Jump to content

Geocaching Maps Changed?


Frau P
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

What's up with the geocaching.com maps? You used to be able to zoom and pan to find caches, now it's disabled? I think it's poopy if that's a premium member feature now. :P

Some one was kind enough to point that out to Jeremy yesterday and he promptly disabled it. Gotta give you some reason to fork over the cash. :laughing:

Link to comment

That was always supposed to be a premium feature. Apparantly it was "broken" so it allowed you to pan/etc. It has been fixed now.

 

You can still use the oldstyle maps if you go to the "state" page. On the main GC.com page, look for "search by state" in the upper right. On each state page there is a link to the old maps that still allow zooming and panning.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
Yeah, yeah, ok. I paid my 30 bucks yesterday. I still wish many DNFs on the cacher who mentioned it to Jeremy and got it de-activated. :anibad:

I wish more than that...may the poison ivy leaves find their way down that persons pants.

 

I disagree withthe fact that for many of us...we have been able to use those features for a long time, and now all the sudden they are gone. It does not make me want to go out and cough up 30 bucks...if anything, it makes me that much more disinclined to EVER do so. :)

Link to comment

Moderator's Note: This post and the one which follows originally was a separate topic. I merged together some duplicate threads.

 

I used to be able to enter in a zip code and view that area's map which was navagable, now I cant pan, zoom or navigate at all on the map. was something chaged with the way it works? Im not crazy, this did once work for me (maybe a month or go at the most)

sorry if this has been discussed recently, i dont often post in the forums

Edited by Keystone Approver
Link to comment

Moderator's Note: This post and the two which follow were initially a separate topic. I merged together some duplicate threads.

 

I was on the GC website today during lunch and went to see if any new caches were in my area code. When I clicked on the "MAP IT" icon, the map appears, but I can no longer scroll N, S, E, or W and all I can do is "IDENTIFY". I've been able to scroll in the past as soon as I log in, but not today. I know the description at the bottom tells me I can receive the scrolling if I become a "Premium" member, but I've been prefectly happy with the free membership up until now because the scrolling has worked. Has something changed? Was I receiving the premium benefits for free?

 

I guess I will need to open my nearly empty wallet and donate to the cause.

Edited by Keystone Approver
Link to comment

Ok, I've sent an email to Groundspeak expressing my dislike of the "for profit" changes (unworkable maps, premium access only geocaches). I've also read several threads with different opinions as to the changes we now face. I have no problem supporting the web site as long as it stays non-profit. The caches are placed, maintained, and posted by members for others members to use and enjoy. The web site is an integral link. I'd hate to see tactics like NetZero used to lure in a large membership base, then start charging for and limiting features to paid subscribers.

 

It was mentioned that using the scroll, pan, and zoom features of the maps was always intended to be a premium (paid) feature, and that having such access for regular (free) members was accidental. Hmmmm..... does anyone else here have a suspicious mind?

 

It was also mentioned that the older maps with lesser detail are still available in a separate link. I know a good solution. All Groundspeak needs to do is make the old maps with less detail work with regular membership, and the newer and better maps work only for premium members. As a regular member I would rather have my account default to the old workable maps instead of the newer maps that are frozen when displayed. This would also show, to a degree, that we aren’t being pressured to start paying.

Link to comment
I have no problem supporting the web site as long as it stays non-profit.

I think your problems started way back when the website was started. My understanding is that this was always meant to be a profitable site. It may not have always been but I think that was the goal. If in fact this site is meant to be non-profit I am sure I will be corrected.

 

As someone that has been told has been too critical of this site I don't have a problem with that. Those folks are taking the risk they get to make the profit. A lot of services are offered for free. And those that want to pony up the dollars should be rewarded with some extra features.

 

I have always understood this place to be a business. I just don't see the problem with that. I suspect, but can't say for sure, they are making a profit today. Again, fine by me, that is the way things are supposed to work. It has always been my understanding since I joined this site that basic features would be free. But that most if not all imporovements and additions would be for paying members.

Link to comment

Yes this site legally can turn into a pay service, and over time, I suspect that's what it will gradually become. Geocaching doesn't work without many people putting a lot of work into setting it up. Now all that volunteer work can become someone’s cash cow. I will gladly support Groundspeak with a voluntary contribution to preserve what we now have if they are really only trying to recover expenses. If the intention is to now profit from the free work of others, I will not support it.

 

 

Here's an odd thought. What if the U.S. Navy is only letting us receive from their satellites long enough to get us hooked. Think of all those industries that are becoming increasingly reliant on GPS. Just because our tax money pays for those satellites doesn't make us immune from a user fee. When's the last time you went to a state or federal campground and didn't get charged?

Edited by Low Bat
Link to comment

From DAY ONE - I noticed the wording that said pan and zoom were meant only for premium members. But they worked for me - cool - what do I know, I just got here? I used them and enjoyed them. I signed up to support this super sight and get the PQ's.

 

I sure wasn't gunna go ask why it said that if it worked for me. Worse, I surely would not have done it in the forums in public - in front if God and everyone! OH shame - go hide yourself. :P

 

So you got ratted off by someone - live with it, either pay up or shut up. I like the previous example of pay TV - here is another: when the clerk counts out 4 one's and hands them to you but then see that one of them is a TEN and takes it back - do you stop him and tell him he can't do that - he already gave it to you? I don't think so!

 

This sight never said it was non-profit - where do people get that idea? Is it because people expect everything on the web except xxx sites to be free? Is it because there are free areas ou can use - and you don't have to log in like a private site to see anything at all?

 

There is no sign on this site that says "THIS IS A COMMERCIAL SITE" - so do you see that on any other site? What am I missing here? why do so many think that this site or any other site is non-profit. Do you have any idea what kind of money it takes to support just a simple web site? A T1 line in California for a business can cost in excess of $1500 per month. And goes up from there if you need more bandwith. I suspect they have several of these high speed lines coming in to gc given the number of people that are using it. Now, you have seen threads where Jeremy talks about equipment - very high speed servers - routers - firewalls - and one of the greatest expenses of all - people! Who the heck to you think is supposed to pay for all that? Non-proit?

 

HUH?

 

You have a super powerful sight here for free - you get a few extra benefits if you pony up the $30 per year or $3 per month. Sounds pretty good to me - but that's just me. I don't have a lot of time or money - and I'm as cheap as they come - but this is just very reasonable to me.

 

And as a side note - thanks again Jeremy.

 

:P

Link to comment
I will gladly support Groundspeak with a voluntary contribution to preserve what we now have if they are really only trying to recover expenses. If the intention is to now profit from the free work of others, I will not support it.

They are not just trying to cover expenses. They are trying to make a profit. Can you show me where you got the idea that this site was non-profit? That has never been my impression.

Link to comment

Considering how much geocaching costs me in gas, wear and tear on my car, batteries, etc., three bucks extra a month is nothing.

 

If you don't want to support, then don't pay. It's that simple. The site is free. You can view cache pages, you can log finds, you can use the forums. And it doesn't bother me one bit if you choose to not pony up the money.

 

But as others have said, GC.com has expenses to cover, and how are you going to get people to pay money if every single service offered by this site is free? If you don't pay, you can't use all the features. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it's no different than countless other web sites.

 

Get over it and go find some caches. :P

Link to comment
Ok, I've sent an email to Groundspeak expressing my dislike of the "for profit" changes (unworkable maps, premium access only geocaches). I've also read several threads with different opinions as to the changes we now face. I have no problem supporting the web site as long as it stays non-profit

 

What makes you think it should be non profit? Do you really believe that the people involved who put the countless hours into supporting this site, the development costs, coding, buying hardare, waking up at 3 am on a Sunday morning because the server crashed, should do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

I'm glad they are making a profit and the more the better. The more they make, the more likely it is that this website stays in the hands of actual geocachers...people who have the best interest of the sport at heart. If they are just breaking even, or losing money its likely that they'd have to unload the site to someone with big pockets and who doesn't give a hoot about geocaching, but is only interested in seeing how much money they can wring out of the sport.

Link to comment
I will gladly support Groundspeak with a voluntary contribution to preserve what we now have if they are really only trying to recover expenses. If the intention is to now profit from the free work of others, I will not support it.

They are not just trying to cover expenses. They are trying to make a profit. Can you show me where you got the idea that this site was non-profit? That has never been my impression.

 

It is NOT about the money - it is about correcting an ommision in setting permissions for the map functions.

 

The correction has been made - don't blame Jeremy (I'm sure he doesn't need me to stand up for him) he only fixed a broken setting after some guy ratted you all off - blame him. Like I said earlier - I knew something was wrong from day one, but I sure was not going to complain about getting something for free that was plainly labled as for paid users only. You were not supposed to be getting it in the first place, I fail to see what the problem is.

 

I am curious as to why so many think this is a 'conspiracy' to get eveyone hooked on a function and then pull it and make you pay.

 

Are we all that paranoid?

 

Maybe I haven't been here long enough (about 4 months), just don't understand so much negativity toward Jeremy and/or TPTB.

Link to comment
Considering how much geocaching costs me in gas, wear and tear on my car, batteries, etc., three bucks extra a month is nothing.

 

If you don't want to support, then don't pay.  It's that simple.  The site is free.  You can view cache pages, you can log finds, you can use the forums.  And it doesn't bother me one bit if you choose to not pony up the money.

 

But as others have said, GC.com has expenses to cover, and how are you going to get people to pay money if every single service offered by this site is free?  If you don't pay, you can't use all the features.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it's no different than countless other web sites.

 

Get over it and go find some caches. :P

 

THANK YOU !!

 

Very well said -

 

Especially -

 

Considering how much geocaching costs me in gas, wear and tear on my car, batteries, etc., three bucks extra a month is nothing.

 

Batteries! Yikes! I went to rechargables - but even at 12-14 hours - batteries were costing me a fortune.

Edited by CompuCash
Link to comment
Maybe I haven't been here long enough (about 4 months), just don't understand so much negativity toward Jeremy and/or TPTB.

 

You're just hearing from a vocal minority. The vast majority of geocachers are happy with this site and its owners. Its just that people who are satisfied rarely enter the forums to declare how happy they are.

Link to comment
Most of them have met me. I'm a total @ss

Oh now see I was holding off on the making that judgement till I actually met you. I will be in Seattle in a little over a week, want to get together I will buy the first round. :P

 

It is NOT about the money - it is about correcting an ommision in setting permissions for the map functions.

 

CompuCash -- it is about the money. This site is for profit, so what. I don't have a problem with that. The person's point was that this site should not be for profit. Maybe I am missing the point on that one. I have my own feelings about the whole map thing, which I have never commented on. It was an obvious error, yes much like the cable example. For me I don't really see the big deal in the maps. But to each his own.

 

But I just am shaking my head over the whole feeling that this site should be non-profit. There is little doubt I have my differences with how this site is run, but I have always fully supported those that own it to have the ability to make as much money as they can. If the policies, costs or some other factor drive people away that is the way it goes.

Link to comment
Maybe I haven't been here long enough (about 4 months), just don't understand so much negativity toward Jeremy and/or TPTB.

Most of them have met me. I'm a total @ss

 

ya ok - maybe so - thanks for the laugh -

 

I take people on how they treat me (with a warning from what others say)

 

so until you are an a** to me I can't say anything bad about you -

 

actually I hope you were kidding - but hey! what ever rings your bell - :P

Link to comment
Maybe I haven't been here long enough (about 4 months), just don't understand so much negativity toward Jeremy and/or TPTB.

 

You're just hearing from a vocal minority. The vast majority of geocachers are happy with this site and its owners. Its just that people who are satisfied rarely enter the forums to declare how happy they are.

 

hey I know that game - I work in tech support!

Link to comment
You're just hearing from a vocal minority. The vast majority of geocachers are happy with this site and its owners. Its just that people who are satisfied rarely enter the forums to declare how happy they are.

I hear that all the time but what is that based on. Is there anybody here that has spoken with all the cachers on the forums or not and have asked that question? Or is it based on a circle of cachers one knows and because they talk are likely to be of the same mind?

 

I'll say this and it is based on the same amount of facts:

 

The vast majority of geocachers are not happy with this site and its owners. In fact many geocachers do not even use this site. Its just that people who are not satisfied rarely enter the forums because they are tired of nonsense they have to put up with from those that blindly follow.

 

I don't know but it seems that there is no way to really prove one or the other right or wrong. The same can be said of elections and people that complain about elected leaders. Yet what is it something like 30% of those that are eligable to vote do. So a very small vocal minority only gets heard there as well.

Link to comment

I'll say this and it is based on the same amount of facts:

 

The vast majority of geocachers are very happy with this site and its owners. In fact many geocachers do not even use the forums. Its just that people who are satisfied rarely enter the forums because they are too busy geocaching to listen to the nonsense they have to put up with from those that make broad assumptions to support their own arguments.

Link to comment

I guess my opinion appears to be in the minority. If those that place geocaches don't mind that their efforts can be turned into someone else’s profit venture, then I have no leg to stand on.

 

Every post I've read so far feels that Groundspeak (I gather it is Jeremy who runs it) simply made an unintentional error with the maps, and didn't mean to create a "get you hooked and make you pay later" scheme. Ok, I'll go with that.

 

I don't know where Jeremy intends to take Geocaching.com. I would be willing to pay a fee, even if it were just to use the basic service, provided it was to cover the operating costs which must be a small fortune by now. I don't want to be a part of this site if it intends to profit from the free efforts of others. I maybe the only one posting here that to have this opinion, but that's the way I feel.

 

Jeremy, if you are reading my post I want to say "thank you" for setting up a site that I have found enjoyable for nearly three years. I don't get to it very often and haven't found a lot of caches, but it has been fun. If $30 a year from members is what you need to cover operating costs, then please say so and I'll send it to you.

Link to comment
I guess my opinion appears to be in the minority. If those that place geocaches don't mind that their efforts can be turned into someone else’s profit venture, then I have no leg to stand on.

 

Every post I've read so far feels that Groundspeak (I gather it is Jeremy who runs it) simply made an unintentional error with the maps, and didn't mean to create a "get you hooked and make you pay later" scheme. Ok, I'll go with that.

 

I don't know where Jeremy intends to take Geocaching.com. I would be willing to pay a fee, even if it were just to use the basic service, provided it was to cover the operating costs which must be a small fortune by now. I don't want to be a part of this site if it intends to profit from the free efforts of others. I maybe the only one posting here that to have this opinion, but that's the way I feel.

 

Jeremy, if you are reading my post I want to say "thank you" for setting up a site that I have found enjoyable for nearly three years. I don't get to it very often and haven't found a lot of caches, but it has been fun. If $30 a year from members is what you need to cover operating costs, then please say so and I'll send it to you.

This link may be your Answer / Request :P

Link to comment

Thanks for the link Cache Viking; it sheds some light on the operational costs Jeremy is incurring. I still don't know if Geocaching.com is a for-profit or non-profit venture. Some may ask why it matters, as anyone is allowed to start a business and make money. Aside from my personal opinion, there are other factors that Geocaching.com may one day face.

 

There is now a type of geocache that is available for premium (paid) members only. I'll coin a new geo-neologism and spell it as GeoCash. A geocash that is hidden on public lands may be in violation of a common usage rule that basically says the land may not be used for profit making activities. This rule has exceptions and varies with the government agency managing the land. Does a geocash violate this rule? The answer may take a judge's ruling if it ever gets that far. I read other threads that talk about geocaching simply being banned in some areas as officials become aware of the activity.

 

On a side note, a transit agency that I worked for recently became aware of a multi-cache on their light rail stations. They get bomb threats and deal with suspicious packages from time-to-time, so when they learned of small containers hidden along the stations that attract people holding small devices, they had them removed. Geocaching in the post 9/11 world is another topic altogether.

 

Now on to private land. Many geocaches are placed on publicly accessed private property; such as a shopping center. A geocash hidden without the owner’s knowledge or consent raises a question; is the property owner entitled to a share of the profits? Obviously nobody is going to take Geocaching.com to civil court as there isn't much money in it right now. However, those little green dots we see on the map are growing rapidly. The potential is there to make a bundle if the geocash becomes common. Years from now property owners who discover that their land has been used without their consent may start filing claims in the hope of a quick settlement. People sue each other for the smallest of things if they smell enough money.

 

I'm not trying to send the message I'm against geocaching. I like this little hi-tech hide-and-seek game and hope it survives the coming years.

Link to comment
The vast majority of geocachers are not happy with this site and its owners. In fact many geocachers do not even use this site. Its just that people who are not satisfied rarely enter the forums because they are tired of nonsense they have to put up with from those that blindly follow.

 

hmm. well, if the vast majority of geocachers are not happy with this site and it's owners and don't want to pay, they don't have to. it's not mandatory. does it make it easier? yes. i am on a very limited budget, but geocaching, for me, is a priority, so i forked it over. i can afford $2.50 a month to get those features. they are worth that price to me. and i am willing to pay to support something that is worthwhile. just like paying to register GSAK. not required, but worth the small amount of money to show your support.

 

i think most people don't use the forums because they don't do forums. how did you arrive at the conclusion that the vast majority aren't here because they are tired of nonsense and don't like the site or its owners? did they post that?

 

pay or don't pay. it's optional.

 

and as for members only caches... i have yet to see one. why does everyone complain about this?

Link to comment
how did you arrive at the conclusion that the vast majority aren't here because they are tired of nonsense and don't like the site or its owners? did they post that?

I don't have anything to base that conclusion on. Please read my entire post. I was only pointing out that people say the majority of people are happy with the site and they don't have anything to base that on either. I was only making a point about general statements.

 

I have no idea how the majority of people feel. One would need to hear from enough people to be sure you have enough tallied to count for 50% plus 1 of the people. I have not done that and I don't know that anyone has. Until that happens an accurate statement on how people feel can not be made.

 

As for the rest of your post I don't disagree with you.

Edited by GrizzlyJohn
Link to comment
I still don't know if Geocaching.com is a for-profit or non-profit venture.

Well, if you still have any doubts about it, read this interesting history of geocaching.

So Jeremy is it true? Will you give us an alternate history? Anyways, if the history of geocaching and geocaching.com is true it's a little scary the legal ruthlessness Jeremy tried to use pulling a Microsoft making geocaching.com a monopoly. Before Buxley's website was blacklisted and the geocaching.com maps usage by non-premium members was "fixed" I was willing to give money to the website because I used it and thought it was a great service, now I'm not so sure about giving such a limited resource. I hope I'm not the only one that doesn't want to support geocaching.com for the same reasons.

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 1
×
×
  • Create New...