Cycling UK Forum

iPhones/iPads are difficult because they don't easily talk to external peripherals like GPS units. But there is one way to do it...

The idea behind building a Garmin app is that it'll be something that sits on your Garmin (anything with Connect IQ support). It then uses your phone (via Bluetooth) to get your saved routes from cycle.travel, and effectively downloads the .gpx directly onto the unit. It should be pretty instant.

I'll definitely be needing beta testers so thank you for that! As yet I've not had the time to get it ready. I do have a nice new cycle.travel feature coming later this week though...

A new feature!!!! Come on how about some hints!!!!

Richard Fairhurst wrote:iPhones/iPads are difficult because they don't easily talk to external peripherals like GPS units. But there is one way to do it...

The idea behind building a Garmin app is that it'll be something that sits on your Garmin (anything with Connect IQ support). It then uses your phone (via Bluetooth) to get your saved routes from cycle.travel, and effectively downloads the .gpx directly onto the unit. It should be pretty instant.

I'll definitely be needing beta testers so thank you for that! As yet I've not had the time to get it ready. I do have a nice new cycle.travel feature coming later this week though...

interesting - I suspect I’ll eventually move over to phone only though if there’s a decent app and garmin can’t get their act together on batteries— the new phone seems to be better on battery life and that was always the biggest issue before.

Not a major issue Richard but cycle travel doesn’t show a preview on Facebook at the moment, just a blank. I noticed it on tyre lady’s Facebook feed and just tested it on mine and it didn’t show there either. I’m thinking it might be helpful to attract new users.

I've kicked that bit of the server and they should be showing up again now!

Richard Fairhurst wrote:iPhones/iPads are difficult because they don't easily talk to external peripherals like GPS units. But there is one way to do it...

The idea behind building a Garmin app is that it'll be something that sits on your Garmin (anything with Connect IQ support). It then uses your phone (via Bluetooth) to get your saved routes from cycle.travel, and effectively downloads the .gpx directly onto the unit. It should be pretty instant.
....

Garmin through whatever connection to the internet it has (e.g. Wi-Fi) to cycle.travel sounds ideal.

(Sorry, a feature request before you've even got to beta stage:)
But, could it download a .tcx course? or a choice as to the format (as you get on the cycle.travel GPS button).

Ignoring my disaster with the Wahoo box, slick integration between "course generator" and the GPS is a big gain in functionality. Wahoo did it with RideWithGPS but I was not impressed with their (RideWithGPS) courses/routing so didn't use it and used cycle.travel, export, download, transfer, ..... (which was a bit of grief but worth it to get a good course for the next day).

Before using these GPS units I dismissed turn by turn directions, probably because most of my rides were local where I knew the roads. But using them last summer I found them very useful, meaning you could ride along forgetting about turns, etc. and enjoy the countryside and get a beep when getting to the next turn (or look at screen to find how long to next turn).

Ian

It is spring & the temporary traffic light and road closure signs are bursting into bloom!

Which made me think... Is there any way of having a "not via" point so cycle.travel will avoid a stretch of road (one road that I use reasonably often is going to be closed for several weeks (I don't yet know if it will be passable by bike) & it might be useful to see what cycle.travel reckons the "next best" route is.

Alternatively is it possible to have time limited changes in OSM?

RickH wrote:Alternatively is it possible to have time limited changes in OSM?

Yes but it's rather a pain, you'd have to tell c.t when you were planning to travel, I don't know if/how c.t factors them in already, few highways departments publish plans far enough ahead for c.t's monthly-ish update cycle and even fewer OSM volunteers are adding such short-term restrictions to the map fast enough. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Con ... strictions

I'd prefer your idea of a "not via" point, too, although it might have to have an exclusion zone to avoid simply rerouting onto neighbouring footpaths or carriageways.

Psamathe wrote:(Sorry, a feature request before you've even got to beta stage:)
But, could it download a .tcx course? or a choice as to the format (as you get on the cycle.travel GPS button).

Yep - in theory it should be able to download either .gpx or .tcx; ConnectIQ has support for both of these. I've been looking into the intricacies of Garminery a bit more of the past couple of days and it's not trivial but certainly doable - to be honest, the hardest bit is going to be providing a way to log in so that you can see your routes!

RickH wrote:Which made me think... Is there any way of having a "not via" point so cycle.travel will avoid a stretch of road (one road that I use reasonably often is going to be closed for several weeks (I don't yet know if it will be passable by bike) & it might be useful to see what cycle.travel reckons the "next best" route is.

Hmmm. It's certainly not something that OSRM (the base routing engine) does by default and I can't off the top of my head think of an easy way of adapting the algorithm.

The "round trip" feature might be relevant - effectively, the return leg is the next best route with a certain amount of divergence required. Or you could just try dragging the route and moving the via point around: generally you'll notice that if (say) you drag somewhere in the middle of the route, it'll settle on a good start/end section, so you can try 'pinning' those sections with extra via points and then removing the middle one.

mjr wrote:

RickH wrote:Alternatively is it possible to have time limited changes in OSM?

Yes but it's rather a pain, you'd have to tell c.t when you were planning to travel, I don't know if/how c.t factors them in already, few highways departments publish plans far enough ahead for c.t's monthly-ish update cycle and even fewer OSM volunteers are adding such short-term restrictions to the map fast enough. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Con ... strictions

I'd prefer your idea of a "not via" point, too, although it might have to have an exclusion zone to avoid simply rerouting onto neighbouring footpaths or carriageways.

Also, when cycling I mostly ignore "Road Closed" signs as only once have I found the road really closed even to bikes. Normally even if the road is closed by barriers, once they see me approaching somebody will move a barrier normally before I arrive.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:Also, when cycling I mostly ignore "Road Closed" signs as only once have I found the road really closed even to bikes. Normally even if the road is closed by barriers, once they see me approaching somebody will move a barrier normally before I arrive.

Yeah but the last time I tried that, despite checking with the county council beforehand and being told cycling access would be maintained, I arrived to find half the road of wet tar and the other half large machinery. I took a not-really-safe-for-cycling detour and arrived at the station just in time to see my intended (and already delayed) train depart. So I'm not inclined to chance it for transport or when suggesting a route to others.

Fortunately, I expected the county council officer to be incompetent/negligent/lying/multiple-and-then-some and had left it so I could catch the next train an hour later and still be in time for my hospital appointment!

Good point above about clicking "round trip". I often use that to find an alternative. I guess I could download that and then tell my sat nav app to follow it in reverse...

mjr wrote:

Psamathe wrote:Also, when cycling I mostly ignore "Road Closed" signs as only once have I found the road really closed even to bikes. Normally even if the road is closed by barriers, once they see me approaching somebody will move a barrier normally before I arrive.

Yeah but the last time I tried that, despite checking with the county council beforehand and being told cycling access would be maintained, I arrived to find half the road of wet tar and the other half large machinery. I took a not-really-safe-for-cycling detour and arrived at the station just in time to see my intended (and already delayed) train depart. So I'm not inclined to chance it for transport or when suggesting a route to others.

Fortunately, I expected the county council officer to be incompetent/negligent/lying/multiple-and-then-some and had left it so I could catch the next train an hour later and still be in time for my hospital appointment!

Good point above about clicking "round trip". I often use that to find an alternative. I guess I could download that and then tell my sat nav app to follow it in reverse...

Norfolk CC Highways do not regard wet tar covering the entire road as any sort of hindrance to cycling. I've had big arguments with them and their legal department and their contractors about that - the contractors accept that cycling through wet tar is not great but say they have to follow NCC practices and NCC don't think it's a problem.

Ian

If they considered wet tar a hindrance to cycling they'd have to provide and/or sign alternatives.

Vorpal wrote:If they considered wet tar a hindrance to cycling they'd have to provide and/or sign alternatives. :roll:

They don't even sign the road they are in the middle of covering with wet tar.

Ian

Vorpal wrote:If they considered wet tar a hindrance to cycling they'd have to provide and/or sign alternatives. :roll:

Norfolk seem very bad about signing alternatives to road closures. We have some roadworks going on nearby and their diversions are terrible in that from my house to supermarket no diversion signs atall (just "Road Closed". Told the workers there and they deny it claiming there are diversion signs and I explain I've just driven there and there are none. Told them several times but nobody bothers to actually sort anything out. But that's Norfolk (at least in my part of it).

Ian