That rings a bell with me.
I'm away at the moment but when I get home and replace the chain (it's on a 2x10 speed) I will inspect it. I don't remember if it has a quick link or if I used a chain tool, but that might be relevant
That rings a bell with me.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't. Lancaster PA is the third option, after Lancaster, Lancs and Lancaster Gate, but it is working today.Richard Fairhurst wrote: ↑26 Mar 2024, 4:05pmJust to check - are you sure that you're selecting "Lancaster, Lancashire" from the autocomplete, and not "Lancaster, Pennsylvania"? cycle.travel might not know what country your IP address is in, and if it doesn't, it might put the American one at the top of the list.
Any suggestions as to what might have caused it?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑25 Mar 2024, 3:15pm Fixing it yourself is relatively easy, but that’s curing the symptoms and not necessarily the disease. You need to know why it snapped and take steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
You should be able to add a via point to the route and then drag it to your accommodation. If you want to leave and rejoin the route at the same point you may need to add more via points, one before the accommodation and one after.VinceLedge wrote: ↑21 Mar 2024, 10:19am I am just planning a wee tour of the King Alfred's Way using Cycle Travel, which works fine. I have booked some overnight accommodation off the route.
Is there a way of adding these to the route so that it takes you there and back to the same point on the overall route without the software altering the whole route?
Or do I need to do little extra routes?
Thanks
Mike Sales wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 6:24pmUpcoming at this moment in time going forward.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 6:22pmJohn will tell you all you need to know. He's most upcoming.richardfm wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 6:08pm For no rational reason I dislike "upcoming" and prefer "forthcoming".
To me "upcoming" jars and sounds modern but according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/upcoming it has been in use since 1943.
Or how about using upcome to mean the opposite of downcome, eg "I'm responsible for his upcome; I made him a star. It was drink that was his downcome."
Thank youRichard Fairhurst wrote: ↑8 Feb 2024, 8:19pmcycle.travel doesn't have any sense of a GPX route per se. It only does one thing - planned routes with via points. Between each pair of via points, it will choose the route it thinks is best.richardfm wrote: ↑8 Feb 2024, 6:06pm I thought the OPs complaint was that Cycle.Travel alters a route that he has uploaded from a GPX file, not one that it has worked out for him after he has given start and end points.
It sounds reasonable to me not to expect Cycle.Travel to alter an uploaded routes. Maybe the secret is to add plenty of waypoints before uploading.
So if you import a GPX track, it has to work out where the via points need to be in order to follow the route represented by the GPX track. This is a Hard Problem and it doesn't always get it spot on, especially if the GPX is along the sort of routes c.t wouldn't usually choose - i.e. busy roads or rough tracks. (This is all explained on the upload page.)
If what you want to do is manage/play with other people's GPXs then c.t is absolutely the wrong site for that - I'd always suggest RideWithGPS for that sort of purpose.
You can do that with Brouter, which is pretty much infinitely customisable.roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑8 Feb 2024, 5:55pmPresumably these apps have criteria to apply (distance, road type, ascent etc) when optimising a route.
Often they do daft things like repeatedly diverting off a main road, or putting in a huge climb to avoid a short section.
It would be great if you could vary the weighting eg choose to downweight how important road type was to avoid that sort of nonsense.
Route-planners can either be fast or customisable. The fast algorithms aren't customisable and the customisable algorithms aren't fast.* Brouter chooses to be customisable, which offers more flexibility but means it takes 15 seconds to work out a route for Land's End to John O'Groats. cycle.travel chooses to be fast, so it finds LE-JOG in less than a second, but conversely it bakes in its idea of a good route (= low traffic and scenic).
This is the good thing about there being so many sites/apps - you can choose the one that suits you.
* For those interested in the algorithm side of things, this is because the fast algorithms essentially pre-calculate routes between thousands of points, so route-planning just needs to retrieve the pre-calculated route rather than working out afresh each time. That breaks down if you offer customisation, because it's impossible to pre-calculate and store the best routes for every conceivable set of routing preferences the user might set.
That all makes sense, thank you.Psamathe wrote: ↑8 Feb 2024, 7:58pmBetween points in a gpx the route is is undefined so must be assumed/designed by the system. Some gpx routes I've seen have surprisingly few points, others are more detailed. OP gave virtually no info about the gpx and his/her requirements gradually emerged as people were depending their time trying to help.richardfm wrote: ↑8 Feb 2024, 6:06pm I thought the OPs complaint was that Cycle.Travel alters a route that he has uploaded from a GPX file, not one that it has worked out for him after he has given start and end points.
It sounds reasonable to me not to expect Cycle.Travel to alter an uploaded routes. Maybe the secret is to add plenty of waypoints before uploading.
Then what if a gpx loaded sends the rider the wrong way down a one-way street what should cycle.travel do? create eg "turn-left here" sending you through a no entry sign? Only sensible thing is to adjust to something appropriate. Many things are possible but OP gave virtually no info about anything so not possible to say what happened. Plus, does anybody really want to dpend their time on investigating anyway?
Ian