Jump to content

Geocaching Maps Changed?


Frau P
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I can say with confidence that I do not care about statistics or perceived numbers. I started paying for my account within about 10 days of hearing about geocaching. We just past our one year mark and I received a notice that my account will renew via paypal very soon.. I AM EXCITED by this news. If you wonder why, just look at out profile and our gallery.

 

My family has used geocaching as an excuse to get off our butts and get OUT THERE and enjoy the weekends and evening. A year and a half ago, if someone asked me what I was doing this weekend, my response would have been 'Working", now I make them wait till the weekend is over more times then not.. My kids and I love it (geocaching) and all the places we have been taken.

 

Is this off topic? maybe, then again someone asked why the maps changed and now it is a 'lets slam geocaching once again' forum. Someone said the majority of the cachers are upset? Bah.. I am more inclinded to believe it is forums that upset most of the geocachers who give a darn.. Some of these people actually amaze me. If your so upset and disgusted with geocaching, please find a new hobby.

 

Jeremy and Crew..

Our team thanks you for this. Our team loves this. As soon as I get over my last cliff dive, expect to read about me once more taming the wilderness to find the containers be they full or empty, high value trade or McToys.. We will enjoy what we do..

Link to comment
It's on the internet so it must be true  B)

If this account isn’t true, please give us your version. I think many people are weary of Groundspeak only because of its policy/tendency to remain silent on so many issues. Your silence, of course, speaks volumes and causes people to make assumptions. It’s up to you to set the record straight, otherwise, don’t be alarmed when people draw their own conclusions.

Link to comment
It's on the internet so it must be true  B)

If this account isn’t true, please give us your version. I think many people are weary of Groundspeak only because of its policy/tendency to remain silent on so many issues. Your silence, of course, speaks volumes and causes people to make assumptions. It’s up to you to set the record straight, otherwise, don’t be alarmed when people draw their own conclusions.

Oh for crying out loud, go find a cache!

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.

who freakin' cares. if jeremy can make a buck with this site more power to him. the only posters i see beefing about it are the same posters who complain about everything. if you want to change things, start your own site. some people just like the sturm and drang and let it rule their lives. chill.

Link to comment
It's on the internet so it must be true  :unsure:

If this account isn’t true, please give us your version. I think many people are weary of Groundspeak only because of its policy/tendency to remain silent on so many issues. Your silence, of course, speaks volumes and causes people to make assumptions. It’s up to you to set the record straight, otherwise, don’t be alarmed when people draw their own conclusions.

You're right, it does speak volumes. It says that they're tired of everything "they" say being used against them.

 

Making assumptions is a foolish. If people want to be fools, let them.

 

sd

Link to comment
It's on the internet so it must be true  :unsure:

If this account isn’t true, please give us your version. I think many people are weary of Groundspeak only because of its policy/tendency to remain silent on so many issues. Your silence, of course, speaks volumes and causes people to make assumptions. It’s up to you to set the record straight, otherwise, don’t be alarmed when people draw their own conclusions.

Yea I don't see them giving an account of the history as they see it. There is nothing for them to gain by doing so.

 

Those who want to believe the account that was posted will. Those who want to believe that it is not true will believe that. Those that really have no opinion either way will likely not have one at the end of a gc.com version of the history. I suspect they will both sound reasonable and there really is not a way for the average person to be able to figure out which is right and which is wrong. Those that can figure it out because of personal knowledge of the events are the only ones that I am certain know for sure what happened. And at that point it is a matter of who you want to believe.

 

I am not saying either side is lying but everyone comes to remember a story in a certain way. Usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Link to comment
And at that point it is a matter of who you want to believe.

Well, not entirely. The history I linked is well documented, with links to copies of e-mails, newsgroup postings and other documents throughout. Also, anyone can take a look at the trademark office's online database regarding the word geocaching.

 

I didn't want to start a debate with this, my only purpose was to show that yes, gc.com is a for-profit business, it has been such from the beginning, there is nothing non-profit about it. I personally, when I pay my premium membership fee, I don't feel that I donate or that I support a cause; I feel that I'm paying a fee for certain services, it's a commercial transaction, nothing else.

Link to comment
There is nothing for them to gain by doing so.

Well, if Groundspeak offered their version, it would at least give us some reason to think maybe we shouldn't take the other side's account at face value. Right now, there's simply no reason to doubt it.

 

<I guess we both should go find a cache. :blink:>

Edited by subterranean
Link to comment

GrizzlyJohn, I would like to thank you for your past two posts. You are correct - much of the "history" has been addressed in prior forum threads. I appreciate your pointing that out. A good example is a long thread in the Geocaching.com forum from a few months ago. Read it here.

 

Some of us who have been reading the forums for awhile view discussions like this as "same old stuff" being brought up over and over again. As someone who responds to lots of "frequently asked questions" in the forums, I can understand why Jeremy doesn't jump up, drop whatever he's doing, and write a long essay every single time that someone posts a link to Scout's version of the history of geocaching. It gets repetitive. But for others who have not read all those prior forum threads, I can see how silence might be interpreted as something else.

Link to comment

Bear in mind it's also easy to spin facts the way you want.

 

"19 brave young men gave up their lives trying to protect their holy land from invaders" is an accurate, truthful and correct statement.

 

Kinda feel sorry for those poor guys, don't ya?

 

 

What if I reword the exact same event?

 

"On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 terrorists senselessly murdered over 2600 innocent men, women and children."

 

 

Same event.

 

Both statements are accurate, truthful, and correct.

 

Different spin.

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.

 

<snip>

I agree with the points regarding caching on public and private lands WRT a for-profit enterprise. I've been involved with geocaching for over 3 years, and have watched with discomfort the level of commercialization grow. Perhaps it was inevitable, but the disabling of the maps features has pushed me over the edge, and I will be archiving all my gc.com caches, and only listing them on select other sites from here on out.

 

Yes, I'm sure the frequency of access will drop for them, but it has been dropping steadily of late anyway, and I suspect making it harder to locate them on the site (ie, turning off pan/scroll for rank and file users) will lead that trend to continue.

 

By the way, I've been here long enough to recall the old style maps that were used in the days before "Premium" access (and yes, I realize you can still access the old ones from the main page via the "States" function, but few users know this). They worked fine, and I actually preferred them. They allowed panning and scrolling as far back as 2001, probably earlier.

 

I also remember a promise that no features would be taken away from those who did not ante up for Premium membership. If this promise is to be honored, then I agree that the old style maps should be presented to Non-Premium members when they access maps from the primary links they have traditionally been accessed from.

 

(The promise was broken in at least one other area, as well - free members used to see icons showing which caches were theirs, which ones had already been found, etc. on the old-style maps. When the new maps were created, this was disabled.)

 

I'm sure I'll get slammed by all those who feel commercialization of the web is a wonderful thing, and in many cases I agree it is, but in this particular instance I bristle when I see how geocaching has been commandeered by one individual, and the original free-wheeling spirit of the exercise has been lost.

 

I'm taking back my ball and going to play elsewhere...

 

OTR

Link to comment

As I said in another thread, I think it's a big mistake to take away the panning and zooming ability from non-premium members. Looking at a pannable, zoomable map with the caches shown on it is something that makes beginners feel amazed about how many caches are out there to hunt and it is something that can get one hooked and help one to make one's first steps in geocaching. And some of the people who get hooked become premium members later. But a static, dead map with a remark that zooming and panning is for paying members only will just make a newbie feel that this is a strongly commercialized site with crippled features that are almost useless for non-subscribers and will just make them go away before they get a chance to get hooked.

 

As for the present non-paying members, I doubt anyone will become a premium member just to be able to pan and zoom the map. It's more likely that they just get upset about losing this ability and it will make them even less inclined to buy a premium membership.

 

But of course this is just theorizing, gc.com's revenue numbers may show otherwise.

Link to comment
As for the present non-paying members, I doubt anyone will become a premium member just to be able to pan and zoom the map. It's more likely that they just get upset about losing this ability and it will make them even less inclined to buy a premium membership.

 

But of course this is just theorizing, gc.com's revenue numbers may show otherwise.

as77, your theorizing is correct. I am less inclined to buy a premium membership. I enjoy the site very much, think it is very well done, and of course as a geocacher use it extensively. But when a feature that has been available to everyone that is very useful has been taken away, or "fixed", I am and will be less likely to give to the site. I wanted to before the "fix" but only lacked money. Yes, $30/year or $2.50/month is a lot of money for me since I'm a tight budget. As for future members buying a premium membership, I don't think this latest "fix" will change anything since most don't care or will join geocaching.com after the "fix".

Link to comment

I have not paid for premium membership up to this point (been active for a year plus), and was quite happy to be able to pan maps anyway. Based on the description on the map page, I knew I was perhaps "getting away with something", so what, it was available and I utilized it. I have never had a PayPal account, and even though I could drive a check over to HQ with little problem, was waiting for the ability to pay by credit card (a feature that seems to be in the same purgatory as usable Canadian maps).

 

cut to brass tacks - I will become a premium member with no complaints in order to regain the map-panning ability. Also looking forward to Pocket Queries for my Clie and some local members-only caches. The servers aren't free. Don't pay if you don't want to, but you must recognize even basic lookup searches require that someone has invested in the infrastructure to make it happen.

 

Passion for one's endeavors is laudable, but perspective is perhaps just as important in order to enjoy them to the maximum extent!

 

paul2tele

Link to comment

It's good to read the opinions of others, even the ones that I don't necessarily agree with. I was alarmed at first to read criticism for merely bringing the subject up. Yes I see it's been discussed before thanks to someone adding a link. The end result is we are more informed thanks to all our input and discussion.

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...