[MnCo]

niraD, on 27 March 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

IIRC, the number of hits on Google Maps would need to drop from 2M+/day to less than 25k/day. I'm not convinced that less than 1 in 50 hits would be redirected to Google, especially once someone writes a Greasemonkey script to set the default back go Google Maps.

hmmm, I wasn't aware the requirement is as low as that, so you may be right (although in that case I'm surprised the issue didn't come up a long time ago), but if you consider that there are many many users who are not very techsavy, who only use GC to find a few caches and log them, and don't pay much attention to what map is showing, then not having it as the default could make quite an impact.

As for a Greasemonkey script, I don't see this would be any different from what's happening already with various scripts. Besides which, the script sends the request from your local browser, and should not count as a call from GC. Its effectively the same as having google maps open in a different browser window.

[DES]

MnCo, on 27 March 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

DES, on 27 March 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Geez! Now they've removed the "view dynamic map" link! Things are going from bad to worse.

Probably because its back to being dynamic by default

No, the teeny dynamic map was much more reliable.

[Paychekk]

Please go back to the old mapping system. Totally bummed out over this.

[rockandroll_acdc]

DES, on 27 March 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Geez! Now they've removed the "view dynamic map" link! Things are going from bad to worse.

I was just going to post something about that. I used dyamic cause you could get the aerial view. This really sucks. I just sign up for premy and now i'm wondering why

[DES]

rockandroll_acdc, on 28 March 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

DES, on 27 March 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Geez! Now they've removed the "view dynamic map" link! Things are going from bad to worse.

I was just going to post something about that. I used dyamic cause you could get the aerial view. This really sucks. I just sign up for premy and now i'm wondering why

My renewal is coming up soon and I wonder if it is worth it anymore.

[LordNycon]

I guess everything would at least be acceptable if sattelite imagery would be available via the large map. This might be true for the US or any countries that are covered via MapQuest aerial. Germany certainly is not. If Groundspeak's policy is that users need to resort to scripts then I guess I will join the premium quitters as well.
Pocket queries can be created by scripted programs as well without the need for a premium membership, but I rather chose to pay for the service that I am using. If Groundspeak more or less forces the users to circumvent their new limitations by more or less doing the same then I really do not know if I still want to support them. I do realize that the increasing use of Google's mapping services does costs significant amounts, but surely it should not be much more than 10$ per premium member per year. Actually coming forward with actual quotes from Google would be a nice thing though

[DES]

LordNycon, on 28 March 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I guess everything would at least be acceptable if sattelite imagery would be available via the large map. This might be true for the US or any countries that are covered via MapQuest aerial. Germany certainly is not. If Groundspeak's policy is that users need to resort to scripts then I guess I will join the premium quitters as well.
Pocket queries can be created by scripted programs as well without the need for a premium membership, but I rather chose to pay for the service that I am using. If Groundspeak more or less forces the users to circumvent their new limitations by more or less doing the same then I really do not know if I still want to support them. I do realize that the increasing use of Google's mapping services does costs significant amounts, but surely it should not be much more than 10$ per premium member per year. Actually coming forward with actual quotes from Google would be a nice thing though

Agreed. I would be willing to pay a little more for the old map functionality.

[Odin48]

I, too, have given thought to becoming a premium member until this mapping fiasco. These maps (Google) are invaluable to urban caching. You can drive closer to a cache without keep checking your GPSr, making it safer in traffic. I think if Google Maps was made available to premium members, there would be many more Cachers taking advantage of the niceties of Premium Membership.

[oreochip]

Paychekk, on 28 March 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Please go back to the old mapping system. Totally bummed out over this.

[oreochip]

Amen !!!!! Please go back to the old maps. Please

[jmercmon]

Yes please go back to the old Google based maps, they work. Now I have had to resort to copying the GPS cords over into Google maps to get aerial views.

Please do something about this issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lil Devil]

jmercmon, on 03 April 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Now I have had to resort to copying the GPS cords over into Google maps to get aerial views.

Ummm, there is no need to copy/paste. There is a link right there on every page to show the coords on various mapping sites, including Google Maps.

Surely you can find the link. You're a geocacher, right?

[bizyliven]

Just wanted to add my experience too.

Cannot get Aerial maps on your site anymore, this includes Firefox and Explorer. Like one of the other reviewers, I have to copy coordinates to an external map site and use their aerial shot.

Looking forward to this being fixed.

Thanks for an awesome outdoor hobby!!

This post has been edited by bizyliven: 03 April 2012 - 09:56 AM

[Terese og Far]

Due to the new poor maps and missing areal photos for my area, I have decided to discontinue my premium memberships as it expires this April. The exorbitant 30 USD per year should be more than adequate to finance the Google API. I get aviation maps for less.

RGDS Terese and Far.

[Seabee-MC/HNY]

It appears that membership means nothing. Very disappointed with desision to change maps without a discussion with members.

[ChileHead]

Seabee-MC/HNY, on 06 April 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

It appears that membership means nothing. Very disappointed with desision to change maps without a discussion with members.

Seems to me the right choice was made. The added cost was prohibitive - your $30/year may not even come close to what the added charges would be.

I see that they had 3 options:
- remove google maps completely
- keep google maps and start charging everybody A LOT more money
- keep it available to premium members only, assuming that would keep them under the limit google charges

The last one would require additionally programming, most likely, so swapping out maps might be a much better short term solution.


I'm still surprised that people haven't loaded up the firefox or chrome extension. I lost google maps for a total of a couple days before somebody made the extension. Takes all of 30 seconds to add.

[ChileHead]

bizyliven, on 03 April 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Like one of the other reviewers, I have to copy coordinates to an external map site and use their aerial shot.

There is a link on every single geocache page to google maps. That hasn't gone away. You shouldn't have to cut & paste anything.

[DES]

ChileHead, on 06 April 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Seabee-MC/HNY, on 06 April 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

It appears that membership means nothing. Very disappointed with desision to change maps without a discussion with members.

Seems to me the right choice was made. The added cost was prohibitive - your $30/year may not even come close to what the added charges would be.

I see that they had 3 options:
- remove google maps completely
- keep google maps and start charging everybody A LOT more money
- keep it available to premium members only, assuming that would keep them under the limit google charges

The last one would require additionally programming, most likely, so swapping out maps might be a much better short term solution.


I'm still surprised that people haven't loaded up the firefox or chrome extension. I lost google maps for a total of a couple days before somebody made the extension. Takes all of 30 seconds to add.

Can you tell me how to do this? I have a Mac. Thx.

[StarBrand]

DES, on 06 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

ChileHead, on 06 April 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Seabee-MC/HNY, on 06 April 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

It appears that membership means nothing. Very disappointed with desision to change maps without a discussion with members.

Seems to me the right choice was made. The added cost was prohibitive - your $30/year may not even come close to what the added charges would be.

I see that they had 3 options:
- remove google maps completely
- keep google maps and start charging everybody A LOT more money
- keep it available to premium members only, assuming that would keep them under the limit google charges

The last one would require additionally programming, most likely, so swapping out maps might be a much better short term solution.


I'm still surprised that people haven't loaded up the firefox or chrome extension. I lost google maps for a total of a couple days before somebody made the extension. Takes all of 30 seconds to add.

Can you tell me how to do this? I have a Mac. Thx.

Good News - see: http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5012934

[The Crunch Bunch]

I have just logged on to plan a complete holiday and the new maps are just not worth anything. I was hoping to get a load done but will spend all tonight working on a work around.

Not what I was expecting from my membership even been on garmin web site and they have stopped surporting geocaching.com!!!!!!

[cindy&randy]

A single cache view (via the Google Maps link) is not so bad. By the time you zoom in close enough to see the hi resolution aerial photo detail then any other cache is off the map (more than 528 feet away). If you want to see a cluster of caches on the same map then the resolution of an aerial view at that scale is not good.

Another advantage of this new way is that you now can save Google's aerial view of the cache as a .jpg to your phone or GPSr. The Groundspeak aerial view did not allow photo images to be saved.

Groundspeak saved a bundle. Instead of bringing Google Maps to gc.com, they bring your cache to Google Maps. Google scores a website hit which benefits them at no cost to us. Sounds like a win-win-win for all parties involved.

This post has been edited by cindy&randy: 29 April 2012 - 05:20 PM

[Apres Vous]

Mapquest Aerial Bites! You can only zoom in so far and then you see the stupid camera tiles.
May not renew premium membership.

[niraD]

Apres Vous, on 29 April 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Mapquest Aerial Bites! You can only zoom in so far and then you see the stupid camera tiles.
May not renew premium membership.

Would you reconsider if you could get access to the Google Maps version, but only as a premium member?

[mysts99]

I HATE THE NEW MAPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wish Geocaching would get over whatever little issue they are having with whoever and give us back the maps that work. We pay for Premium Membership and what do we get? Crap maps that don't five us all the information we need!
I want to be able to get the satellite view as well as the list of caches on the side again. Get over yourself and think of your customer!
It's amazing that when this was a little start up site it was SOOOOOO much better. Now it is expanding and becoming more popular and the product is CRAP!

[niraD]

mysts99, on 11 May 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

I HATE THE NEW MAPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wish Geocaching would get over whatever little issue they are having with whoever and give us back the maps that work. We pay for Premium Membership and what do we get? Crap maps that don't five us all the information we need!
I want to be able to get the satellite view as well as the list of caches on the side again. Get over yourself and think of your customer!
It's amazing that when this was a little start up site it was SOOOOOO much better. Now it is expanding and becoming more popular and the product is CRAP!

Did you bother reading the rest of this thread? Specifically, did you read the post immediately before yours?

[ecanderson]

I hate the new maps, too... but not so much the maps as the entire UI. Have disliked it ever since the 'beta' started ages ago. There are still major implementation bugs in the current map UI (not even counting the functionality differences)... e.g.

no response to mouse-over or clicking on cache icons at times, requiring a lot of zoom and pan to see if the icon will become 'active'
all cache icons disappear entirely if you zoom in too closely

What is worse is that some of the most useful enhancements to the 'old' map system that were available via 3rd party efforts are no longer possible. As an example, scripting was once possible that allowed the cache icons on the screen to be tagged with their names or GC code. While I still think that gc.com should have been the ones to create such enhancements to map function, at least with the old system, some clever scripting was possible that did that and a LOT more to improve the usefulness of a map. Even then, gc.com was playing 'cache page design of the month club' there for a while that kept breaking 3rd party scripts, and it was a mad dash for the developers to rewrite their scripts to keep up. That was unfortunate. Look at any of their changelogs and you can see how often this did happen, usually with minimal benefit to the user in the new gc.com design.

I'll grant that there is potential in being able to see how PQs look in quick sequence, but even that doesn't help yet because the scale can't be locked, so you can't easily see how much (or little) your PQ data is overlapping when switching between PQ views. (It's still my opinion that PQ data should be able to be done off a 4 point rectangle instead of a radius - it would be both easier to get assured - but not excessive - overlap, and would be quicker for the gc.com server to compute).

[jay1318]

Chrome wouldn't let me load the script mentioned in the posts above. Firefox did though. Had to do the Greasemonkey thing then install the Czech script. Thank goodness! The MapQuest aerial maps do not load at all and all the others suck. The satellite imagery is SO helpful.

This is an issue that seriously needs to be addressed and fixed.

[The A-Team]

jay1318, on 13 March 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

This is an issue that seriously needs to be addressed and fixed.

What issue is that? Is the Google Map imagery poor or cloudy? If so, that isn't something Groundspeak can fix.