Gav's Blog

This post was originally written for It’s Not About The Numbers.

Today, Groundspeak rolled out another regular update of geocaching.com, and amongst many other changes (including bug fixes and new features) changed the default maps from Google Maps to MapQuest (which uses OpenStreetMap).

This is as much a tale of Google Maps, probably moreso, than it is of Groundspeak and Geocaching.com. To fully understand what is happening, we need to go right back to the start.

First, a brief introduction to some geekery. An Application Programming Interface (API) is a means whereby different pieces of software can be connected and communicate – be it websites or applications. For geocachers, Geocaching.com used the Google Maps API to embed Google Maps onto cache pages, and this is what this issue is all about.

On the 8th of April, 2011, it was announced on the Google Geo Developers Blog that the Google Maps/Google Earth API Terms of Service were being changed. One of the key points of this announcement was that sites were eventually going to have either reduce their map usage to new limits placed on free use of the Google Maps API, or pay to obtain commercial usage of the Google Maps API – either on a per 1000 view model, or what is assumedly a very expensive Google Maps API Premier license.

This was followed up by a further announcement by Google on the 26th of October 2011, that further reinforced these changes, and outlined that the usage limits would begin to be clearly enforced by Google early in 2012.

So, the situation we had late last year was this:

• Google Maps was free
• Google Maps was going to become more expensive in early 2012 for large websites
• Geocaching.com was using Google Maps, and serving up a lot of pages with Google Maps

This meant that Groundspeak would have had three options when the Google Maps API usage limits are enforced early this year.

1. Pay Google’s per 1000 map view charges
2. Purchase a Google Maps API Premier license
3. Change web mapping service

So, that brings us to today – Valentine’s Day 2012 in the US – a day that has seen some love lost for Groundspeak as it moved away from Google Maps with a site update. However, let’s be clear about this up front – the problem is not Groundspeak, but rather the pricing that Groundspeak would have to pay to license the Google Maps API. This is nothing more than business decisons being made by both Google and Groundspeak.

Google for a long time made the Maps API free to lure developers in. Over the last year it has attempted to monetise the free service they are providing. This is course within their rights, although as is always the case when you try to change a free to a paid service, you run the risk of of being called out on the bait-and-switch.

As the Latitude 47 blogs points out, the Geocaching.com website firmly sits in the high-user category – the 0.35% that Google said would be the sites impacted by this license change. Groundspeak states that they are serving around 2 million map loads each and every day. When you work through the numbers, Google’s new charges actually amount to significant amounts of money. Two million map loads a day translate to USD7900 for one day of embedding Google Maps into geocaching.com. Multiply this across a standard 365 day year and you’re talking USD2.88 million – just for serving embedded Google Maps. This figure of course does not even account for continued growth in geocaching worldwide, in terms of more caches and more cachers, both of which will increase the costs because of increased map loads. Google Maps Premier License is possibly an option at this point, but the pricing is not publicly available for comparison, but I understand it starts from USD10,000 per year. I expect for the number of map loads that Geocaching.com is providing that a Premier License will be far more expensive than USD10k.

All we are seeing here is that Groundspeak is not willing to pay for what was previously a free service. Groundspeak has the right to say no to these new terms, and they have said no. Heck, if I was going to see an increase in operating costs for a business of USD2.9million a year, with no increase in revenue to make up for it, I’d say no too.

It should be noted that OpenStreetMap, as a volunteer-driven, open source project, also places server limits on websites using their maps. However, MapQuest provides a means of delivering large volumes of OpenStreetMaps from MapQuest’s own servers, utilising OpenStreetMap data. Groundspeak are using MapQuest, so there are no issues with Geocaching.com overloading OpenStreetMap’s servers – they are not using OSM directly.

However, the map change has certainly become a polarising issue for many. There are now hundreds of posts spread across multiple forum posts regarding these changes.

There are many different points and issues being raised:

• The change between Google Maps and MapQuest/OpenStreetMap is significant for some, and they are not comfortable with the new presentation
• There appears to be some map rendering bugs; some resulting in blank maps, others with not all map tiles loading, another is that the new map doesn’t display a distance scale
• MapQuest does not appear to have good satellite/aerial imagery. However Google Earth is still an excellent means to access caches on the satellite/aerial imagery that Google has licensed.
• There are actually more maps available, as you can view not only MapQuest’s tileset, but different map renderings including CloudeMade’s, OpenStreetMap and OpenCycleMap.

One of the big stand-out improvements that will be obtained by switching to OpenStreetMap – is the ability for the geocaching community to make corrections and improve OpenStreetMap the world over. You see, it is truly open. With an account you can directly edit the maps. So if you find a new walkway, you can add it, and usually within hours see can see your contribution appear directly on the map! Google Maps on the other hand does not even support its community mapping tool, Google Map Maker, in many countries yet. And unlike OpenStreetMap, any community edits to Google Map Maker, stay with Google – you’re just helping one business improve their database for free. OpenStreetMap edits however are shared and available far and wide across many different web services. So if you add or fix something in OSM, your contribution will be shared across many web services. OpenStreetMap is indeed a community service, and your contributions will benefit the increasing number of organisations that use OSM.

The move to OpenStreetMap will also create interesting options already being talked about. It is relatively easy to build your own mapserver that generates and serves your own map tiles. This means that eventually Groundspeak will be completely independent when it comes to map data. Not only that, but they will be able to customise it so that greater emphasis is given to features important to geocachers, such as park polygons, and walkways – the map can be customised explicitly to suit geocachers needs. You couldn’t do that with Google Maps or most other services.

It is going to be a painful transition for many, and when change is forced on you with little notice, it can be uncomfortable to bear. However, I’m firmly convinced that over the long term, most of the Geocaching.com mapping will benefit from this change. For everything else, there is still the free option of Google Earth.

This post was originally written for It’s Not About The Numbers.

The recent announcement by Groundspeak of the removal of Google Maps from geocaching.com has kicked off a lot of related discussion about the cost of Premium Membership. In short, Google Maps have started charging heavy users of embedded Google Maps (which were used on geocaching.com) and this was going to make the continued use of Google Maps somewhat challenging. It has also resulted in an outpouring of Geocaching.com members that would be keen to see an increase in Premium Membership to ensure continued access to Google Maps.

Currently, Premium Membership is a simplistic all-or-nothing offer. The discussions over the Google Maps indicate that this is quite a polarising issue. For some, it is make-or-break, and the removal of Google Maps functionality has already caused a number of cachers to indicate that they are not going to renew their membership. Others seem unconcerned and are in fact happy with the move to OpenStreetMap – I certainly fall in this camp.

However this got me thinking. Is it time for Groundspeak to look at providing some add-on membership packs? Consider the current Premium Membership a base subscription. When purchasing a membership, it would be good to be able to purchase certain add-on packs that provide additional functionality, or increased capacity on services already provided as part of Premium Membership.

For example, this Google Maps issue clearly indicates that there is a market for members that are prepared to pay to cover the Google Maps API charges that Groundspeak will incur. It is quite unreasonable to expect all Premium Members to cover the costs of those that want to use Google Maps. I certainly don’t want my Premium Membership to go up, possibly a significant amount, just to keep Google Maps functionality on Geocaching.com.

Therefore, it should be possible for members to purchase an add-on pack, that provides Google Maps API functionality for their account.

There are a couple of other add-ons that I would be very interested in seeing Groundspeak offer:

1. Increase Pocket Query limits – the current limit per Pocket Query is 500 caches by email. This was great a few years back, but the explosion in cache placements in the last 3-4 years has seen the email PQ limit become woefully inadequate. I would love to see add-on packs that enable you to upgrade your account to higher email PQ limits, such as 1000 or 2000 caches. I’d have absolutely no problem paying for this as longer as it was cheaper than the current option of purchasing a second Premium account to accomplish this.
2. Increase API daily limit – the current API daily limit is around 6000 caches. For whatever reason, some cachers may want to upgrade their limit to something higher. An added benefit of a Groundspeak API add-on pack could be a faster server so that the caches download faster than the current existing API allows.

I believe that the growth of the different ways that we cache, and use Geocaching.com mean that the current Premium Membership is no longer able to satisfy all users. The time has come for Groundspeak to separate out the base Premium Membership, and provide add-on packs for expanding specific capabilities, or to cover third-party charges such as the Google Maps API.

As a somewhat keen photographer, I do like to share my photos online. These days there are plenty of options – almost too many. This past weekend I sat down to attempt to rationalise my use of photo websites, and figure out the best place for various photos to live.

Currently I make use of four different websites:

• Flickr
• iStockphoto
• Facebook
• Google+

iStockphoto

Let start with the easy and obvious one. iStockphoto is the odd one out, as it is a purely commercial service. I use it not for sharing, but for selling my photos. Over time, there may well be multiple site that fill this commercial niche, but for the time being it is just iStock.

• (+) Easy service for selling/licensing photos online
• (-) Not designed for sharing photos

Flickr

This was my first photosharing website, and until I started using Facebook and Google+ more recently, Flickr was my go-to host for sharing photos online. It definitely provides the richest toolset for photographers, but it isn’t integrated and directly connected to our largest social networks (Facebook for a lot of us).

• (+) Designed for photographers
• (+) Better quality than Facebook or Google+
• (+) Good range of metadata tools
• (+) Does a better job of displaying panoramas
• (-) Sometimes limited to photographic special interest

Facebook

Yes, the behometh when it comes to sharing photos with friends and family. I certainly get the best feedback (likes and comments) on my photos on Facebook. But Facebook honestly does a piss poor job of shaowing off photos in even ‘reasonable’ quality, and it has absolutely no image metadata for those that are interested.

• (+) Definitely has the best direct social network reach for me currently
• (+) Best for friends and family
• (-) No metadata displayed
• (-) Display limited to 960px wide
• (-) The album layout sucks

Google+

The new kid on the block, and definitely evolving quickly. Already it has arguably better photo support than Facebook, and Facebook seems to be copying some Google+ styling – most recently the single photo view with comments down the right hand side. The thing that is really exciting about Google+ is that photography has always been reasonably well considered form the start, including good distraction-free backgrounds. Unlike Facebook, Google+ is also accepting of feedback and actively participate on Google+. I expect we’re going to see Google+ become an ever improving service for sharing photos – given they’ve done so much in a short time.

• (+) Good for photography/tech/special interest circles
• (+) Good metadata (more than Facebook)
• (+) Has a different social network and reach to Facebook
• (-) Like Facebook, the display of photos is limited to 960px wide
• (-) Currently a poor social network (relative to Facebook)

As a result of this, I’ve think I’ve come to a decision as to how I’m going to use these various services.

• iStockphoto – commercial microstock licensing.
• Facebook – mainly people photos.
• Google+ – despite it being better than Facebook, I think I’m not going to use it much for hosting photos directly.
• Flickr – having played with Facebook and Google+ photo hosting, I think for everything other than photos of family and friends, I’ll be coming back to Flickr.

Why do I like higher resolution?

I’m a keen landscape photographer, and some of my panorama images are quite wide. Showing them in 960px wide on Facebook or Google+ doesn’t really do them justice – both of these services are much better designed for more traditional aspect ratios such as 3:2, 5:4 or even 1:1.

Promotion

I learnt a trick recently that helps you promote photos from other sites on Facebook or Google+. Rather than directly linking through to an image, on say Flickr, via an URL, that you get a better effect by uploading a copy to Facebook (or Google+) and adding an URL to the photo or album on Flickr. This results in a much larger photo being displayed on the timeline and not just a little thumbnail image.

Pinterest

And just today, I’ve signed up with Pinterest that looks like a fascinating tool for curating and promoting not only your images, but also images that you appreciate and want to share with others.

Conclusion

There are many photosharing websites and opportunities available, yet there is not a single website that accomplishes everything. This means we have to pick and choose combinations that best meet all our needs. I can’t tell you what combination suits you, that’s something you have to work out for yourself.