Cycle Travel question!

Cycle-touring, Expeditions, Adventures, Major cycle routes NOT LeJoG (see other special board)
Woodtourer
Posts: 212
Joined: 23 Jan 2018, 1:51pm

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby Woodtourer » 19 Jan 2019, 5:50pm

Rick that's interesting. I tried on my tablet but no go.

MrsHJ
Posts: 754
Joined: 19 Aug 2010, 1:03pm
Location: Dartmouth, Devon.

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby MrsHJ » 19 Jan 2019, 9:04pm

Woodtourer wrote:Rick that's interesting. I tried on my tablet but no go.


Mine depends on whether the phone is landscape or portrait- it’s an 8 plus. Landscape gives the side panel, portrait does not.

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4496
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby RickH » 19 Jan 2019, 9:31pm

MrsHJ wrote:
Woodtourer wrote:Rick that's interesting. I tried on my tablet but no go.


Mine depends on whether the phone is landscape or portrait- it’s an 8 plus. Landscape gives the side panel, portrait does not.

If I open a journey in landscape I get a permanent left panel. If I open one in portrait I get the menu button. If I go straight to the map in portrait I get buttons (map, directions, routes, share) at the bottom of the screen. If I go to the map in landscape I get the same buttons but the map only covers part of the space with a blank space to the right.

I'm using Android (Oreo) & Firefox.

Woodtourer
Posts: 212
Joined: 23 Jan 2018, 1:51pm

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby Woodtourer » 20 Jan 2019, 1:09am

I tried it with Chrome and Firefox in landscape but still no go.

HobbesOnTour
Posts: 360
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 5:12pm

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby HobbesOnTour » 20 Jan 2019, 9:01am

andrew_s wrote:I think the point was that cycles are traffic.

Having said that, I believe that mopeds use Dutch cycle tracks as well as bikes.


If that was the point, then it's pedantic in the extreme and hardly justifies a warning.

Yes, mopeds do use the bike paths. I believe the plan was to phase it out this year, but that's not happening. To be honest, it's not really an issue unless you cycle with headphones and can't hear them. Peletons of roadies are a bigger safety issue, as are the increasing numbers of high powered E-bikes who zip silently past from behind. Having only used a mirror when touring, I added a mirror to my commuter last year and negated the effect of inconsiderate riders.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13736
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby mjr » 20 Jan 2019, 10:25am

HobbesOnTour wrote:
andrew_s wrote:I think the point was that cycles are traffic.

Having said that, I believe that mopeds use Dutch cycle tracks as well as bikes.


If that was the point, then it's pedantic in the extreme and hardly justifies a warning.

Not really a warning. Just a note that c.t talks council-ese, denying that cycleways carry useful traffic. It's one of few irritations with it.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

HobbesOnTour
Posts: 360
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 5:12pm

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby HobbesOnTour » 21 Jan 2019, 12:07pm

mjr wrote:Not really a warning. Just a note that c.t talks council-ese, denying that cycleways carry useful traffic. It's one of few irritations with it.


Now I'm even more confused!
Council-ese?
What is "useful traffic"?

I'm sure there is more to this than I can see, but it comes across as a criticism of what is, frankly, a fantastic resource. A bit mean, a bit petty and I'm still not clear as to what you mean.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13736
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby mjr » 21 Jan 2019, 1:52pm

HobbesOnTour wrote:Now I'm even more confused!
Council-ese?

Terms that councils use - in this case, to marginalise cycling and discourage or excuse good provision. If it's "traffic-free" then it's by definition economically worthless so not worth spending money on.

What is "useful traffic"?

Cyclists, in this case.

I'm sure there is more to this than I can see, but it comes across as a criticism of what is, frankly, a fantastic resource. A bit mean, a bit petty and I'm still not clear as to what you mean.

It's otherwise a fantastic resource, but this is indeed a criticism of those tooltips. They're wrong (should be "motor-free", probably), unhelpful and a bit mean. Call it petty if you like, but having a great site using these terms is rather disappointing and makes me hesitate to suggest it to councils for their cycling pages/materials.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17194
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby Vorpal » 21 Jan 2019, 2:59pm

HobbesOnTour wrote:
mjr wrote:Not really a warning. Just a note that c.t talks council-ese, denying that cycleways carry useful traffic. It's one of few irritations with it.


Now I'm even more confused!
Council-ese?
What is "useful traffic"?

I'm sure there is more to this than I can see, but it comes across as a criticism of what is, frankly, a fantastic resource. A bit mean, a bit petty and I'm still not clear as to what you mean.

One (big) problem faced by campaigners is that pedal cycles are seen as toys & leisure equipment, rather than a viable means of transport. That means cyclists are not traffic. Highways authorities and contractors often use 'traffic free' to describe routes as free of motor vehicles. That implies that cyclists are not traffic, which is a part of the idea that it is not a legitimate form of transport. It also implies that they do not belong on the roads. Thinking about cyclists as not traffic results in 'traffic free' routes designed for leisure, rather than transport. But the term has been picked up to distinguish routes where cyclists are separated from motor vehicles. However, in the Netherlands, even that is an incorrect description, because motor vehicles (small mopeds) share cycleways.

It may seem pedantic, but if cyclists don't describe cyclists as traffic, what hope is there to get highways authorities to regard cyclists as legitimate traffic?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 1394
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby Richard Fairhurst » 21 Jan 2019, 3:14pm

I think you could more accurately describe c.t's use of "traffic-free" as Sustrans-ese vs council-ese, given that I volunteer for the former and not the latter. :D

I'm honestly not that fussed. I do take mjr and Vorpal's point that bikes are traffic too, but traffic-free seems to be the most widely understood term in British English (whenever I've manned Sustrans stalls at local festivals, for example, it's the word that people use when they're asking for somewhere to ride with the kids). Nothing's ideal: "motor-free" excludes e-bikes, "car-free" could technically describe a horrible bus lane on a busy London road, and then you start getting into things like "active travel route" which are just way too geeky for normal use. You could probably justify something like "motor vehicle-free" (e-bikes notwithstanding) but at that point you've lost the immediacy and the recognition of a common term, and my inner sub-editor thinks that's a shame.

Maybe I'll just redraw the icons so they don't need tooltips!
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides

HobbesOnTour
Posts: 360
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 5:12pm

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby HobbesOnTour » 21 Jan 2019, 4:33pm

Vorpal wrote:One (big) problem faced by campaigners is that pedal cycles are seen as toys & leisure equipment, rather than a viable means of transport. That means cyclists are not traffic. Highways authorities and contractors often use 'traffic free' to describe routes as free of motor vehicles. That implies that cyclists are not traffic, which is a part of the idea that it is not a legitimate form of transport. It also implies that they do not belong on the roads. Thinking about cyclists as not traffic results in 'traffic free' routes designed for leisure, rather than transport. But the term has been picked up to distinguish routes where cyclists are separated from motor vehicles. However, in the Netherlands, even that is an incorrect description, because motor vehicles (small mopeds) share cycleways.

It may seem pedantic, but if cyclists don't describe cyclists as traffic, what hope is there to get highways authorities to regard cyclists as legitimate traffic?


Thank you!
I knew I had to be missing something.
I am not sure that I buy into the thesis, but at least now I understand what the original comment referred to,

Woodtourer
Posts: 212
Joined: 23 Jan 2018, 1:51pm

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby Woodtourer » 21 Jan 2019, 5:16pm

Richard, it seems that there might still be a problem with the country not appearing. I was attempting to create a route from Warsaw, Poland to Zamosc, Poland. When I enter Warsaw Poland was not offered as a choice. And the city of Zamosc did not come up at all.

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4496
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby RickH » 21 Jan 2019, 5:32pm

Woodtourer wrote:Richard, it seems that there might still be a problem with the country not appearing. I was attempting to create a route from Warsaw, Poland to Zamosc, Poland. When I enter Warsaw Poland was not offered as a choice. And the city of Zamosc did not come up at all.

Warsaw did come up when I typed it (but just "Warsaw" & then chose it from the list) but do bear in mind that that is the anglicised name for Warszawa. Commnon placenames like that will probably have their variants listed in the places database somewhere/somehow.

I'd never heard of Zamosc but found that it is actually Zamość (note the accents) & it is listed if you include the accents (I copied & pasted the name having done a Google search on Zamosc).

JakobW
Posts: 278
Joined: 9 Jun 2014, 1:26pm
Location: The glorious West Midlands

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby JakobW » 21 Jan 2019, 6:10pm

I sympathise with mjr's point, but also with Richard's inner copy-editor. For a UK context I'd probably lean towards 'motor-free' (I'm not sure e-bikes have entered the general consciousness), and for NL something like 'designated cycleway'.

The important point is that - from a UK point of view - any Dutch route could be easily marked '99.2% cycling heaven'*...

*As the kids say, don't @ me; I know about the block paving and the headwinds, ok? My point still stands.

climo
Posts: 498
Joined: 29 Apr 2009, 8:08am
Location: Warminster

Re: Cycle Travel Planner Question

Postby climo » 21 Jan 2019, 6:15pm

How do I get an Archie's campsite file into cycle.travel? I did this earlier but like an idiot (don't answer that!) I can't remember how. Been a bad day!