The small map has disappeared!

[+dartymoor]

Since always, there have been two maps on the cache page. A top zoomable map that gives the general location, quite zoomed out, and the second map, with "View larger map" link that shows a closer view.

 

Some time today, the top map has disappeared!

 

Verified in Chrome and IE, the latter without any plugins in case something I ran was messing.

 

Occurs both in Logged in and Not Logged in mode.

 

The source code seems to be missing any reference to leaflet or any other kind of embedded maps in that area now.

 

What I see (The first map appeared above Attributes on the sidebar, IIRC) http://i.imgur.com/AFW6vS2.jpg

[+cerberus1]

Noticed that too, but I always hit the "View larger map" anyway, and didn't think it a big deal.

Maybe it might be...

That small map rarely gave me an idea where it was most times, so just naturally gravitate to the larger map right away for surroundings.

[+Mudfrog]

Noticed that too, but I always hit the "View larger map" anyway, and didn't think it a big deal.

Maybe it might be...

That small map rarely gave me an idea where it was most times, so just naturally gravitate to the larger map right away for surroundings.

The smaller map showed a broader area, sometimes with a city's name which sometimes made it easier to identify the general area or what part of town the cache was in. This came in handy at times. But yes, the larger is the one i use more often since it can be opened to it's own page to show lots of details.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Well shoot, that's a -1 for usability.

 

It's probably related to some upcoming changes to MapQuest OSM licensing (good maps badly updated), and I suspect Groundspeak is trying to avoid spending more money than they have to.

 

At least this tells me, they are aware of the rumblings at MapQuest.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Oh no.

 

If you switch your favourite cache page's url from www to staging (eg staging.geocaching.com/whatever), you can see Groundspeak's idea of the future. It's their test server where they try out new features.

 

For the larger (and only remaining) map on the cache page, they're using Mapbox Street maps, instead of the OSM-based ones. Useless for trails.

You can see it on the large map here: https://staging.geocaching.com/map

 

This is an outdoor game!!! We need trails on our maps, please.

 

EDIT: Okay, maybe not useless after all. It looks like Mapbox Street maps are OSM-based after all, it's just that the trails are sometimes hard or impossible to see. Depends on the background. Just semi-useless.

 

So calm down VP, calm down...

 

EDIT: It's not too late to urge another look at the Thunderforest maps, is it? Those are pretty darn excellent. Landscape, Outdoors, or OpenCycleMap in particular...

Edited June 25, 2016 by Viajero Perdido

[+donmaedi]

I hope they fix that - I used the small map so often to get a quick overview.

Would make the GC Website a lot worse for me, scrolling around the listing all the time

[+dartymoor]

It's probably related to some upcoming changes to MapQuest OSM licensing (good maps badly updated), and I suspect Groundspeak is trying to avoid spending more money than they have to.

 

Have you got a link to this, please?

 

I understand your thoughts, Groundspeak nerfed google maps (and handled communication badly) due to threats of API cost - but the OSM data is free to use and will always be free to use; that's a core of OSM philosphy. Mapquest is not OSM even if they use the data - and a change can be made easily.

 

(I've been contributing to OSM for many years so this is partly my work and I did it on that understanding)

 

Anyway, hopefully we're jumping to conclusions and this is just a bug introduced in an update and will be returned.

 

Edit: Saw your second post, clearly you're aware of these. I agree ref trails/footpaths/bridlepaths - they're almost invisible on that map.

Edited June 26, 2016 by dartymoor

[+Harry Dolphin]

I liked the small map. It gave me a general idea of the area where the cache is.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Have you got a link to this, please?

Yep. MapQuest changing their map access on July 11th and several links within that page too.

 

Now of course, OSM data is free-as-in-speech, but not free-as-in-beer. If somebody wants to make a business of hosting a server farm to serve 100,000 tiles of OSM data per day (which costs money), they can. Which is what MapQuest, Mapbox, and Thunderforest all do with their own renditions of the OSM data. They compete with each other to offer the best plan, and/or best-looking maps, for high-usage companies like Groundspeak.

 

Or, as mentioned in the other thread, Groundspeak could take the free data, and generate/host 100,000 tiles per day on their own servers. But it may be more complicated than they want to tackle. (I looked into doing it personally when I wanted unlimited OpenCycleMap tiles to use offline within Locus, but quickly realized what a fool idea that was, and found another solution.)

 

I happily contribute to OSM too, and have no qualms with a few companies offering custom styles and hosting packages. OSM is stronger for it.

[+The A-Team]

For the larger (and only remaining) map on the cache page, they're using Mapbox Street maps, instead of the OSM-based ones.

Yikes, that's a very bare-bones rendering that wouldn't be very useful for caching.

• Trails are rendered, but they're grey and become almost invisible on the default background colour. Even on top of a coloured park/nature reserve/school area, they're very difficult to see.
  
• Trails aren't rendered until zoom level 16. For reference, MapQuest OSM also renders them at zoom 16, while the "Standard" OSM rendering (the one you see by default at openstreetmap.org) starts rendering them at zoom 13, which is much more useful.
  
• The rendering of almost all POIs (including buildings) doesn't start until zoom 17, which is far too late.
  
• Besides parks, schools, hospitals, and airports, no other areas are rendered. A name label is sometimes rendered, but this is meaningless in most cases because there's no other information to provide context, nor a boundary to show the extent of the enclosing area.
  
• The very low quality hillshading is distracting rather than useful.
  

In short, it's an acceptable (though overly-plain and buggy) rendering for a plain street map, but it's entirely useless for geocaching purposes. The only good thing I can say about it is that it appears to update with new OSM data very frequently.

 

I sincerely hope Groundspeak does the right thing and starts paying for a geocaching-acceptable mapping service. There's only so far you can go with freeloading, and it's time to start acting like a business with hundreds of thousands of users worldwide, not a penny-pinching hobbyist site. Groundspeak, your users are demanding a usable map, so please do what's necessary to provide this, whether that means paying for it or serving it up yourself.

[+on4bam]

That's not the only thing that changed. GC little helper (GM script) does not show logs from VIPs anymore.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

That's because of the missing small map. It is already discussed in a ticket on GClh Github page. There is a quick fix described on that page if you do not want to wait until Torsten releases a new version.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Pontiac_CZ

[+on4bam]

That's because of the missing small map. It is already discussed in a ticket on GClh Github page. There is a quick fix described on that page if you do not want to wait until Torsten releases a new version.

 

Thanks, that was a quick fix..

[+Viajero Perdido]

Psst, Groundspeak, don't forget to change "Tiles courtesy of MapQuest".

 

I am starting to miss that small map...

 

PS, Mapbox Satellite (on the large map) is a very nice addition. Between that and ESRI Worldimagery (which we already have), who needs Google?

 

PPS, somewhat unpredictably, I'm seeing the new map or the old map at staging.geocaching.com; it's flipped back and forth a few times while I was poking around. So if anybody wonders what the heck I'm talking about because the maps don't look any different, maybe try again a little later.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Viajero Perdido

[cezanne]

Noticed that too, but I always hit the "View larger map" anyway, and didn't think it a big deal.

Maybe it might be...

 

For caches like this here

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5GK9J_vulkanland-noch-zoll-aufi

or this one

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC11PTE_graz-monaco

and quite a number of other caches of the same type it amounts to a lot of scrolling to get down to the larger map and then if the

distance covers hundreds or thousands of km, the large map with all waypoints is not too convenient.

[+BlackRose67]

That's because of the missing small map. It is already discussed in a ticket on GClh Github page. There is a quick fix described on that page if you do not want to wait until Torsten releases a new version.

Torsten has indicated he no longer has time to maintain GCLH, so it's up to the community to get it fixed.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Discussion continues on this Release Notes thread.

 

With Lackey input even.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Torsten has indicated he no longer has time to maintain GCLH, so it's up to the community to get it fixed.

 

Yes, I know. But he as well has indicated (by coincidence in my ticket ) that he would publish a new version if someone provided a fix. Which is what klaubauter did.

[+x_xenolith_x]

What happened to the small map that showed a larger area. So much for 'trial period' At least I knew the how far and direction the hide was located.

 

When looking at a cache page.. I have no clue where the cache is located. (county, state, area)

 

Another feature that has rendered geocaching.com useless without extensive research.

 

Please fix or archive the update.

 

Where is this and what county is the hide in.. This site makes me upload an image from my FTP server.. ACCESSED denied to the public geocaching.com.

Edited July 1, 2016 by x_xenolith_x

[+niraD]

So much for 'trial period'

I really don't get this. How does removing that one map affect the "trial period" of anything?

 

When looking at a cache page.. I have no clue where the cache is located. (county, state, area)

The state is listed at the top, to the right of the coordinates. (Of course, everything within 200 miles of me is in the same state, so that doesn't actually help me much.)

 

For the city/county/local location, I scroll down to the big map and zoom out a few times. It's not that hard. (And FWIW, I did it back when the small maps were on the page too.)

 

Another feature that has rendered geocaching.com useless without extensive research.

Useless? Really?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ah. The new map... Dolphins don't like change! Stop making changes!!

The bright blue for water is too bright. Elevation is in meters. Sorry. Meters don't mean anything to me. (Even though I work with them every day...) I've lived here forty years, and I've never heard of that intersection called "Youngstown".

Same mistake as on most on-line maps: When they built Rte 46 in the 30s, it connected McFarlan Street in Dover, with Bloomfield Avenue in Denville. The name of the road is Route 46! It is NOT Bloomfield Avenue! The new maps will take some getting used to.

[+cerberus1]

So much for 'trial period'

I really don't get this. How does removing that one map affect the "trial period" of anything?

 

When looking at a cache page.. I have no clue where the cache is located. (county, state, area)

The state is listed at the top, to the right of the coordinates. (Of course, everything within 200 miles of me is in the same state, so that doesn't actually help me much.)

 

For the city/county/local location, I scroll down to the big map and zoom out a few times. It's not that hard. (And FWIW, I did it back when the small maps were on the page too.)

 

Another feature that has rendered geocaching.com useless without extensive research.

Useless? Really?

+1

Most times, that tiny map showed a cache in the middle of green for me, and that's it.

Maybe because I pick n choose (by terrain mostly) what I'll do, it just turned out that way.

Just got used to opening the big map, while also looking for others that I might be interested in around it.

[+dartymoor]

Disappointed not to see any engagement from Groundspeak on this, either before removing functionality, since in here, or giving any indication if this is a permanent change and an explanation of why, if so.

 

Bad show on communication, guys.

[+pulmonaryhip]

I am also missing the small map. It was very useful when I travel since I'm not familiar with another location, and it helps to see it's near a city/town I recognize or not. To scroll down the page and zoom out a bunch of times on the location map takes much more time than a quick glance used to take. Please bring it back!!

[+BigFurryMonster]

Please please please bring the small map back. I need to have a clue in which general area a cache is located.

[+dprovan]

When looking at a cache page.. I have no clue where the cache is located. (county, state, area)

The state is listed at the top, to the right of the coordinates. (Of course, everything within 200 miles of me is in the same state, so that doesn't actually help me much.)

Yeah, I'm in the same area as you, which is precisely why I agree completely with x_xenolith_x: I have no clue where the cache is located because all it says is "California".

 

For the city/county/local location, I scroll down to the big map and zoom out a few times. It's not that hard. (And FWIW, I did it back when the small maps were on the page too.)

Until now, I've been able to look at the first page of the description and, in almost all cases, get a good idea where the cache is and what kind of walk would get me there. To me, asking me to scroll down for that information makes about as much sense as saying I should expect to scroll down to see whether it's a traditional or a puzzle cache.

[+GeoTrekker26]

When looking at a cache page.. I have no clue where the cache is located. (county, state, area)

The state is listed at the top, to the right of the coordinates. (Of course, everything within 200 miles of me is in the same state, so that doesn't actually help me much.)

Yeah, I'm in the same area as you, which is precisely why I agree completely with x_xenolith_x: I have no clue where the cache is located because all it says is "California".

 

For the city/county/local location, I scroll down to the big map and zoom out a few times. It's not that hard. (And FWIW, I did it back when the small maps were on the page too.)

Until now, I've been able to look at the first page of the description and, in almost all cases, get a good idea where the cache is and what kind of walk would get me there. To me, asking me to scroll down for that information makes about as much sense as saying I should expect to scroll down to see whether it's a traditional or a puzzle cache.

 

When I open a cache page, near the coordinates I see a message like this "N 367.9 mi from your home location" which gives me a pretty good general idea where the cache is.

[+dprovan]

When I open a cache page, near the coordinates I see a message like this "N 367.9 mi from your home location" which gives me a pretty good general idea where the cache is.

For me, that actually doesn't typically even narrow down urban vs. mountain, but what I'm really looking for is which neighborhood, hence whether I've cached there lately. I don't know the distances to the cities around me, let alone remember the mileage to the area I walked the last time I was there.

Edited July 5, 2016 by dprovan

[+Viajero Perdido]

Groundspeak, are you counting map tile loads?

 

Without the overview map, I find myself scrolling down, then zooming out the larger map 2 to 5 times until I can see the context. That probably costs you more than just leaving the little map in place.

 

Not to mention, it's a pain in the butt for the customers.

[+van der Decken]

Without the overview map, I find myself scrolling down, then zooming out the larger map 2 to 5 times until I can see the context. That probably costs you more than just leaving the little map in place.

Yes, doing the same thing myself.

 

Not to mention, it's a pain in the butt for the customers.

And yes again. It would be nice to think that TPTB would take notice but past events don't fill me with hope.

[cezanne]

Most times, that tiny map showed a cache in the middle of green for me, and that's it.

Maybe because I pick n choose (by terrain mostly) what I'll do, it just turned out that way.

Just got used to opening the big map, while also looking for others that I might be interested in around it.

 

I guess it depends for which purpose you use the small map and when and also on where one lives.

 

I used it to get a quick impression about the cache area when looking through all new caches in my state/province and sometimes neighbouring ones. That's not yet a selection of caches I ever plan to visit and I'm not interested at that time about the other caches around - I just want to have a quick look and weed out the few that deserve to be looked at a later time.

 

Scrolling down several times and then performing several zooming steps just to realize that the cache is of no interest to me is a frustrating usage of time.

 

I never used the small map for actually planning cache trips.

[+JimJinks]

Try Lil Devil's streetview script and set the default zoom level to 10 or 11 to get an overview map.

Edited July 6, 2016 by JimJinks

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Scrolling down several times and then performing several zooming steps just to realize that the cache is of no interest to me is a frustrating usage of time.

 

 

So how difficult would it be to position the map with the "View Larger Map" in the spot where the missing "small map" use to be? Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it just above the "Attributes" box.

 

 

[+Homer_J_Simpson]

 

Scrolling down several times and then performing several zooming steps just to realize that the cache is of no interest to me is a frustrating usage of time.

 

 

So how difficult would it be to position the map with the "View Larger Map" in the spot where the missing "small map" use to be? Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it just above the "Attributes" box.

 

+1 from me. The actual Mini-Map is quite useless when a Cache is placed in the woods or in the desert. Even in towns it is not possible to get information in which area the Cache is placed.

 

Scrolling down to view the map is also annoying.

 

So please place the small map at the position of the "old" map and adjust the Zoom Factor to show a larger surrounding area. To view the exact position of the Cache "View larger map" can be used. I think a quick information in which area the Cache is placed is more important than a detailed map on which no one can see the surroundings of the location.

[cezanne]

So how difficult would it be to position the map with the "View Larger Map" in the spot where the missing "small map" use to be? Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it just above the "Attributes" box.

 

I do not know how difficult it would be for GS (somehow their system is quite different to what I find easy to imagine as experience over the years taught me). A workaround also could be a link that directly leads to the bottom of the page (the place with the map and also other map related links). Such a link would be useful for other purposes too and should be even easier to implement. I'm sceptic however that anything like that (either what you suggested or the alternative I mentioned) gets implemented.

[+MartyBartfast]

Hmm, I never used the map that's been removed as I always thought it's zoom level was too far out and not useful, but clearly a lot of others though otherwise.

 

How about:

 

• 
   
  
• Move the existing map up the page so it's immediately visible when the cache page is first opened.
  
• Allow cachers to somehow choose the default zoom level for the map.
   
  

Then everybody's happy

[+dartymoor]

I've not seen any evidence Groundspeak are reading this, taking any notice, or just blindly making arbitrary choices about the design and not caring about the impact it has.

 

This is the right place to report web issues, isn't it, Groundspeak?

[+dprovan]

How about:

 

• Move the existing map up the page so it's immediately visible when the cache page is first opened.
  
• Allow cachers to somehow choose the default zoom level for the map.
  

Then everybody's happy

Well, not everyone would be happy. The only logical reason I can see for removing that map is that it opens up that primo space for advertisements.

[+dprovan]

I'm astonished to discover how often I use the missing map. When it first disappeared, I thought the missing map was a minor change I'd get used to. After a couple weeks, I've discovered that map is still almost always the very first thing I look at when a cache description comes up (except now, there's always an ad there, which makes it even more annoying than to just not have that critical information). In many cases, the information that map gave me was the most important thing I wanted to know about the cache. Honestly, I'd trade the title, the owner, and most of the quick links to make room to get the map back! After suffering this for a while, I'd rather I was forced to scroll down to log the cache and have the little map at the top.

[+BigFurryMonster]

Any update on this issue? We really miss the map at the top of the page!

[+BigFurryMonster]

Groundspeak, for a geolocation-based-game-based-company, you really must try harder!

 

[ohgood]

are you guys not running adblockers? i don't see any ads at all, but the map works fine.

 

[+Viajero Perdido]

This discussion was about the second, even smaller map near the top of the cache page.

 

Yes, the remaining map farther down the page (shown) does indeed work fine. (If there happens to be no content, someone should add that content.)

[ohgood]

This discussion was about the second, even smaller map near the top of the cache page.

 

Yes, the remaining map farther down the page (shown) does indeed work fine. (If there happens to be no content, someone should add that content.)

 

bah, I'm an idiot !

 

after you relieved my ignorance, i wondered how much smaller a map could be, and still be useful lol

[+skramble]

...(If there happens to be no content, someone should add that content.)

 

Not quite so simple. Here's a comparison of the map on the cache page, not showing a trail I uploaded to OSM, vs the same area when seen from "view larger map", which does have it. The small map on the cache page isn't using the same OSM source, although it seems to purport to (showing the copyrights at the bottom). Perhaps it's actually the geocaching default map, which we can't add content to, unless they do update from OSM, but not as frequently as the larger map.

 

[+Viajero Perdido]

Groundspeak just recently (a month ago?) implemented their very own rendition of the OSM data, which is what you see on the cache page now, and as shown in your left screenshot above.

 

As an active OSM contributor myself, I've noticed their map data is a few months old. I have no idea what kind of update interval they'll have over time. I asked in the Release Notes forum, but heard nothing back.

 

For a few days we had Mapbox Outdoor maps in that space, and they rocked, in large part to an almost-instantaneous update time.

 

The blank map shown in post #41 might been due to an overloaded server; I think I've noticed that myself. Hard to tell between a blank tile and a missing one, so maybe my just-add-content crack was misplaced. We're all working on it.