MrsHJ wrote: ↑16 Jul 2022, 12:30pm
This is why I’m doing the Ruta de la plata with large chunks of the off road route- I just wouldn’t know what to look for without both the route being signed and semi organised and also someone having written a guide so I know which bits I’ll be able to manage and which bits I’ll do on the road alternative. Add on the Spanish route map with accommodation info and I’m sorted for next spring.
Which touches on my other criticism of recent Cycling UK routes: they're unsigned and so unknown to most people who aren't specifically looking for them.
Do they provide gpx downloads (ideally with options for turn by turn directions). If not, why don't they contact somebody like Richard and get him to publish them with routes on cycle.travel?
Nearholmer wrote: ↑16 Jul 2022, 10:41am
It should be encouraging cycling, full stop, and from what I can see it does.
A lot of people, myself included, thoroughly enjoy off-tarmac cycling of the kind that ‘bikepackers’ adhere too and it seems bizarre to criticise CTC for catering to “rough stuff touring” as well as “smooth stuff touring”, and if you look at those old films of “touring competitions” in days of yore, it isn’t as if off-tarmac cycling is a new idea.
Yes.
I can't see any reason for setting one type of cycling against another.
Indeed. So why keep publishing only off-road routes?
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.
When I started (came back to) cycling c1986 it was with a good quality secondhand MTB. I was amazed at what it could do.
I am an inveterate traveller, so touring was more appealing than round the country park.
I did some long stuff, eg NZ, The Camino but struggled to find stuff in the UK. I mainly followed long distance routes, where they were rideable or bridleway. Although this often meant deviating off route for stretches. Peddars Way, South Downs, etc, but more often things like canal towpaths to give me a decent off road tour.
Good to see these off road routes being created, just about 30 years too late for me. It will be interesting to see how well these route develop, are maintained and generally supported.
I now mainly favour tarmac and usually create my own routes for a multitude of reasons. However, I agree that more good quality on road routes would be useful for people getting into that style of touring.
MrsHJ wrote: ↑16 Jul 2022, 12:30pm
This is why I’m doing the Ruta de la plata with large chunks of the off road route- I just wouldn’t know what to look for without both the route being signed and semi organised and also someone having written a guide so I know which bits I’ll be able to manage and which bits I’ll do on the road alternative. Add on the Spanish route map with accommodation info and I’m sorted for next spring.
Which touches on my other criticism of recent Cycling UK routes: they're unsigned and so unknown to most people who aren't specifically looking for them.
Do they provide gpx downloads (ideally with options for turn by turn directions). If not, why don't they contact somebody like Richard and get him to publish them with routes on cycle.travel?
Ian
I think there are guides but they’re on cycling Uk. I agrée that’s missing a trick- you need to get them further out there rather than just niche. Heads off to see if they are lurking somewhere on Amazon. Here it is on the cycling uk website (and some of them are pdf on there). https://shop.cyclinguk.org/king-alfreds ... 1652120147
Which touches on my other criticism of recent Cycling UK routes: they're unsigned and so unknown to most people who aren't specifically looking for them.
Do they provide gpx downloads (ideally with options for turn by turn directions). If not, why don't they contact somebody like Richard and get him to publish them with routes on cycle.travel?
Ian
I think there are guides but they’re on cycling Uk. I agrée that’s missing a trick- you need to get them further out there rather than just niche. Heads off to see if they are lurking somewhere on Amazon. Here it is on the cycling uk website (and some of them are pdf on there). https://shop.cyclinguk.org/king-alfreds ... 1652120147
I'd have hoped CUK's main aim would have been to get people out on their bikes riding the route. But for the only route details being a charged for publication (in one place a "digital download" but where you pay charged P&P so maybe printed?). I'd have little idea if it was appropriate to me until I paid the £14 (which might be £18 incl p&p) so a debatable %age of people will just not bother - which kind of defeats what I'd hope would be CUKs main reason for helping with it.
I can't speak for any site operators but I'd guess provided with some info they'd gladly publish the route. And these days I cn't believe CUK don't have gpx (and Garmin turn by turn, etc.) for the route - if they'd overlooked that ... it would beggar belief these days.
Psamathe wrote: ↑16 Jul 2022, 5:27pmI can't speak for any site operators but I'd guess provided with some info they'd gladly publish the route. And these days I cn't believe CUK don't have gpx (and Garmin turn by turn, etc.) for the route - if they'd overlooked that ... it would beggar belief these days.
Psamathe wrote: ↑16 Jul 2022, 5:27pmI can't speak for any site operators but I'd guess provided with some info they'd gladly publish the route. And these days I cn't believe CUK don't have gpx (and Garmin turn by turn, etc.) for the route - if they'd overlooked that ... it would beggar belief these days.
Thanks. The page I was looking at (on CUKs website)didn't have the route map/download options.
And fortunately the personal information they try and collect for the Cantii Way route (before allowing download) is not verified so you can enter anything (even to required fields) and still get the download.
According to the Oct/Nov 21 edition of Cycle this new route is partly funded by the EU.
They report €16m of a total £23.3m for 3 new routes. W Kernow, being the one they feature and then mention one in Kent and one in Norfolk. Presumably, the Cantii and this one being the other 2.
As the old saying goes - what have the EU ever done for us
simonhill wrote: ↑19 Jul 2022, 2:29pm
According to the Oct/Nov 21 edition of Cycle this new route is partly funded by the EU.
They report €16m of a total £23.3m for 3 new routes. W Kernow, being the one they feature and then mention one in Kent and one in Norfolk. Presumably, the Cantii and this one being the other 2.
As the old saying goes - what have the EU ever done for us
Inflicted gravel and dirt on us, apparently, while co-funding good tarmac like the Vennbahn for continuing members...
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.
mjr wrote: ↑19 Jul 2022, 7:29pm
Inflicted gravel and dirt on us, apparently, while co-funding good tarmac like the Vennbahn for continuing members...
Yes, the Vennbahn's good. I enjoyed exploring it a few years ago.
The Vennbahn used €14m of EU funding to create 125km of tarmac rail trail. I don't understand why Cycling UK takes maybe €6m mainly to document 384km of Norfolk dirt and gravel (if similar to previous projects) when we are crying out for completion of the Sandringham Rail Trail, the Waveney Valley Rail Trail and the Three Rivers Way, all-weather surfacing of the Weaver's Way and Bure Valley Railway, and any sort of start being made on the Lynn and Fakenham Rail Trail. Just off the top of my head. There are probably many other projects in need to complete the cycling network here, too.
It does disappoint me to see what little cycling funding exists used on niche things like this when there's so much needs doing with a better benefit-cost ratio.... but at least some MTBers and extreme tourists will benefit, so it's less annoying than subversion of cycling funding to build car parks and resurface A roads.
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.
Nearholmer wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 7:25pm
Is that €6M figure plucked from the air, or does it have a substantive basis?
It's an estimate based dividing the €16m for three routes mentioned above by three and rounding up.
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.
Be interesting to see if that provokes an official response, because if you are right, that is a fair slice of money for a “non utility” route. Mind you, I guess signposting costs far outweigh documenting it. Have NCC chipped-in on the basis of tourist revenue that might be raised?
mjr wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 7:19pm
...
It does disappoint me to see what little cycling funding exists used on niche things like this when there's so much needs doing with a better benefit-cost ratio.... but at least some MTBers and extreme tourists will benefit, so it's less annoying than subversion of cycling funding to build car parks and resurface A roads.
I was reflecting on this on my ride today and I agree. My hope would be that what CUK is now (i.e. nothing to do with Cycle touring) it should be "greatest good, greatest numbers" i.e. trying to get more people out on their bikes, maybe for a Sunday family ride to discover it really is fun and to become regular cyclists. And spending limited resources on niche facilities for those already cycling wont encourage more people to cycle more often.
I wonder if this is the new "niche" CUK is trying to find for itself? Or maybe just some new (or promoted) employee is a gravel fan.