Http sites does not detect the location in Chrome - issue

You cannot use the HTML5 Geolocation API with non-secure connections as per below:

Starting with Chrome 50, Chrome no longer supports obtaining the user’s location using the HTML5 Geolocation API from pages delivered by non-secure connections. This means that the page that’s making the Geolocation API call must be served from a secure context such as HTTPS.

However, it is possible to use the Google Maps Geolocation API or GeoIP, and possibly others, though it is not recommended in the long term. See below:

There are a number of fallback options available to get a user’s location that are not affected by this change, such as Google Maps Geolocation API, GeoIP (as an example, there are other geo based solutions), and a user-entered zip code. However, we strongly recommend that the best path to ensure ongoing access to geolocation is to move to HTTPS.

Source: Geolocation API removed from unsecured origins in Chrome 50

Deprecating Powerful Features on Insecure Origins

Chrome Security originally sent this out to various browser development mailing lists. See the original intent-to-deprecate email on blink-dev. This is based on the original idea to prefer secure origins for powerful new features.

Proposal

We want to start applying the concepts in https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-secure-contexts/to features that have already shipped and which do not meet the (new, not present at the time) requirements. In particular, this approximately requires that powerful features only be accessible on "secure origins" (such as HTTPS) where the full ancestor chain is also secure.

They have set to start by requiring secure origins for these existing features:

Geolocation — requires secure origins as of M50Device motion / orientationEMEgetUserMediaAppCache

As with gradually marking HTTP as non-secure, we expect to gradually migrate these features to secure-only, based on thresholds of usage, starting with lowest usage and moving towards higher. We also expect to gradually indicate in the UX that the features are deprecated for non-secure origins.

The deprecation strategy for each of these features is not decided on and may very well differ from feature to feature. We don’t currently know what the thresholds will be, or how heavily used the features are on what kinds of origins. We are in the process of gathering data, and will report back when we have it. There are no firm plans at all at this time, other than eventual deprecation. We intend for this to stimulate a public discussion of the best way to approach this deprecation.

Testing a Deprecated Powerful Feature

After a feature has been deprecated, if you are a developer that needs to keep testing a feature on a server that does not have a valid certificate, you have two options:

localhost is treated as a secure origin over HTTP, so if you're able to run your server from localhost, you should be able to test the feature on that server.You can run chrome with the --unsafely-treat-insecure-origin-as-secure="http://example.com" flag (replacing "example.com" with the origin you actually want to test), which will treat that origin as secure for this session. Note that you also need to include the --user-data-dir=/test/only/profile/dir to create a fresh testing profile for the flag to work.

The new Security rule introduced in Chrome 50 does not send Location Information to Sites without Transfer Encryption.

Here are the alternatives which are apt for the Mapping API problems.

Reverting to Prior versions of the Chrome(50) is also a solution, but in Web development, it is quite difficult to do so.

But the fact is that, currently only Chrome has such issues with Mapping API and other Browsers still supports them(Which gives me a short term peace of mind).

But sooner or later, this may be practiced by other browsers too, which may be a big problem for the existing users unlike me. Since it is a long term process(in my case), it is better to start developing and migrating to https sites rather than being in http, how ever there are pros and cons in handling them.