Defining cycle touring...

[meic]

I would broadly divide my riding into utility, social, Audax and touring based on nothing more formal than common usage for those terms. They could be further sub-divided and they can overlap.

When I slap on four panniers and cycle unsupported through Europe for three weeks, I am clearly touring. Nobody has ever had a problem with that being cycle touring.

I used to do a pair of Audaxes which were Brecon to West Coast Wales an overnight stay then return the next day. Which would satisfy pwa's definition of touring but to me they were Audaxing miles.
I sometimes cycled to the start and back, with a couple of nights in the tent.
Was that utility because it replaced a car journey or touring?

Even when I go shopping I am riding in pretty much the same way and fully loaded I am hard to tell apart from any passing tourer.

It is a spectrum with no clear definitions or cut-offs. If somebody wants some sort of exclusive rights to the term "cycle touring", I dont mind, I am perfectly happy with any name that is broadly understood for whatever activity I am performing.
I think some are trying to appropriate the term "cycle touring" for activities which deserve a different name in their own right because they are distinct from classical cycle touring.
Day tripping is something I frequently do and prefer to call day tripping because it is shorter duration.
I think credit card touring is common enough that it has just as much claim to cycle touring as loaded touring has and if you want to distinguish you just add the adjectives.

Others may live by different definitions and in the absence of an authoritative source usage will decide.

[NUKe]

anything that is not racing is arguably a form of touring.

cheers

What about the Tour de France or the tour of Britain

seriously though I don't class my day to day riding as touring. Commuting shopping etc.

[geocycle]

I commute, do utility journeys and tour. My tours are days, multi days or weeks when I get the chance. The most difficult to define are the day rides but given that they have no purpose other than to ride a bike, visit nice cafes and see great landscapes touring fits ok. If I was trying to get fit or beat strava times I might think otherwise.

[yutkoxpo]

No offence but.....

I really dislike any attempt to define something that I experience essentially as freedom. It seems that once labels start getting attached the fun becomes less.

For example, this past weekend I took 2 days to cycle to Arnhem to see the Rolling Stones and 1 day home again. I camped each night. Was I commuting? Was I touring given the fact that I've cycled those very same roads before?
All I know is the sun shone, my food (and beer!) was wonderful and the Stones can still rock!

One fine spring weekend I only had one day free of my weekend. I loaded up my bike, cycled 90 km and camped out less than 10 km as the crow flies from my front door. Was that a tour? Or just a bit of madness?

I am trying to make an argument for the value of self-supporting cycling as a particularly valuable means of experiencing the places we pass through and the people we meet along the way.

(By the way, as regards "self supporting cycling" there are many people who tour with support who would take great offence at being told they were not cycle touring! Oh! The perils of definitions!!)

In that case, I suggest you concentrate not on the "what" but the "why".

This is why I tour on a bike...
1) Freedom - only by walking can I get to more places than I can on a bike. I can go pretty much anywhere I like. And as importantly, stop wherever and whenever I like.
2) Pace - fast enough to notice the differences from one place to another, slow enough that I get to appreciate them.
3) Contact - People are much less wary of other people when they are on a bicycle. It is much easier to interact with other people when you are on a bike, especially a heavily loaded bike. Especially if you are far from home!
4) Nature: Other than walking, there is no other way to experience nature as closely as cycling.
5) Self propelled - I gain tremendous satisfaction from propelling myself from place to place.
6) Cost - It's about the cheapest way to travel.

Yet, for every point I have listed above, I can think of touring cyclists I have met who display the antithesis.

We're a funny bunch!

I'm not sure who you're trying to make this argument to, or why, but I suggest the best way of making your argument is to get then on a bike and bring them on a tour! Let them see for themselves.

Frank

[pwa]

No offence but.....

I really dislike any attempt to define something that I experience essentially as freedom. It seems that once labels start getting attached the fun becomes less.

For example, this past weekend I took 2 days to cycle to Arnhem to see the Rolling Stones and 1 day home again. I camped each night. Was I commuting? Was I touring given the fact that I've cycled those very same roads before?
All I know is the sun shone, my food (and beer!) was wonderful and the Stones can still rock!

One fine spring weekend I only had one day free of my weekend. I loaded up my bike, cycled 90 km and camped out less than 10 km as the crow flies from my front door. Was that a tour? Or just a bit of madness?

I am trying to make an argument for the value of self-supporting cycling as a particularly valuable means of experiencing the places we pass through and the people we meet along the way.

(By the way, as regards "self supporting cycling" there are many people who tour with support who would take great offence at being told they were not cycle touring! Oh! The perils of definitions!!)

In that case, I suggest you concentrate not on the "what" but the "why".

This is why I tour on a bike...
1) Freedom - only by walking can I get to more places than I can on a bike. I can go pretty much anywhere I like. And as importantly, stop wherever and whenever I like.
2) Pace - fast enough to notice the differences from one place to another, slow enough that I get to appreciate them.
3) Contact - People are much less wary of other people when they are on a bicycle. It is much easier to interact with other people when you are on a bike, especially a heavily loaded bike. Especially if you are far from home!
4) Nature: Other than walking, there is no other way to experience nature as closely as cycling.
5) Self propelled - I gain tremendous satisfaction from propelling myself from place to place.
6) Cost - It's about the cheapest way to travel.

Yet, for every point I have listed above, I can think of touring cyclists I have met who display the antithesis.

We're a funny bunch!

I'm not sure who you're trying to make this argument to, or why, but I suggest the best way of making your argument is to get then on a bike and bring them on a tour! Let them see for themselves.

Frank

Frank, the personal and individual nature of your touring experiences is why I kept my own definition to, basically, a leisure journey by bike that goes on for more than one day. That definition allows for a huge variety of experiences. A single day ride is not a tour in the way that a single link is not a chain. It is not a lesser thing, just shorter.

But that is just my own definition and I have no problem with other people having a different one. I don't consider the thirty mile ride I did a few days ago to be a tour, but somebody else might and that's fine.

[mjr]

That comment falls below your normal low standard.

To assume that pwa's entire world consists of two mutually exclusive spheres,
a) that which is cycle touring
b) everything else, which he must hate.

Which is clearly absurd, of course I'll try to remember not to make more jokes near you

But that is just my own definition and I have no problem with other people having a different one. I don't consider the thirty mile ride I did a few days ago to be a tour, but somebody else might and that's fine.

I feel it depends what the thirty mile ride was for. If it was primarily for transport or health or sport or something like that then probably not, but if it was to visit a nice garden centre and go through some pretty woods or visit a museum and get an ice cream somewhere and so on - you know, do touristy things - then maybe it was.

[CJ]

No agreement, so it's no wonder the Cyclists' Touring Club wasn't a well understood name

Plenty of agreement and perfectly well understood except by those who deliberately misunderstand it.