thirdcrank wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 7:24am
The Bart's maps were good for cyclists because they were drawn at the useful scale of ½" = one mile but I don't remember them as being good for showing the type of surface. In fact, I think they were criticised for being unreliable in that way
As I said, I believe the maps were accurate when published but this fell into disrepute when they stopped updating them. See comment at:
Tompsk wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 10:34pmMy first thought for grading was 0-10 where 0 is a smooth tarmac surface and 10 would be having to carry your bike over rocks. My second thought was the minimum size tyre, in mm, suitable for the track. All very subjective, doesn't indicate the foliage issues and could change in different seasons.
OpenStreetMap does have a couple of things like that: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale , for example. As ever with OSM there are multifarious and conflicting ways to tag things. cycle.travel tries to boil them down into a couple of more comprehensible categories for the display map (broadly "unpaved" and "rough unpaved") - I presume other sites do similar.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
NUKe wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:22pm
Old railway tracks make great off road trails.
Too true. It’s a shame Dr Beeching came along when he did. Twenty years later and I could imagine the social and political climate would have been right for the entire network of abandoned lines being retained for public access.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
NUKe wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:22pm
Old railway tracks make great off road trails.
Too true. It’s a shame Dr Beeching came along when he did. Twenty years later and I could imagine the social and political climate would have been right for the entire network of abandoned lines being retained for public access.
Never thought of it like that before, It could have been a brilliant way to integrate transport all the Branch lines could be used as Cycle ways getting people to the mainline stations with a bit of work.
NUKe wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:22pm
Old railway tracks make great off road trails.
Some better than others! I recently went on the Cinder trail which is quite bumpy in places with (smooth) rocks sticking out of the track and some steep parts where the original track is missing, e.g. near Ravenscar. I'd not recommend going on that one with tyres less than about 40mm wide, children on bikes may struggle.
Tompsk wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 10:34pmMy first thought for grading was 0-10 where 0 is a smooth tarmac surface and 10 would be having to carry your bike over rocks. My second thought was the minimum size tyre, in mm, suitable for the track. All very subjective, doesn't indicate the foliage issues and could change in different seasons.
OpenStreetMap does have a couple of things like that: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale , for example. As ever with OSM there are multifarious and conflicting ways to tag things. cycle.travel tries to boil them down into a couple of more comprehensible categories for the display map (broadly "unpaved" and "rough unpaved") - I presume other sites do similar.
The cyclosm layer uses solid lines for paved through dashed for unpaved to sparsely dotted for what I regard "carry your bike" territory.
I'm not sure opencyclemap uses it much.
The boiling down by cycle.travel is one of few decisions I dislike on its mapping, possibly second only to marking A/B route status so much more
prominently than NCN/LCN status.
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.
Where I lived in the Chilterns there were dozens of Bridleways. From my house in a month I once rode over 100. I had an OS map and marked all the bridleways I had ridden with magic marker.
I love bridleways.
Nobody has mentioned being Brambled. You never rode on some bridleways without arm and leg protection!
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
NUKe wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:22pm
Old railway tracks make great off road trails.
Some better than others! I recently went on the Cinder trail which is quite bumpy in places with (smooth) rocks sticking out of the track and some steep parts where the original track is missing, e.g. near Ravenscar. I'd not recommend going on that one with tyres less than about 40mm wide, children on bikes may struggle.
There are a few sections like that that deserve no place on the NCN because they aren't "paths for all" yet Sustrans has left them there despite years of complaints. Meanwhile, perfectly fine smooth tarmac has been deleted from their routes. Sustrans have lost the plot.
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.
NUKe wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:22pm
Old railway tracks make great off road trails.
Some better than others! I recently went on the Cinder trail which is quite bumpy in places with (smooth) rocks sticking out of the track and some steep parts where the original track is missing, e.g. near Ravenscar. I'd not recommend going on that one with tyres less than about 40mm wide, children on bikes may struggle.
You have to have your wits about you round here too. The Coast to Coast trail is for the most part an easy surface but here and there the granite sets, used in place of sleepers on the old tramway, are still in situ and can catch you out if you are travelling at a good clip.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
NUKe wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:22pm
Old railway tracks make great off road trails.
Some better than others! I recently went on the Cinder trail which is quite bumpy in places with (smooth) rocks sticking out of the track and some steep parts where the original track is missing, e.g. near Ravenscar. I'd not recommend going on that one with tyres less than about 40mm wide, children on bikes may struggle.
I rode that one before it was turned into a cycle trail, about 45 years ago, doesn't sound like its improved much.
[/Too true. It’s a shame Dr Beeching came along when he did. Twenty years later and I could imagine the social and political climate would have been right for the entire network of abandoned lines being retained for public access.quote]
The 80s was not a period public transport subsidies were championed-Thatcher de-regulated the buses and commercial criteria were used to applied to railway operations.
I'd have a go at any of the five bridleways pictured and enjoy them all, though I expect the first and quite likely second I would be pushing. But walking with a bicycle can be fun too.
The type of bridleway I don't like is the muddy quagmire, particularly if it's clay mud. Those aren't fun even to walk on let alone (try to) cycle.
al_yrpal wrote: ↑12 Aug 2021, 9:58am
Nobody has mentioned being Brambled. You never rode on some bridleways without arm and leg protection!
Al
And stingered! For me it's not summer unless I've got at least one bramble scratch on arm or leg.
ogg wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:03pm
We probably need some kind of grading for them
I've recently thought this would be good for planning a route in unfamiliar territory. I was told the old Bartholomew 1:100,000 maps were popular with cyclists as they indicated how good tracks were (in about 1930?) with different markings showing the state. However I understand this fell into disrepute as the maps were not updated as some tracks deteriorated and others improved.
My first thought for grading was 0-10 where 0 is a smooth tarmac surface and 10 would be having to carry your bike over rocks. My second thought was the minimum size tyre, in mm, suitable for the track. All very subjective, doesn't indicate the foliage issues and could change in different seasons.
I think 1 to 10 would be better as zero's can be confusing in a grading system.