholix

February 22, 2012

Tomorrow, my wife and I are going to take out a dozen cacher-maybe-wannabe's, to introduce them to caching. We will give them a little talk about what geocaching is, and describe a series of 6 or 7 real fun caches that we will be seeking. Rather than trooping all dozen people to each cache in succession, we will take them to the middle of the group of caches, divide them into teams of two, give each team a GPSr and an annotated map showing the caches by name, and turn them loose. OOPS! Can't do that mappy thing any more - GC.COM has decided it isn't important.

Sure would be nice to have it back. It was a real useful tool for introducing new cachers to the sport.

My original question still stands. Why is it gone? What was accomplished by removing it?

3.7k · February 22, 2012

I can't think of a reason why this list was removed - is there one?

I don't get it. I can't believe that eliminating the list saved money in any way. I sure wish someone would explain to me why these changes were made. Why is this method "better"?

You can't remove what was never there. That is, the cache list was never part of the new maps, so it wasn't eliminated - it wasn't added (yet?), probably due to programming cycles required vs. launch date.

Different maps = different software. The various add-on features have to be reprogrammed, so I would expect incremental additions over the next few months. At least, I hope that's the case.

This is just my guess based on working in the software industry. Perhaps a lackey or reviewer can provide more insight.

7.4k · February 23, 2012

There are several technical reasons for why the list had to be removed. The old maps could only display 500 caches at a time, and these were visible at any zoom level as long as no more than 500 were in the field of view at the time. There was no tiling of caches, meaning that cache placements weren't cached on map tiles for quick display and performance; rather, the plotting of each represented a direct call to the database. These behaviors made it relatively easy to create a discrete list of those caches shown on the map.

The beta map, and now the current map, do not have the 500 cache limitation. Every cache in the world can be visualized at once (although closely-spaced caches are coalesced into a single icon depending on zoom level). The tiles are pregenerated for performance reasons at various zoom levels and direct calls to the database are minimized. As a result, you may have 1.6 million caches showing at once (condensed into fewer icons, of course), or 1. Creating a dynamic list that covers the complete range of display options is a much more imposing task.

3.8k · February 23, 2012

So there :blink:

2.8k · February 23, 2012

I can't think of a reason why this list was removed - is there one?

I don't get it. I can't believe that eliminating the list saved money in any way. I sure wish someone would explain to me why these changes were made. Why is this method "better"?

You can't remove what was never there. That is, the cache list was never part of the new maps, so it wasn't eliminated - it wasn't added (yet?), probably due to programming cycles required vs. launch date.

Different maps = different software. The various add-on features have to be reprogrammed, so I would expect incremental additions over the next few months. At least, I hope that's the case.

This is just my guess based on working in the software industry. Perhaps a lackey or reviewer can provide more insight.

Beta means trial and the non trial maps had the feature so yes it was removed. Up until the map change that feature was accessible to all but now is not, it also was removed from any option to view it. You know what else was removed, the very little iPad functionality the original maps had, even though slim, now there is none as you can not get cache info off a map making them entirely useless.. (Really hope they fix this, then start fixing other stuff)

February 23, 2012

I have never liked the beta version of the maps. I knew it was just a matter of time before they went from beta to the only option. So I had started looking for useful mapping alternatives that worked in a way that I wanted them to work.

While I do enjoy Google Earth it is a bit clunky on my underpowered little netbook that I often use for planning cache trips while watching television. I also liked having the lists of the caches and the numbered labels for them like on the pre-beta geocaching maps.

It turns out that for those willing to use GSAK there is a very nice little macro that comes very close to replicating the old map experience.

The list and other menus can be hidden with a simple click so you can see more of the map. The labels can be switched on and off. The list is controlled by the red radius circle visible on the map. Make the circle bigger and more caches are in the list, a smaller circle makes the list smaller. This is controlled by use of the two red pins which can be dragged across the map to wherever the user desires.

The details the caches display when clicked can be modified using the GSAK codes. The macro can use any user created filters or display only the currently used filter or just the caches in the current GSAK grid. It will also use clustering (if desired) when viewing a large area of caches.

I have tried it with a filter that ended up with several hundred caches and it worked very well even on my poor little netbook.

And this is all done on a Google map where you have the options of map, satellite or hybrid for the map tiles and can switch back and forth between the map types with a simple pull down menu.

I only used my own caches in my example as to not cause any angst by showing another person's caches on the forum.

February 23, 2012

There are several technical reasons for why the list had to be removed. The old maps could only display 500 caches at a time, and these were visible at any zoom level as long as no more than 500 were in the field of view at the time. There was no tiling of caches, meaning that cache placements weren't cached on map tiles for quick display and performance; rather, the plotting of each represented a direct call to the database. These behaviors made it relatively easy to create a discrete list of those caches shown on the map.

The beta map, and now the current map, do not have the 500 cache limitation. Every cache in the world can be visualized at once (although closely-spaced caches are coalesced into a single icon depending on zoom level). The tiles are pregenerated for performance reasons at various zoom levels and direct calls to the database are minimized. As a result, you may have 1.6 million caches showing at once (condensed into fewer icons, of course), or 1. Creating a dynamic list that covers the complete range of display options is a much more imposing task.

Moun10bike -

Many thanks for your response to my question. I understand that you are busy creating the new stuff on the site, and your time is limited. Nonetheless, too often it seems that questions to the design team are not reviewed or considered, but simply dropped into a black hole. So thank you again.

If I understand you correctly, a decision was made to remove the limit of 500 caches displayed on the map at a time. Without that limitation, a huge number of caches could appear on the map, and the data base query could become unmanageable. And I understand that - a query for a million caches could certainly get out of hand. (Though it would seem that in order to put all those caches on the map in the first place, the query has already been done.)

So, going back to your description, perhaps this discussion should refocus on why the 500-cache limit was removed. Has anyone ever complained that 500 caches, displayed on a map simultaneously, was not enough? I can't imagine it. Even with 100 caches, the map is so cluttered that I find very little meaningful information. The 500 cache limit always seemed a reasonable compromise, not overly restrictive to the user, but not burdensome to the software.

So I guess I'm still hoping that the list will come back. It seems unreasonable to require gc members, particularly Premium members, to rely on third party software like GSAK, to accomplish what used to be automatic on the gc.com site itself.

7.4k · February 23, 2012

It's not just the number of caches shown on the map, it's the tiling process for displaying them. The two main reasons that we had to abandon the old map was 1) it absolutely choked when displaying more than 500 caches, so when we went to 1000-cache PQs, it was no longer a viable mapping solution, and 2) it was immensely hard on the servers, to the point that it was the single biggest drain on resources and was largely responsible for the frequent site slow-downs seen prior to implementation of the beta map. The beta map reduced the calls on the server with its tiling method, and as a side benefit the tiling method allowed for display of all of the caches in the world at once.

In short, the trade-off is not between lists of cache names and the number of caches on the map. Instead, it's between the old method of displaying caches on the map and site performance.

February 23, 2012

It's not just the number of caches shown on the map, it's the tiling process for displaying them.

How difficult would it be to add a radius system similar to my earlier example to the system now in place? Even if it was limited to only displaying a maximum of 25 caches in a given radius it could be quite helpful and I would think that 25 caches would not hammer the servers near as hard as the older 500 limit.

7.4k · February 23, 2012

It would be a significant redevelopment of the map. It is better to just create a PQ for the criteria you want and then display that PQ on the map. PQs display with a list of the cache names.

February 24, 2012

While we are on this topic I can not print the new maps I get a blank page. I have asked for help on this and the reply is I do this with Windows 7 or you use something other than Internet Explorer. I will use a PQ if someone would tell me how to do it, but if I can't print it what good is it. I have seen other post from people that cannot print. What is the answer for that??

Tom

7.4k · February 24, 2012

Tom, rather than post a question about your issue in this thread that is unrelated to it, you should post a new topic or email contact@geocaching.com for a personalized support response. While I don't see issues printing the map from IE on Windows Server 2008, I know that our designers have entered a task to improve the printing behavior in IE.

February 26, 2012

Moun10Bike you said

"It is better to just create a PQ for the criteria you want and then display that PQ on the map. PQs display with a list of the cache names."

OK I did this and it worked but is there a way to also get the GC numbers as the driving unit only list GC numbers.

I got the printing thing fix, but still like the way the old maps looked.

Tom

February 29, 2012

Just wanted to say thanks to cx1 for posting that macro picture. I got it installed and playing with it. I miss the original maps.

March 1, 2012

I really miss the list of cache names that was beside the original map. I didn't use the beta maps. I used the original because of the list. Please add a list to the new maps.

March 10, 2012

Yesterday I bought GSAK. As cx1 showed in post #12, it does what is needed. You can't imagine how annoyed I am to pay $30 for a Premium Membership on geocaching.com, and then have to pay another $30 for third-party software to do something that was previously easy on gc.com, but was removed for reasons unrelated to its utility or popularity. I sometimes wonder how much time the gc.com designers actually spend geocaching.

For 30 years, I was a member, and then the leader, of a team that designed extremely complex electronic systems for aerospace. "Complex" as in Apollo-moon-lander kind of complex. Everything we did was brand new, so occasionally we made a design decision that looked good initially, but didn't pan out. We learned that when this happens, it is better to back up and start again, rather than drop down into low gear and insist on grinding ahead. The whole issue of the new maps may be an example of that kind of thing.

Bill

Edited March 10, 2012 by Pioneer Poodle

3.6k · March 10, 2012

It sure was, using the Back to original maps feature. I never used the new Beta stuff, now I just have to. But I still miss the list as much as you do, It should be put back online!

Yeah you can't use the original maps anymore. But I can still use the Google maps. But what I miss is the distance scale at the bottom. That I use when trying to figure how far things are or distance of an area for PQs.

Edited March 10, 2012 by jellis

2.6k · March 10, 2012

Yesterday I bought GSAK. As cx1 showed in post #12, it does what is needed. You can't imagine how annoyed I am to pay $30 for a Premium Membership on geocaching.com, and then have to pay another $30 for third-party software to do something that was previously easy on gc.com, but was removed for reasons unrelated to its utility or popularity. I sometimes wonder how much time the gc.com designers actually spend geocaching.

For 30 years, I was a member, and then the leader, of a team that designed extremely complex electronic systems for aerospace. "Complex" as in Apollo-moon-lander kind of complex. Everything we did was brand new, so occasionally we made a design decision that looked good initially, but didn't pan out. We learned that when this happens, it is better to back up and start again, rather than drop down into low gear and insist on grinding ahead. The whole issue of the new maps may be an example of that kind of thing.

Bill

Let's see......

$30 over the last 6 years....

dived that by......

Hmmm... That means I've paid one cent a day for all the tools of GSAK.

that is horrid :rolleyes:

3.6k · March 10, 2012

I have never liked the beta version of the maps. I knew it was just a matter of time before they went from beta to the only option. So I had started looking for useful mapping alternatives that worked in a way that I wanted them to work.

While I do enjoy Google Earth it is a bit clunky on my underpowered little netbook that I often use for planning cache trips while watching television. I also liked having the lists of the caches and the numbered labels for them like on the pre-beta geocaching maps.

It turns out that for those willing to use GSAK there is a very nice little macro that comes very close to replicating the old map experience.

The list and other menus can be hidden with a simple click so you can see more of the map. The labels can be switched on and off. The list is controlled by the red radius circle visible on the map. Make the circle bigger and more caches are in the list, a smaller circle makes the list smaller. This is controlled by use of the two red pins which can be dragged across the map to wherever the user desires.

The details the caches display when clicked can be modified using the GSAK codes. The macro can use any user created filters or display only the currently used filter or just the caches in the current GSAK grid. It will also use clustering (if desired) when viewing a large area of caches.

I have tried it with a filter that ended up with several hundred caches and it worked very well even on my poor little netbook.

And this is all done on a Google map where you have the options of map, satellite or hybrid for the map tiles and can switch back and forth between the map types with a simple pull down menu.

I only used my own caches in my example as to not cause any angst by showing another person's caches on the forum.

Thank you

I learn something new about my GSAK all the time. Thanks for another useful Macro

3.6k · March 10, 2012

Yesterday I bought GSAK. As cx1 showed in post #12, it does what is needed. You can't imagine how annoyed I am to pay $30 for a Premium Membership on geocaching.com, and then have to pay another $30 for third-party software to do something that was previously easy on gc.com, but was removed for reasons unrelated to its utility or popularity. I sometimes wonder how much time the gc.com designers actually spend geocaching.

For 30 years, I was a member, and then the leader, of a team that designed extremely complex electronic systems for aerospace. "Complex" as in Apollo-moon-lander kind of complex. Everything we did was brand new, so occasionally we made a design decision that looked good initially, but didn't pan out. We learned that when this happens, it is better to back up and start again, rather than drop down into low gear and insist on grinding ahead. The whole issue of the new maps may be an example of that kind of thing.

Bill

Let's see......

$30 over the last 6 years....

dived that by......

Hmmm... That means I've paid one cent a day for all the tools of GSAK.

that is horrid

And it does a lot more for it's worth. GSAK I think is the greatest tool out there. I use it all the time and as my previous post said I learned something else along it's many other uses it has.

3.6k · March 10, 2012

Hi!

We would very much like to have the list back as well.

For us it was the easiest way to find out about the most recently published caches since the last time we looked at a region/city/...

We just scrolled to the end of the list and there they were.

Now we have to check every single Icon on the map again and again to see if it is a new cache or not and this only by name. There ist not even the GC-Code in the tooltip which would help to see if it is a recently published cache or an older one. Fot that feature you even have to click on every one of the icons. That's really not comfortable any more.

In the old forum we gave some of our votes to the same topic ("Please bring back the list besides the map") as did many others.

It seems this was forgotten...

Now, this is really time consuming, time wgich we would rather spend giong out finding some caches!

Greetings from Munich

Alkoholix

Have you used the notifications that will email you when new ones pop up? Just asking.

2.6k · March 10, 2012

Yesterday I bought GSAK. As cx1 showed in post #12, it does what is needed. You can't imagine how annoyed I am to pay $30 for a Premium Membership on geocaching.com, and then have to pay another $30 for third-party software to do something that was previously easy on gc.com, but was removed for reasons unrelated to its utility or popularity. I sometimes wonder how much time the gc.com designers actually spend geocaching.

For 30 years, I was a member, and then the leader, of a team that designed extremely complex electronic systems for aerospace. "Complex" as in Apollo-moon-lander kind of complex. Everything we did was brand new, so occasionally we made a design decision that looked good initially, but didn't pan out. We learned that when this happens, it is better to back up and start again, rather than drop down into low gear and insist on grinding ahead. The whole issue of the new maps may be an example of that kind of thing.

Bill

Let's see......

$30 over the last 6 years....

dived that by......

Hmmm... That means I've paid one cent a day for all the tools of GSAK.

that is horrid

And it does a lot more for it's worth. GSAK I think is the greatest tool out there. I use it all the time and as my previous post said I learned something else along it's many other uses it has.

I use it almost every day. I couldn't image every caching without it.

March 10, 2012

Let's see......

$30 over the last 6 years....

dived that by......

Hmmm... That means I've paid one cent a day for all the tools of GSAK.

that is horrid

I'm not quite sure what point you are making. I bought GSAK yesterday, so I guess that means I paid $30 a day for GSAK.

But I'm not complaining about the price of GSAK - I paid it willingly, to get the functionality and the super support that I have already experienced as an unregistered user. What I am complaining about is that gc.com removed some functions for which I had already paid, thereby forcing me to pay AGAIN for 3rd party software (which turned out to be GSAK).

While I appreciate Moun10bike's attempts to explain why these things were done, I think there were some bad design decisions that should be revisited. The bottom line from gc.com seems to be "Just use a Pocket Query (for which you have to pay in order to make them useful) and some inconvenient workarounds, and don't bother us. We're going down this path whether folks like it or not." And it apparent all across the forum that folks DON'T like it.

Bill

Edited March 10, 2012 by Pioneer Poodle

3.6k · March 10, 2012

Let's see......

$30 over the last 6 years....

dived that by......

Hmmm... That means I've paid one cent a day for all the tools of GSAK.

that is horrid

I'm not quite sure what point you are making. I bought GSAK yesterday, so I guess that means I paid $30 a day for GSAK.

But I'm not complaining about the price of GSAK - I paid it willingly, to get the functionality and the super support that I have already experienced as an unregistered user. What I am complaining about is that gc.com removed some functions for which I had already paid, thereby forcing me to pay AGAIN for 3rd party software (which turned out to be GSAK).

While I appreciate Moun10bike's attempts to explain why these things were done, I think there were some bad design decisions that should be revisited. The bottom line from gc.com seems to be "Just use a Pocket Query (for which you have to pay in order to make them useful) and some inconvenient workarounds, and don't bother us. We're going down this path whether folks like it or not." And it apparent all across the forum that folks DON'T like it.

Bill

He was explaining Google was charging GC for everytime one of VIEWs the maps. It became a cost issue which they would have to tack on us if they kept it. I still have Google because I have Greasemonkey.

3.4k · March 16, 2012

Yay! We have a scale on the maps.

Now if only the Arial maps could be fixed to load.

List of cache names beside the map

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation