CyclingUK - New journey planner

[Graham]

https://www.cyclinguk.org/journey-planner#

I don't think that anyone has mentioned this before. (?)

I note that one cannot change the prescribed routes : Quietest / Balanced / Fastest

Have I missed an existing FORUM topic about this ??

EDIT : Ah ha, I see now that Cyclestreets.net is the engine behind it.

[Psamathe]

1st start location I tried it could not find
2nd start location I tried it could not find
3rd start location I tried it could not find
4th start location I tried it could not find
I gave up.

Ian

[Psamathe]

....
EDIT : Ah ha, I see now that Cyclestreets.net is the engine behind it.

What does it offer that https://www.cyclestreets.net does not offer? I can't see why CUK are bothering if they are offering nothing not already offered on https://www.cyclestreets.net.

Ian

[Richard Fairhurst]

From: Land's End
To: John O'Groats

Suggested route: "#journeydetails script content goes here!"

...rest in peace, the Cyclists' Touring Club.

More seriously, the attribution to OpenStreetMap on the map display is hidden by an "i" button, and when you click that it appears in barely readable 4pt type. If a bunch of volunteers is giving you the map data for free (and you're using their server resources for free), you should at least have the decency to give them the legally required credit in the form they request.

[Psamathe]

....More seriously, the attribution to OpenStreetMap on the map display is hidden by an "i" button, and when you click that it appears in barely readable 4pt type. If a bunch of volunteers is giving you the map data for free (and you're using their server resources for free), you should at least have the decency to give them the legally required credit in the form they request.

I agree. I'm actually quite surprised by CUK failing to decently acknowledge attribution. It's not much trouble to do it properly (unhidden and in a readable visible font size) and that the failed to do so speaks volumes about the organisation.

Ian

[MikeF]

West Sussex County Council has this making it appear that this is WSCC produced when it's simply a link to cyclestreets. I think I prefer cycle.travel, but even Google Maps give cycle routes. It's often useful to compare what different sites produce.

[Psamathe]

West Sussex County Council has this making it appear that this is WSCC produced when it's simply a link to cyclestreets. I think I prefer cycle.travel, but even Google Maps give cycle routes. It's often useful to compare what different sites produce.

Given the nature of CycleStreets it would be interesting to know what "donation" CUK has passed to the company for use of their system. I assume and I'm surprised that even with payments/donations CycleStreets don't require some attribution for their part in providing the systems.

Ian

[Psamathe]

From: Land's End
To: John O'Groats

Suggested route: "#journeydetails script content goes here!"

...rest in peace, the Cyclists' Touring Club.

More seriously, the attribution to OpenStreetMap on the map display is hidden by an "i" button, and when you click that it appears in barely readable 4pt type. If a bunch of volunteers is giving you the map data for free (and you're using their server resources for free), you should at least have the decency to give them the legally required credit in the form they request.

They seem unconcerned about it. E-mailed them and no response, journey planner still not adequately showing attribution!

Ian

[mjr]

More seriously, the attribution to OpenStreetMap on the map display is hidden by an "i" button, and when you click that it appears in barely readable 4pt type. If a bunch of volunteers is giving you the map data for free (and you're using their server resources for free), you should at least have the decency to give them the legally required credit in the form they request.

They seem unconcerned about it. E-mailed them and no response, journey planner still not adequately showing attribution!

What happens next? Can any of us OpenStreetMap contributors on here send them a cease-and-desist for infringing our copyright?

[Psamathe]

More seriously, the attribution to OpenStreetMap on the map display is hidden by an "i" button, and when you click that it appears in barely readable 4pt type. If a bunch of volunteers is giving you the map data for free (and you're using their server resources for free), you should at least have the decency to give them the legally required credit in the form they request.

They seem unconcerned about it. E-mailed them and no response, journey planner still not adequately showing attribution!

So, what happens next? Can any of us OpenStreetMap contributors on here send them a cease-and-desist for infringing our copyright?

From my perspective I just regard it as "wrong and bad behaviour". I must confess I don't contribute to OpenStreetMap. It's already very good in my area and I've not found anything needing correction/update! I'd be interested to explore the update mechanism not not found anything to usefully update. But I do contribute content to various Wikipedias (main Wikipedia and WikiVoyage). So I can't take personal offence about "my content not being acknowledged ..." but I do think it illustrates the underlying attitude of an organisation (even in just the original design hiding the attribution).

I do feel strongly about the open crowd sourced projects and what/how the data are used - one reason I do contribute to WikiVoyage and would never contribute (directly) to WikiTravel.

Ian

[JohnW]

I've always used the Ordnance Survey. Anything within 150 miles of home that I travel to regularly I know the route - and variations - by heart now after all these years.

I tried one of my regular journeys - I put the start point in, and I clicked the map at my 'destination', and clicked "start"....................and nothing happened. I clicked on "start" again and again about three times, and then the page altered itself to give my 'destination' as the start point. I found that I couldn't change my speed - well - there are three prescribed options but I couldn't make my own choice.

I'll stick with map reading.

Is CUK paying for this?

[gaz]

West Sussex County Council has this making it appear that this is WSCC produced when it's simply a link to cyclestreets. I think I prefer cycle.travel, but even Google Maps give cycle routes. It's often useful to compare what different sites produce.

Kent County Council has this, which delivers its results via google maps.

The Cycling UK site produced some reasonable results on a couple of test journeys, although the "quietest" option does some really silly stuff. IMO both google and cycle.travel do better, I'll carrying on using the latter for my own journey planning.

[MikeF]

I've always used the Ordnance Survey. Anything within 150 miles of home that I travel to regularly I know the route - and variations - by heart now after all these years.

But what about the ones you don't travel regularly? With cycle.streets you can put in your own route or compare variations or whatever. I haven't cycled every road within a 20 mile radius, let alone a 150 mile radius - there are just too many, especially if you include residential areas as well. However it's fun exploring.

[MikeF]

West Sussex County Council has this making it appear that this is WSCC produced when it's simply a link to cyclestreets. I think I prefer cycle.travel, but even Google Maps give cycle routes. It's often useful to compare what different sites produce.

Kent County Council has this, which delivers its results via google maps.

The Cycling UK site produced some reasonable results on a couple of test journeys, although the "quietest" option does some really silly stuff. IMO both google and cycle.travel do better, I'll carrying on using the latter for my own journey planning.

Looks like a disguised link to Google maps. You might just as well use Google maps directly, which give some reasonable routes. Agree the quietest routes from CUK are daft. Unfortunately all the County Councils around here seem to promote how "good" cycling is but it's mostly just a veneer, from people who don't ride a bike, at least on a road.
West Sussex website lists cycling under leisure - not anything connected with transport

[Chris Touring]

With reference to the Cycling UK journey planner, could I respectfully suggest that Cycling UK cease to use the underlying CycleStreets system? I have tried to use this platform over the last year, and I have repeatedly found that CycleStreets suggests poor routes. In particular, CycleStreets has much too great a tendency to go off-road, even when there is a quiet minor road that would go in the appropriate direction with little change in distance. The CycleStreets algorithm appears to assume that anything marked on the map as an “other road, drive or track” or “byway open to all traffic” can actually be ridden by bicycle, but I find that this does not correspond to reality. I ride a road or touring bike not an MTB and need the option of minimal off-road travel.

I can give several examples.

If you ask the Cycling UK/CycleStreets planner to find a route from Salisbury (SP1 3NR) to Grateley (SP11 7EB), this suggests a route via the village of Idmiston, but then attempts to enter through the security gate of a Ministry of Defence danger area (marked as such on the Cycling UK map), and later seeks to continue along a rough path (following the Portway Roman road) which is unrideable on a touring bike. I have only recently discovered the Cycle.Travel website, but this proposes an acceptable route that correctly avoids the MOD site. These two websites both appear to use the same source maps, so the difference must be in the way the data is processed.

The route given by CycleStreets for Salisbury to Fordingbridge suggests that you take a track from Odstock to Whitsbury, but I know that this has deep mud for most months of the year, and is again unrideable. By contrast Cycle.Travel proposes a slightly longer, but fully on-road route.

I used CycleStreets to plot a route from Salisbury to New Alresford. After leaving Salisbury, this attempts to follow the Monarch Way footpath towards Winterslow and is unrideable. This is meant to be a route planner for cycling not hiking.

I also used CycleStreets to plan a route from Selborne (GU34 3JQ) to Broadhalfpenny Down (PO8 0UB); two of the British Cycle Quest sites. The illogical route proposed went via the B3006, and then followed the cycle path alongside the A3 for most of the journey. Although this cycle path has NCN designation, the traffic noise makes this a truly unpleasant route, as you are rarely more than a few metres from a busy dual carriageway. In places you are buffeted by air turbulence from passing lorries. By contrast, there is a shorter and more rural route through East Meon which I could have taken.

I have been examining the routes proposed between two further BCQ sites: Cissbury Ring and Ditchling Beacon. The “balanced” route suggested by CycleStreets starts with two miles off-road (the Monarch Way, again), and finishes with three miles uphill on the South Downs Way. I shall not be taking this route. Similarly, the route suggested by CycleStreets for Ditchling Beacon to Beachy Head starts with over four miles off-road along the South Downs Way, and finishes with a mile on the Wealdway. I think not.