Routing online or via "knowledge" ?

[gbnz]

A quick review of my route home, post ride today. Without map's or IT on the ride, gut feeling, my route on review ?

42.91 miles, 2699' of easy gradients when checked, primarily north westerly, so typical wind directly pushing my way. Lengths of which the Romans took, with bit's of the hillside contoured, roughly paralleled by 1880's railways's taking a similar route for stretches. And the "cycling routes" , with recognised "cycle" , signposted routes ? 45.65 miles, c/w 3505 of sheer gradients, innumerable crossing of river valleys !

Am sure this is fairly common, anyone found it true elsewhere ? (Nb. It's the gradients on the cycling routes I'd find unpleasant, literally lowest gearing, as opposed to spinning through the hills, hardly noticing them in passing, aside from the view)

[PT1029]

I think it depends on how the software rates a route for cycles. In my experience, Kamoot is more inclined to send you along a segregated cycle track by a main road when Ride with gps would send me on a more wiggly (possibly) but nicer route via country lanes.
When I use rwgps to map a route, I always tweek the offering to my preference (sometimes altering the amout climbed vs distance compromise), all part of the route plannng process.

I check our club gpx files before they go on the website. By and large the routes offered are fine. Sometimes I get a route where it is obvious they clicked the start point, the coffee stop, then lunch stop then end of the ride. The resultant route is always different (and not so good) as from those who make their own route.

[Nearholmer]

Both CycleTravel and CycleStreets contain options about the sort of route you want. I usually look at what both recommend against the option-settings I’ve chosen, take both with a slight pinch of salt, have a look at OS to see how crowded the contours are, and whether the apps have missed any potentially interesting things, see what sustrans have to say, think about what sort of ride I’m after, and go from there. Basically, use all potential sources of inspiration, plus judgement.

[Bmblbzzz]

What are we being asked here? It's hard to connect the post with the thread title and the "anyone found it true elsewhere?" question.

[gbnz]

What are we being asked here? It's hard to connect the post with the thread title and the "anyone found it true elsewhere?" question.

Sorry, just bemused that the Romans, 1800 yrs ago, the Victorians 140 yr's ag, a 13yr old in 1985, immediately recognised the contours of the local landscape and were able to define an appropriate route immediately. As I was today, sans map or IT

Just wondering if it's a fairly common experience, to find that "cycle routes",, are routinely defined by motor vehicle dependent individuals', without an intuitive regard for "up's & downs" in the landscape ? As anyone who walks, cycles, or rides will know, on an intuitive basis

[Richard Fairhurst]

People have different tastes. Some will happily trade more motor traffic for less climbing. Others (including me) would prefer a bit of climbing if it means fewer cars.

Generally, signposted routes will lean towards the "fewer cars" end of the spectrum, and the valley roads have more cars. But if you don't like them you don't have to follow them.

[simonineaston]

What it is with this one is this. We find the acquired instructions of the electron data as a tool and chip a way at the challenge of nature and the world but little imagine that it not in harmony with the direction of the thoughts of that bloke Darwin and such like. Thus we are on error and eventually nature & the world go like woooaahhh - Enough is Enough - be gone horrid interloper…

[PH]

Sorry, just bemused that the Romans, 1800 yrs ago,<SNIP> immediately recognised the contours of the local landscape and were able to define an appropriate route immediately.

I thought the Roman thing was all about straight lines and engineering, pretty much the opposite of following contours.
It's the engineering which is expensive, cycle routes benefit from that when they're converted from their original purpose, rail lines, canal tow paths... and are disadvantaged by the lack of engineering when they follow roads only ever intended to take low volumes of traffic.

[roubaixtuesday]

Cycle route algorithms tend to prioritise avoiding motor vehicles over best geography.

This can be good (avoid the A14) or bad (sends you up an impassable bridleway).

[Nearholmer]

I thought the Roman thing was all about straight lines and engineering, pretty much the opposite of following contours.

Very much so, and they seem to have been comfortable to include some pretty steep gradients, not making very deep cuts or fills. Watling Street was one of their main highways in Britain, and it included some right old ramps until Telford (I think) re-engineered the steepest bits when it was remade as a turnpike.

I can also think of oodles of examples of very steep roads built in the Victorian period, and many old lanes and back ways that date back hundreds or thousands of years are steep as anything; quite a few cross-country roads started life as trackways, which kept to high ground to avoid mud in the winter, going down and up very steeply to cross river valleys (the South Downs Way is a surviving example, and that has plenty of punishingly steep bits!).

TBH, I think a lot of easing of gradients and curves, plus bypassing squiggly bits through villages, on A roads has occurred post-WW2, since motor traffic became heavy and speeds increased; if you look at pre-WW2 OS maps you will find a lot of A roads had many more steep and wiggly bits than now.

[gbnz]

Sorry, just bemused that the Romans, 1800 yrs ago,<SNIP> immediately recognised the contours of the local landscape and were able to define an appropriate route immediately.

I thought the Roman thing was all about straight lines and engineering, pretty much the opposite of following contours.
It's the engineering which is expensive, cycle routes benefit from that when they're converted from their original purpose, rail lines, canal tow paths... and are disadvantaged by the lack of engineering when they follow roads only ever intended to take low volumes of traffic.

The local Roman Road is dead straight. But dead straight in such a manner, that rather going up/down @ right angles to all the river valleys it bypasses all the river valleys by skirting around the river valleys in a flat patch to the East and West of the moorlands and then effectively runs parallel to the river valleys. And also crosses the moorlands by choosing the naturally lowest stretch of moorland in 13 miles.

Whereas the "cycle route" does the opposite and also follows the primary B road heading North in the district, where perhaps being passed by a motor vehicle every 2-3 minutes can be the norm, rather than 2-3 vehicles an hour on the "non cycle" route back roads, which are shorter, with less of a climb. Unusually those back roads still have a decent tarmac surface, can't think of any pot holes en route.

[rareposter]

Just wondering if it's a fairly common experience, to find that "cycle routes",, are routinely defined by motor vehicle dependent individuals', without an intuitive regard for "up's & downs" in the landscape ? As anyone who walks, cycles, or rides will know, on an intuitive basis

Part of that is that cycle routes have been progressively shoved away from the main roads. As the road network developed and the flatter easier routes through the valleys were gradually taken over by motor traffic, some genius decided that cyclists would like the "scenic" route regardless of hills and simply shunted all the cycle routes off over there. Sustrans did their bit in highlighting these quiet lanes and calling it a National Cycling Network (or Notional Cycling Notwork as I prefer...), the route planning apps have carried on the "good" work and if you ask it to direct you between A and B it'll (mostly, depending on settings) choose the option to avoid main roads.

I made the mistake of following some NCN signs a few years ago in an unfamiliar area and it took me about 3 miles out of the way, wiggling along lumpy back lanes to avoid what turned out to be about 300m of valley main road. Was not impressed.

[scottg]

[snip
Just wondering if it's a fairly common experience, to find that "cycle routes",, are routinely defined by motor vehicle dependent individuals', without an intuitive regard for "up's & downs" in the landscape ? As anyone who walks, cycles, or rides will know, on an intuitive basis

Cycle routes are planned by 28 year olds with 5-7% body fat, they ride 56cm bikes with 12 cm stems
and the bike must weight less than the UCI minimum, no bags, mudguards or mirrors are permitted.

[AndyK]

Moderator note - post removed for breach of Forum Guidelines.

[Bmblbzzz]

[snip
Just wondering if it's a fairly common experience, to find that "cycle routes",, are routinely defined by motor vehicle dependent individuals', without an intuitive regard for "up's & downs" in the landscape ? As anyone who walks, cycles, or rides will know, on an intuitive basis

Cycle routes are planned by 28 year olds with 5-7% body fat, they ride 56cm bikes with 12 cm stems
and the bike must weight less than the UCI minimum, no bags, mudguards or mirrors are permitted.

And the other stereotype is that they're on full-suspension MTBs with 3" knobblies, riding in full body armour.