Thanks Thanks:  2
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Loss of Google Maps

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Exmouth, Devon
    Posts
    38

    Default Loss of Google Maps

    Help! Someone's stolen my maps!
    Was wondering what everyone thinks of the new Map Quest?

  2. #2

    Default

    I always perfered the OpenCycleMap anyway so google maps is no great loss. For the odd occasion where I want to zoom right into a cache to see which tree/bench/lampost it's closest to then I can still do that via other routes.

    I expect someone will be along soon with a firefox/chrome plug in to bring Google Maps back, in fact jri has already suggested (in the frog forum) he will be able to do it but it will take him a while.

    I won't be losing any sleep over it.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    563

    Default

    I quite like the Open Street maps better than the old Google ones - but I've lost the greasemonkey thingy to get Ordnance Survey maps which is much better than either as they show footpaths etc and contours.
    GAGB Member since 2009
    UK Mega West Mids Committee - Treasurer 2011 - 2013
    GAGB Committee - Treasurer 2016 -

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Halifax, uk
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Work in progress? Guess which map I found most useful for finding somewhere to park today?
    I'm not disputing that google maps are now too expensive!

  5. #5

    Default

    Well over at the Groundspeak UK forums there are a couple of threads about the maps, and the Firfox plugins to get back both the Google maps, and the OS maps seem to be available and working now; so everything's back to normal and we can all get on with hunting tupperware.


    http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=35

    TBH I wonder if this wasn't Groundspeak's expectation all along and rather than stump up loads of wonga to pay for Google they decided to drop it and wait for the community to come up with a workaround.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Exmouth, Devon
    Posts
    38

    Default

    I guess the responses so far go to highlight one important point - we all use maps completely differently!
    Thanks to frosty for the before & after comparrison which does highlight some of the layers of detail which are now sadly missing.
    Another layer that we have lost is National Park bounderies and shading (especially frustrating if you happen to be working on a National Park Challenge Cache [GC3BJJF] at present )
    I've personally always thought google maps were excellent, and the ability to instantly swap from road map to satellite a very useful tool. I accept that it's Groundspeak's responsibility to 'shop around' for the best value packages available for their customers, and that the site is an 'ever evolving' project, BUT, it's my opinion that the new options are somewhat ''dumbed down'' and in some respects are not fit for purpose.
    I dont necessarily want to go searching for plug-ins etc to be able to access google maps (dont use firefox or chrome anyway), but I would as a Premium member be prepared to PAY to have the ability to combine geocaching.com & google maps.
    The fact that this option hasn't even been considered annoys me a little, but like I said earlier we all use maps completely differently, and you cann ot please all the people all of the time.
    Right! I'm off to see if I can find my big box of (previously redundant) 1:50000 & 1:25000 OS Maps

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Halifax, uk
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Well, I've taken the opportunity to, hopefully, contribute to the OSM project, the missing road and (official) trails we walked yesterday are now added to the OSM, and will hopefully show on their next update
    -Unless I did it all wrong
    Last edited by frosty68; 16th February 2012 at 11:43 AM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    I don't use the Groundspeak maps much anyway, but the OSM map of my home area is vastly superior to Google.
    If I'm investigating a particular cache I tend to use Memory Maps, plus Google satellite view (after copying and pasting the coordinates into the search box).
    I don't use Firefox much either so I can't be bothered to set up scripts.

    So personally I'm not disappointed in the update.

  9. #9
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LympstoneBogtrotters View Post
    I accept that it's Groundspeak's responsibility to 'shop around' for the best value packages available for their customers, and that the site is an 'ever evolving' project, BUT, it's my opinion that the new options are somewhat ''dumbed down'' and in some respects are not fit for purpose.
    I might be mistaken, but I thought Groundspeak's business was in the listing of caches? Caches that we then look for using a GPS.
    The maps have always been in addition to this listing service, so I'm not entirely sure how they could be "not fit for purpose"?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Exmouth, Devon
    Posts
    38

    Default

    My apologies to keehotee re the mission statement for Groundspeak. He is of course absolutely correct when he points out that Groundspeak are in the business of listing caches, which we as geocachers then look for with a GPS, and that maps have always been in addition to this listing service. I retract the above inaccuracies, and also the reference to them being not fit for purpose.
    Having spent a large amount of time reading up on the background to this today I realise I may have been a little hasty in attaching the majority of the blame for the loss of google maps at Groundspeak's door.
    So apologies also to Groundspeak, who have provided us with plenty of mapping options for our delictation, and in my opinion have made the correct decision to sever links with google.
    Mrs Blorenge has provided a useful link into the really juicy stuff on the 'other forum' under the thread title of 'maps,maps,maps'.
    All my ire from earlier has now died down, and I'm as happy as Larry tonight as I've decided to bite the bullet after all and have changed my browser from IE9 to Chrome, which (with the aide of a very useful extension) has enabled me to install OS maps via bing which is most excellent!
    Cache On! :socool:

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Below are Jeremy Irish's comments regarding the change of mapping, as posted on facebook yesterday. I wouldn't normally copy info from facebook but in this case it's been shared with Jeremy's 4000+ friends and also his 'friends of friends' so it's hardly private!

    "It was the best decision based on the timeline and the cost, as indictated in our post. In the end it is also good for OpenStreetMap, since we'll be encouraging our community to support improving the basemap.
    It isn't out of the question that we might add Google Maps as a paid option, but it is highly unlikely.

    The benefit of Leaflet (the underlying technology for displaying the "new" maps) is that we have more control over the map display experience in the future.

    The technical reason why supporting Google Maps as a layer is that they don't support Leaflet - you have to use Google's JavaScript and that means we have to do twice the work to display Google Maps and OpenStreetMap.

    Did you know that we would have to pay for OpenStreetMap views in the old way too? That's because they charge for the usage of the JavaScript than the tiles. So if you switch tiles they still charge us because we're still using their code behind the scenes.

    Using Leaflet is just better. Perhaps we can find an alternative mapping provider that displays aerial, which is the biggest complaint I've seen. We'll look into this and other alternatives once we fix the growing pains of the change.
    "

  12. #12
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs Blorenge View Post
    I wouldn't normally copy info from facebook
    I'm glad that you did. Why on earth does he not post this unusually thoughtful and considered comment on the 10-page thread on his own forums rather than on a third party website?

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I'm glad that you did. Why on earth does he not post this unusually thoughtful and considered comment on the 10-page thread on his own forums rather than on a third party website?
    I don't know. Perhaps he feels there's enough info in this post from Nate:

    About Google Maps

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •