Missing Map

[+Weary Banker & Bookworm]

In the many years that I have been caching, I have grown used to seeing a small map in the top right hand corner of cache pages which I had set to show the general area of the cache. This was in addition to another down at the bottom right of the page which showed the more specific location.

I have become aware that the top one has now disappeared.

 

Is this something that Groundspeak has changed in the page layout or, have one of my settings been changed. If the latter, can someone tell me which and how to change it back as I miss it.

[+geocat_]

They got rid of the map a few weeks ago. I don't recall seeing an official explanation, but if there was one, someone will surely point it out here

[+dprovan]

They got rid of the map a few weeks ago. I don't recall seeing an official explanation, but if there was one, someone will surely point it out here

I'm not sure why you say that, since such explanations from GS are few and far between these days.

 

Anyway, to the OP, yes, I miss it, too. I can't think of any technical reason they'd need to delete such a useful feature, so I can't explain it. But I have noticed that when my eyes reflexively look over there hoping for the map, what they fall on is an advertisement.

[+AustinMN]

I can think of one solid technical reason they would remove a map from the cache page.

 

All map sites have a number of views par day where a company has to start paying for map views. This is the reason that Google Maps became a Premium-only feature a number of years ago -- GS was not willing to pay for map views for users who were not paying.

 

Having two maps means two views. Having one map means having one map view.

[+Optimist on the run]

Yet bizarrely Google maps is now the default on Leaflet, and OSM, which is free, is not.

[+Viajero Perdido]

That's because OSM is free-as-in-speech, not free-as-in-beer. Different concepts. It costs money to provide map tiles in the quantities Groundspeak needs, and the previously free-as-in-beer provider decided to start charging.

[+hzoi]

I noticed the first map vanished, too. Since you couldn't really do anything with it, I don't miss it. Zoom the remaining map out and you get the same thing now.

[cezanne]

Zoom the remaining map out and you get the same thing now.

 

No, since the new maps on the cache pages are based on Google maps which are extremely bad for the type of geocaching I'm interested into and the map type cannot be changed. Almost any other type of map is better than Google maps.

[+AustinMN]

Zoom the remaining map out and you get the same thing now.

 

No, since the new maps on the cache pages are based on Google maps which are extremely bad for the type of geocaching I'm interested into and the map type cannot be changed. Almost any other type of map is better than Google maps.

 

I see it exactly the opposite. Google Maps is better than all other maps combined.

 

Which does not mean GM is great; it just stinks less than the rest.

[+dprovan]

I can think of one solid technical reason they would remove a map from the cache page.

 

All map sites have a number of views par day where a company has to start paying for map views. This is the reason that Google Maps became a Premium-only feature a number of years ago -- GS was not willing to pay for map views for users who were not paying.

 

Having two maps means two views. Having one map means having one map view.

If that's true, the map they removed is the most useful, so it would be the more logical one to keep. And, because of its location, it's almost certainly the more used of the two.

[+Weary Banker & Bookworm]

Thanks for all of the comments. Keep them coming. At least it wasnt something that I did to my settings!

 

Its interesting to see what is coming out of this topic. If it is just a question of cost and there can be only one map, the way that I use the Cache sheet, it would be better, far better to have the one that has gone. That shows me the area of the cache immediately. If I am interested then I can look at the precise location on any of the choice of maps listed on the page.

 

The option mentioned above, to zoom out the bottom map could work IF that could be a default setting. To have to do it each time click by laborious click, is too much of a pain and a total waste of time if it is an area that you dont want to visit anyway.

[cezanne]

I see it exactly the opposite. Google Maps is better than all other maps combined.

 

Which does not mean GM is great; it just stinks less than the rest.

 

Have a look at this cache description

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6MT3V_holleri-hollero-hollereidullioh?guid=48d63889-3d0e-4e41-a2c9-bc55a006562c

(a typical case of what I encounter in my area). The map on the cache page is the only one which shows the waypoints (of which there can be many - I have caches with >30). On google maps most waypoints are in the nowhere. The quality of OSM maps (but also of some other maps) is considerably better when it comes to anything except very urban caching, and there are areas where OSM based maps meanwhile are really great (and better than anything I know, including maps which are quite expensive).

[+AustinMN]

I see it exactly the opposite. Google Maps is better than all other maps combined.

 

Which does not mean GM is great; it just stinks less than the rest.

 

Have a look at this cache description

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6MT3V_holleri-hollero-hollereidullioh?guid=48d63889-3d0e-4e41-a2c9-bc55a006562c

(a typical case of what I encounter in my area). The map on the cache page is the only one which shows the waypoints (of which there can be many - I have caches with >30). On google maps most waypoints are in the nowhere. The quality of OSM maps (but also of some other maps) is considerably better when it comes to anything except very urban caching, and there are areas where OSM based maps meanwhile are really great (and better than anything I know, including maps which are quite expensive).

 

Interesting. When I switched my view to OSM, the waypoints don't show at all.

[+englishwidget]

They got rid of the map a few weeks ago. I don't recall seeing an official explanation, but if there was one, someone will surely point it out here

I'm not sure why you say that, since such explanations from GS are few and far between these days.

 

Anyway, to the OP, yes, I miss it, too. I can't think of any technical reason they'd need to delete such a useful feature, so I can't explain it. But I have noticed that when my eyes reflexively look over there hoping for the map, what they fall on is an advertisement.

That's the magic word I suspect... advertisement. Isn't everything about monetizing these days. I even found an ad inside a geocache today, which I replaced with something far more useful. As far as I am concerned ads in caches come under the CITO rule. Keep our caches ad free please. Identifying a cache as a bona fide cache is one thing but to advertise a service is something else.

[cezanne]

Interesting. When I switched my view to OSM, the waypoints don't show at all.

 

That's because you can only switch to OSM on the map that shows all caches and not on the cache page. This always has made the waypoints of the single cache you looked at get lost. Before the change OSM based maps were used on the cache page and they were helpful for viewing the waypoints.

 

If I could switch to another map on the cache page, I'd have no issue with Google maps as default. As far as I know, there even exists a Greasemonkey version to use OSM on the cache page but I'm reluctant to try to get it run as I still hope that something will change at gc.com as they talked about a test phase.

Edited July 28, 2016 by cezanne

[+The A-Team]

...since the new maps on the cache pages are based on Google maps which are extremely bad for the type of geocaching I'm interested into and the map type cannot be changed. Almost any other type of map is better than Google maps.

I see it exactly the opposite. Google Maps is better than all other maps combined.

It all depends on what type of caching you do. If you're primarily caching in populated areas and near roads, then Google Maps can be fine. However, Google Maps is utterly useless as soon as you leave roads. The OpenStreetMap database is filled with trails and roads that you can't see on Google Maps, and evolving more every second. For example, look at this comparison between Google Maps and the standard rendering of OpenStreetMap in an area near me. Just a bit of a difference, no? If you zoom out a bit, you'll see the trails in those hills are extensively-mapped in OSM, but are completely non-existent in Google Maps. Looking at the current mini-map for a cache in that area is useless because it gives no reference points unless you zoom way out, which takes time and is less user friendly.

 

Granted, not all areas are as well-mapped in OSM, in which case it can be just as bad as Google Maps. There are a lot of people constantly improving OSM, though, so in many areas it's already far superior and poorly-mapped areas may soon be much better.

[+AustinMN]

...since the new maps on the cache pages are based on Google maps which are extremely bad for the type of geocaching I'm interested into and the map type cannot be changed. Almost any other type of map is better than Google maps.

I see it exactly the opposite. Google Maps is better than all other maps combined.

It all depends on what type of caching you do. If you're primarily caching in populated areas and near roads, then Google Maps can be fine. However, Google Maps is utterly useless as soon as you leave roads. The OpenStreetMap database is filled with trails and roads that you can't see on Google Maps, and evolving more every second. For example, look at this comparison between Google Maps and the standard rendering of OpenStreetMap in an area near me. Just a bit of a difference, no? If you zoom out a bit, you'll see the trails in those hills are extensively-mapped in OSM, but are completely non-existent in Google Maps. Looking at the current mini-map for a cache in that area is useless because it gives no reference points unless you zoom way out, which takes time and is less user friendly.

 

Granted, not all areas are as well-mapped in OSM, in which case it can be just as bad as Google Maps. There are a lot of people constantly improving OSM, though, so in many areas it's already far superior and poorly-mapped areas may soon be much better.

 

I pretty much only cache in rural areas, off-road, now days. What you see depends on the local map makers. If they are in the Google camp, then Google Maps is going to be better. If they are in the OSM camp, then OSM will be better. Because someone finds an example where one is better does not mean that is the norm.

[+Weary Banker & Bookworm]

Thanks for all of the comments and for confirming that it wasnt because of an unintended amendment made at my end.

 

Obviously and for whatever reason, Groundspeak have decided that the small map in the top right hand corner was not needed. I believe that was a wrong decision but I cant seeing them changing that because of me.

 

This string has moved on to a discussion of which maps are best and as interesting as that may be for some, I will leave you to it and bow out at this point.

[+cerberus1]

I noticed the first map vanished, too. Since you couldn't really do anything with it, I don't miss it. Zoom the remaining map out and you get the same thing now.

Yeah, I agree.

For me that small map was nothing more than a green box with a container in the middle of it.

Never saw Towns, much less roads (for how to get there).

- Being a bit more demanding on what I'd spend my time on might be why.

Another second and the big map's opened to see where it is, and any I (might) wanta hit along with it.

[cezanne]

What you see depends on the local map makers. If they are in the Google camp, then Google Maps is going to be better. If they are in the OSM camp, then OSM will be better. Because someone finds an example where one is better does not mean that is the norm.

 

I do not think so as volunteers cannot make Google maps better and they do not focus at all on hiking trails and even less on small trails (many of them neither marked nor shown on topo maps that can be bought).

I noticed that in my country the quality of OSM with regard to hiking trails has considerably increased due to the contribution of some geocachers.

[+AustinMN]

What you see depends on the local map makers. If they are in the Google camp, then Google Maps is going to be better. If they are in the OSM camp, then OSM will be better. Because someone finds an example where one is better does not mean that is the norm.

 

I do not think so as volunteers cannot make Google maps better

 

This may be true in your country, but in the USA, there is almost nothing left on Google Maps that was not either put there or refined by a volunteer. Having made hundreds of edits myself, I know how this works.

 

... and they do not focus at all on hiking trails and even less on small trails (many of them neither marked nor shown on topo maps that can be bought).

I noticed that in my country the quality of OSM with regard to hiking trails has considerably increased due to the contribution of some geocachers.

 

I attended the Google Geo Users Summit meeting in Mountain View, California 2011. About half of the attendees were there for sessions about mapping trails. Not only were the attendees volunteers, but such dedicated volunteers that most of them paid their own way to be there. There were more than 200 in attendance. I would bet that less than 1 in 100 volunteer map makers would come up with the money to fly across a continent to meet with their peers.

 

One of the sessions I attended was about using GPS track logs to map roads and trails (and the pitfalls of doing so).

Edited July 29, 2016 by AustinMN

[+wmpastor]

 

Having two maps means two views. Having one map means having one map view.

 

Yes, unless one views the one map twice.

 

But seriously, the two maps were nice because one showed the broad overview of the area and the other was zoomed in quite a bit. Convenient. However, it's easy enough to zoom out on the remaining map.

 

Hats off to the efficiency expert who came up with this money-saver!

[+dprovan]

For me that small map was nothing more than a green box with a container in the middle of it.

Never saw Towns, much less roads (for how to get there).

It's funny, since the second map was the one I didn't find very useful. The only time I'd look at it is when I wanted to see the waypoints. But even stipulating that the second map is more useful, the first one had one feature the second didn't: the first map was on the first page, so it came up along with all the other critical information about the cache. I really like being able to have all that information at first glance.

[cezanne]

This may be true in your country, but in the USA, there is almost nothing left on Google Maps that was not either put there or refined by a volunteer. Having made hundreds of edits myself, I know how this works.

 

I have thought that this relates only to correcting things and adding information about locations, posting photos etc

but not to adding new trails and I obtained the impression that Google maps focuses mainly on urban areas and not on the wilderness.

 

Can you provide an example of an area where Google maps is good when in comes to showing hiking trails and in particular small ones that are not shown on most other maps? (Like e.g. official topographic maps)

[+AnnaMoritz]

This may be true in your country, but in the USA, there is almost nothing left on Google Maps that was not either put there or refined by a volunteer. Having made hundreds of edits myself, I know how this works.

 

I have thought that this relates only to correcting things and adding information about locations, posting photos etc

but not to adding new trails and I obtained the impression that Google maps focuses mainly on urban areas and not on the wilderness.

 

Can you provide an example of an area where Google maps is good when in comes to showing hiking trails and in particular small ones that are not shown on most other maps? (Like e.g. official topographic maps)

 

Google Map Maker is available in ~ 52 countries, in North America US and Mexico, in Europe UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and 12 eastern european countries. Where available: You can add POIs and lines (like road, path, ferry, railway and over/underpass). Contributions are moderated.

 

So in the US it might depend on the area if and which map is better suited for geocaching outside of towns. Here an example of the area of AustinMN's recently visited cache GC5P3R7 in Minnesota, United States.

 

 

First Google Satellite, second Google Maps, third Openstreetmap (attribution not visible), screenshots from geocaching.com website. Doesn't seem too different.

 

Openstreetmap has also the parking area and the road leading to it and 'toilets' and 'shelter' where google shows two rectangular objects. And there is the path including the bridge that leads to the Earthcache.

 

And an example from Austria, nature park on mountain Dobratsch.

 

 

First Satellite, second Google Maps, third openstreetmap with custom theme that also shows the type of path/road and path difficulty. The screenshots are from my geocaching app. Google shows almost nothing besides the road leading to the transmitter station, the transmitter Station, the summit hut and two summits. Openstreetmap has also paths and landcover and when zooming in also the names and height of most summits there, the names of the churches, the ruins and avalanche barriers and and an overlay of contour lines.