But it does mean you have to go across both directions of traffic to go straight across. Personally I would rather one way at a time - get out to the middle as you approach the junction, then turn right when it is clear. It does have a yellow cross-hatch box across the junction so motor traffic shouldn't be blocking the junction. Richard, does that have an efffect on CT's routing?richardfm wrote: ↑8 Jul 2022, 1:58pmI wonder if that is to stop you having to turn right on "major" road.RickH wrote: ↑8 Jul 2022, 1:50pmThanks. You are very good at responding to problems*.Richard Fairhurst wrote: ↑8 Jul 2022, 12:14pm There's a particular set of circumstances with dead-end service roads and via points, and it looks like that's what's happening here - I think I should have it fixed with the next update.
I ended up going to the Dark Side & recreating the route in RidewithGPS. Most of the folk I wanted to share it with use that anyway & the ride is tomorrow (but sadly I won't be there as I've tested positive for Covid this morning! ).
(*My next one is probably a OSM mapping problem but I can't see what it is. https://cycle.travel/map/journey/335081 Heading south it work fine a left then a right. Heading North is makes you turn into a cul-de-sac - almost the opposite of the previous problem - then go straight across the Atherton Road.)
Cycle Travel Question
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
-
- Posts: 2035
- Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
- Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire
Re: Cycle Travel Question
That's a really curious one! cycle.travel has a lot of code to analyse turns and it looks like something unexpected is happening here. I'll look into it.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
Re: Cycle Travel Question
I'd like to suggest two options that I feel would be beneficial. Firstly, a "no steps" option. I don't suppose c.t will route along something marked as just steps, but it does route along steps which have wheeling channels. That's fine on an unladen bike but difficult on a laden tourer and impossible on a trike. An example I came across recently was the bridge over the River Calder adjacent to the Aire & Calder canal: https://goo.gl/maps/QHSJT2LgRg21V646A
I had to remove luggage and carry it separately before pushing the bike up the wheel-channel. I can think of at least one cycling friend who would have had no option but to retrace (due to mobility disability and a recumbent trike). I haven't delved into OSM to find how these are marked (tried to do this in the past but didn't get very far) if indeed there is any distinction of these features.
Secondly, a "no paths by busy roads" option. Many of these paths are well segregated, safety is not a factor, but they are very unpleasant simply due to the constant noise, heat and dirt. Here's an example I was recently routed along, the A64 near York:
https://goo.gl/maps/DETCSaiKtYFKNWkJ8
"Busy" road in this context I would probably consider to be any dual-carriageway for the simplest definition. "Life's too short to ride busy roads"!
Obviously for many c.t users, including myself on many occasions, these aren't problems, but for some people and some rides, they are, which is why I'm thinking they might be useful options, like the "paved road only" option, rather than defaults.
I had to remove luggage and carry it separately before pushing the bike up the wheel-channel. I can think of at least one cycling friend who would have had no option but to retrace (due to mobility disability and a recumbent trike). I haven't delved into OSM to find how these are marked (tried to do this in the past but didn't get very far) if indeed there is any distinction of these features.
Secondly, a "no paths by busy roads" option. Many of these paths are well segregated, safety is not a factor, but they are very unpleasant simply due to the constant noise, heat and dirt. Here's an example I was recently routed along, the A64 near York:
https://goo.gl/maps/DETCSaiKtYFKNWkJ8
"Busy" road in this context I would probably consider to be any dual-carriageway for the simplest definition. "Life's too short to ride busy roads"!
Obviously for many c.t users, including myself on many occasions, these aren't problems, but for some people and some rides, they are, which is why I'm thinking they might be useful options, like the "paved road only" option, rather than defaults.
-
- Posts: 2035
- Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
- Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Little options are "no can do", I'm afraid! Because of the way the routing algorithm works, each option = a new server = a lot of money. I can justify that for something significant like paved-only or gravel, which basically brings in enough users to make sure I'm not out-of-pocket with the new server, but not otherwise.
cycle.travel does penalise any flight of steps over a certain number (of steps), so one way you can influence its route choice is by making sure the right number of steps is tagged in OSM (with the step_count= tag). One thing I would like to do in the proverbial spare minute is make sure that steps are flagged up prominently, so even if the route does take you over some, you can see that in advance and drag away accordingly if you're fully loaded.
Similarly, it does downweight paths beside busy roads to some extent as part of its scenic weighting - if you type in "Liverpool" and "Manchester" in the from/to box, it'll send you via the Trans-Pennine Trail and Bridgewater Canal towpath, whereas previously it went via the East Lancs Road cyclepath (four miles shorter, more paved, but almost entirely beside a busy road). I think in this case there are some particular factors that are steering it towards the roadside route, particularly the approaches to/from York and Tadcaster.
In both cases what doesn't help is that the routes are NCN routes. cycle.travel doesn't unquestioningly trust the NCN, but NCN routes do get an uplift, and arguably neither of these are (ideal) NCN quality. I wonder if there are any moves afoot to improve the Calder bridge?
cycle.travel does penalise any flight of steps over a certain number (of steps), so one way you can influence its route choice is by making sure the right number of steps is tagged in OSM (with the step_count= tag). One thing I would like to do in the proverbial spare minute is make sure that steps are flagged up prominently, so even if the route does take you over some, you can see that in advance and drag away accordingly if you're fully loaded.
Similarly, it does downweight paths beside busy roads to some extent as part of its scenic weighting - if you type in "Liverpool" and "Manchester" in the from/to box, it'll send you via the Trans-Pennine Trail and Bridgewater Canal towpath, whereas previously it went via the East Lancs Road cyclepath (four miles shorter, more paved, but almost entirely beside a busy road). I think in this case there are some particular factors that are steering it towards the roadside route, particularly the approaches to/from York and Tadcaster.
In both cases what doesn't help is that the routes are NCN routes. cycle.travel doesn't unquestioningly trust the NCN, but NCN routes do get an uplift, and arguably neither of these are (ideal) NCN quality. I wonder if there are any moves afoot to improve the Calder bridge?
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
Re: Cycle Travel Question
That's more or less the answer I expected! Although I didn't realise a new option would require a new server.
I think highlighting steps would be a really good move. Anyone with a heavy or awkward cycle or whatever could then check them out on Streetview or similar, and those on light bikes could ignore. And roadside paths, well I suppose if I'd paid more attention to the route before riding, I'd have spotted it... maybe.
And yes, NCN – I do think at root both these issues are at least partly down to poor infrastructure (particularly the steps), but we have what we have and no routing can improve what's on the ground. Thanks for the reply and, again, for cycle.travel.
I think highlighting steps would be a really good move. Anyone with a heavy or awkward cycle or whatever could then check them out on Streetview or similar, and those on light bikes could ignore. And roadside paths, well I suppose if I'd paid more attention to the route before riding, I'd have spotted it... maybe.
And yes, NCN – I do think at root both these issues are at least partly down to poor infrastructure (particularly the steps), but we have what we have and no routing can improve what's on the ground. Thanks for the reply and, again, for cycle.travel.
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Snap,Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑14 Jul 2022, 11:28am ....An example I came across recently was the bridge over the River Calder adjacent to the Aire & Calder canal: https://goo.gl/maps/QHSJT2LgRg21V646A
I had to remove luggage and carry it separately before pushing the bike up the wheel-channel...
I had to do that at said bridge,
and that was after passing a sign saying alternative route avoiding steps and thus checking with some emerging (from main route) cyclists, about steps, who presumably failed to notice my luggage, and said it was ok a good route to cycle...
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------
Re: Cycle Travel Question
I'm very familiar with using cycle.travel on my computer, but on Android I'm struggling with how to amend the route by dragging it to a different road. Anyone enlighten me? Sorry if this is a numpty question.
-
- Posts: 2035
- Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
- Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Easiest way is to double-tap on the route to add a via point, then drag that point wherever you want.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Double tap fullscreens my Android browser. Long tap adds a via point.Richard Fairhurst wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 10:09am Easiest way is to double-tap on the route to add a via point, then drag that point wherever you want.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
-
- Posts: 2035
- Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
- Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Gah, flipping browsers. Time to break out the Android phone...
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Long tap adds a via point on mine; double tap brings up the little box with options, including add a via point.
Re: Cycle Travel Question
When I made some turn by turn pdfs in june, for a trip in june, the notes I added to vias did not appear in the turn by turn pdfs despite appearing in the on screen ones. I presume they should? Fortunately, I could remember them.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------
-
- Posts: 2035
- Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
- Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire
Re: Cycle Travel Question
They don't yet. The cuesheet instructions do say "Via point" with an icon but not your actual text. I need to move the cuesheet generation onto a new server and then I can fix that!
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
-
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 2 Mar 2017, 2:38pm
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Hi Richard - any news on the iPhone app? Thanks.
-
- Posts: 2035
- Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
- Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire
Re: Cycle Travel Question
Almost there! Just got the basemap finished and generated for the whole of Europe yesterday. (It uses a completely different mapping stack to the website, which enables nice things like offline maps.)
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides