- Posts: 3990
- Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
- Location: From here to there.
mjr wrote: ↑28 Apr 2021, 7:12pm
Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑28 Apr 2021, 5:30pm
mjr wrote: ↑28 Apr 2021, 4:13pm
As you note, there is indeed duplication of numbers, although you dismiss them as legacy and errors and — somewhat dodgily IMO — a distinct numbering system. Why not just as rightfully say that the national/regional/local routes are distinct systems?
Because the motorway network has a distinct character as roads. [...]
Maybe then we should applaud Sustrans's recent bonfire of their routes and encourage them to go further, removing the MTB challenges and remaining wider 60mph-limit roads, so that red-number routes have a distinct character of off-road/back-road routes that are nice to ride but even more extremely unlikely to be useful for transport or touring on their own?
We should applaud this if it results in routes of a consistent quality and nature, easy to use and follow. They could make them all mtb challenges or all dual-carriageway TT courses as long as it's clear and consistent. The problems come when you need a TT bike at one end and a mtb at the other (and you're on a tourer!). (Also of course, and surely the most common problem of all on cycle routes of all description, when whatever machine you're on won't fit through a barrier.)
Interesting point about road numbers historically but that is historical and a rabbit hole we should probably only go down in another thread.
Yeah, Bristol to Bath was just an illustrative snippet.
Still not sure what you mean about locality. If I ask the best way to get from Kings Lynn to (looks at map) Wisbech, you can tell me "Follow route 1" or "Follow Euro route 12" (I'm taking these numbers by looking at cycle.travel) or (making this up now) "Follow local route Grasshopper" or "Go through Wiggenhall St Germans, Marshland St James and West Walton". It's all the same when I'm there and meaningless when I'm not. Which set of numbers I find it easier to follow is going to depend on signage, and whether I find it easier to follow numbers or names is going to depend on my own thought patterns.
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 13 May 2020, 10:31pm
Interesting debate. My thoughts
1. The cycle network is helpful for those with children to do family rides on their off road sections. They are generally in reasonable condition and if not this can be ascertained by some simple research prior to the trip. Many of these sections have car parks along them as well which is important for families. My granddaughters are getting new bikes, with gears for the first time in 2 weeks time. My son suggested a family cycle for their birthday. This really needs to be off road as they are primary age, inexperienced and riding new bikes while adapting to gears. The NCN map made finding off road routes between the two easy and I had to simple look in more detail to find one with no road sections and a car park adjacent to the ride. I think that's excellent. The bits they are chopping would never have featured in this choice in any case. This is just what the NCN are looking to promote I suspect.
2. When I'm planning routes for ME, or with cyclist friends, I know that if I choose sections on the cycle network they are 'less likely' to be busy roads. In addition, when I plan routes in detail with Komoot, it will direct me away from any really busy sections in any case, which I can override if I wish.
3. When I'm planning routes in an area of the country I haven't cycled before, I find the NCN helps me to identify the quieter back woods areas to focus on ( not guaranteed, but likely), the removal of any 'dubious' sections now makes this easier not harder.
4. As a fairly confident and increasingly experienced cyclist; how busy a road is isn't the main priority when planning routes. Though it is a consideration it is one that the use of modern route planning technology can now make easier and potentially safer. Simply planning a 50 mile route between two town with Google maps (Cars) and Komoot or even Google maps(cycles) makes this clear. I accept none of these are perfect solutions, but better than trying the same in a new are 30 years ago with just paper maps.
Given al this, I can understand their decision to remove sections where safety is an issue, especially for new/inexperience cyclists who might lack confidence (my wife for instance) and focus on other sections. If I'm honest these changes themselves will make no difference to my cycling and will benefit others who might need the help more.