Bmblbzzz wrote:Ooh, looks like you've been visiting the Kiftsgate stone! I love OS maps but I've got rather fond of the muted earthy pallet of whatever it is that c.t uses.
c.t's default map style is its own - i.e. one I've developed. (Though a friend did compare it to the old Bartholomews maps and I think there's something in that!)
LittleGreyCat wrote:On the subject of OS maps.
I am a supporter so I should be fine, I think.
However I have a subscription with OS maps so in theory I could be entitled to use them anyway even if I wasn't a supporter.
Security and stuff may be complex, but would it be possible to register your OS account with Cycle.Travel and use that to obtain the maps?
OS don't offer that facility I'm afraid - some websites allow you to use their login system elsewhere (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Google) but OS isn't one of them.
LittleGreyCat wrote:Edit 2: Using a route that I know I seem to be able to get a plan along a bridleway then a footpath.
However it throws a wobbler near where the footpath joins a road and insists on looping back on itself.
Now wondering if the footpath is graded into gentle and rough or something.
I foresee loads of fun.
The underlying routing is still cycle.travel's own, which is ultimately based on OpenStreetMap data. It's only the display map that changes if you select Ordnance Survey. In this case it's just because cycle.travel doesn't like routing on rural footpaths without bicycle access - if you add another via point between 2 and 3, then you can carry on along the footpath through to Hemley.
mjr wrote:Could the c.t map style have barrier markings added, or these appear in the turn by turns, please?
I'll take a look! Turn-by-turn is unlikely (for boring technical reasons) but I don't see any reason not to have them on the map - I'll have to do a bit of tweaking as they're currently not imported into the rendering database.