Cycle Travel question!

Cycle-touring, Expeditions, Adventures, Major cycle routes NOT LeJoG (see other special board)
LittleGreyCat
Posts: 462
Joined: 7 Aug 2013, 8:31pm

Re: Cycle Travel question!

Postby LittleGreyCat » 15 Jun 2019, 6:11pm

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
gloomyandy wrote:Quick heads up. For some reason Google has decided that the .tcx file download from cycle.travel is not a safe file and will not allow the download to a Chromebook (well to my Chromebook at least). I had to disable the website protection feature to allow me to do it. It seems to be only the .tcx files that are being blocked, .gpx works fine. I've no idea why it is happening but you may find that it impacts other users as well. Possibly something to do with this https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/11/chrom ... oads-soon/ Do you use https or http for tcx downloads?


Just to say that I raised this as an issue with Google's Search Console, and they've now come back to me and said "we've reviewed your site and determined that it's ok"! So hopefully these warnings will stop appearing.


I've noted that Windows Mail seems to lock any email with the cycle.travel URL in it.

Nothing to do with attached files because these are replies to emails I sent out with attachments and a link to a saved map.

Has the site crept onto a blacklist?

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4364
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Cycle Travel question!

Postby RickH » 19 Jun 2019, 9:30pm

Psamathe wrote:Many thanks but limited success. I'd already tried the cycle.travel profile speed but I'd not noticed the pace in the Garmin Connect web site import. I set the av speed for the course there and when the course loaded onto my GPS the summary had the correct speed I'd entered in the "pace". But during the ride the GPS still seemed to be using something around 15 mph. I'd entered 10 mph as an average to GC but with 14 miles to go the GPS was saying less than an hour for time to go and in the ETA.

It's not a crucial feature as 10 mph is fine and is easy mental arithmetic and my ETA is not crucial anyway.


I tried creating 2 identical routes, 1 in cycle.travel & the other in Ride with GPS, and then importing them to Garmin Connect (not adding an average speed, as per my previous post, in either case). When I sent them to my Garmin (Edge 1000 in my case) they both ended up showing a 15.54mph average speed. That suggests that it is something that the Garmin units make up (or Garmin Connect does it on exporting it) if there is no other info included. :?

I've not yet tried riding a course with a (sensible) pace set in GC to see what I get.

Woodtourer
Posts: 195
Joined: 23 Jan 2018, 1:51pm

Re: Cycle Travel question!

Postby Woodtourer » 21 Jun 2019, 6:10pm

Current challenge/problem.
We are currently cycling in Poland. When we use the Find lodging option is seems like after looking at one option it freezes up and I have to refresh the page and start over.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycle Travel question!

Postby mjr » 24 Jun 2019, 1:02pm

When deciding which side of the road to cycle on (when the contraflow side has a two-way cycleway), does cycle.travel take into account the number of road crossings? The number of toucan lights? The traffic volume of the road being crossed? I ask because I feel the default routing choice in https://cycle.travel/map/journey/110871 is incorrect to prefer the contraflow when you've got to cross back and join the flow anyway.
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.

Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 1343
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Cycle Travel question!

Postby Richard Fairhurst » 24 Jun 2019, 1:29pm

Woodtourer wrote:Current challenge/problem.
We are currently cycling in Poland. When we use the Find lodging option is seems like after looking at one option it freezes up and I have to refresh the page and start over.


That's strange - I can't get that to happen but other people have reported something similar (but maybe it might be specific to something I can't test on?). Can you give me an exact step-by-step - i.e. plan this route, click this, click that - so I can try and track it down?

mjr wrote:When deciding which side of the road to cycle on (when the contraflow side has a two-way cycleway), does cycle.travel take into account the number of road crossings? The number of toucan lights? The traffic volume of the road being crossed? I ask because I feel the default routing choice in https://cycle.travel/map/journey/110871 is incorrect to prefer the contraflow when you've got to cross back and join the flow anyway.


It does all of that, yes (though traffic volume is approximated when it comes to calculating turn costs). I think the issue in this case is probably that c.t simply likes off-carriageway facilities, doesn't like paint, and doesn't like dual carriageways. In OSM, the junction is mapped with a dual carriageway with a painted lane on the north side. Google Street View suggests that's not actually the case, and that the north-side provision is a fairly sketchy shared-use path, but I don't know the location to know if that's changed.

Unfortunately routing through horrible UK urban junction design can be a losing battle at times!
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycle Travel question!

Postby mjr » 24 Jun 2019, 3:39pm

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
mjr wrote:When deciding which side of the road to cycle on (when the contraflow side has a two-way cycleway), does cycle.travel take into account the number of road crossings? The number of toucan lights? The traffic volume of the road being crossed? I ask because I feel the default routing choice in https://cycle.travel/map/journey/110871 is incorrect to prefer the contraflow when you've got to cross back and join the flow anyway.


It does all of that, yes (though traffic volume is approximated when it comes to calculating turn costs). I think the issue in this case is probably that c.t simply likes off-carriageway facilities, doesn't like paint, and doesn't like dual carriageways.

I wondered about that, but in the nearby "mini-Holland", it refuses to use some of the kerbed cycleways such as via point 1 in https://cycle.travel/map/journey/110904 - what's the decision-making there?

Richard Fairhurst wrote:In OSM, the junction is mapped with a dual carriageway with a painted lane on the north side. Google Street View suggests that's not actually the case, and that the north-side provision is a fairly sketchy shared-use path, but I don't know the location to know if that's changed.

I think Street View is more current, but I have not confirmed that recently - but I'd prefer joining a painted lane on the north side 100m earlier to probably waiting for an additional two push-button crossings, so even as mapped, I'm not sure that's the correct decision there.

Richard Fairhurst wrote:Unfortunately routing through horrible UK urban junction design can be a losing battle at times!

Riding it isn't always great, either...
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.

Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 1343
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Cycle Travel question!

Postby Richard Fairhurst » 24 Jun 2019, 4:51pm

mjr wrote:I wondered about that, but in the nearby "mini-Holland", it refuses to use some of the kerbed cycleways such as via point 1 in https://cycle.travel/map/journey/110904 - what's the decision-making there?


Ah, that's an interesting one. :)

That's a challenge that basically springs from OSM's data model. Because roads are mapped as centrelines, the OSM data shows that as two sharp turns (near 90° in each case). c.t has a slight penalty for each turn, so in this case the benefit of taking a few metres of cycleway is outweighed by the cost of the two turns.

Ideally OSM needs some way to represent this as "this isn't actually a turn, because cyclists would already be on that side of the road". In reality I'm not too worried about the routing choice here - if you were cycling along that road, you'd pop onto the kerbed cycleway anyway - and the biggest challenge is getting the turn instructions right: something saying "turn left onto cycleway" would clearly be wrong. I've done some work on improving this but there's more still to do. (Looking at CycleStreets, it has similar issues too.)
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides