How do some cyclists manage to avoid busy roads...

[jacobean]

Here is a great video of a guy cycling from Brighton to Edinburgh.

Question is: how do some cyclists manage to find "idyllic" routes through fields and country lanes without ever once coming across a road full of screaming cars and trucks, with no margin?

As I've said, I think this guy's video is excellent and really represents the spirit of cycle touring, but how do some cyclists manage to find routes through fields without coming across fences and hedges every 300m?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nS6VK4PVxk

[Nearholmer]

Well …… using a combo of OS maps, and CycleStreets, it’s not that difficult to plot routes which almost entirely avoid obviously busy roads, although sometimes you get “trapped”, as in surrounded by A roads, with no crossroad (minor road, byway, or bridleway crossing major road) exit in the general direction you want to go, and have to do a few hundred metres of busy road to zig-zag across.

Fields etc, provided you stick to byways and bridleways, the boundaries have gates, so provided you don’t mind (or even revel in) slow, often bumpy, and pausing for breath and scenery at gates, all is good.

The routes that result are often a bit circuitous, but IMO that is a price worth paying.

I’ve never done monster distances like that guy, but do spend a couple of weeks at a time, a couple of times a year doing this sort of thing, and do day or half day versions twice a week, year round unless the weather gets truly preventative.

This is what makes it worthwhile. View from a bridge on a byway this morning.

[Cowsham]

This guy was showing the opposite scenario getting to either dead ends or just unpassable routes having to turn around or make big unplanned detours.

380 miles around Galloway Scotland -- Hell of an adventure he's very experienced but he's relatively young 30's or perhaps early 40's and very fit. There are times where he's visibility shaking -- I think just with exhaustion. Shows the rough side to bike packing.
https://youtu.be/_n1ePBWnkpE?si=5dO7ZwFyyX9X6zBG

[rareposter]

As I've said, I think this guy's video is excellent and really represents the spirit of cycle touring, but how do some cyclists manage to find routes through fields without coming across fences and hedges every 300m?

A lot of work on maps beforehand!
Google Streetview and Google Earth are both good for checking out options in advance. A lot of cycle route planners will work off heatmaps so you can see the popular routes and if you set it to prefer off-road (or prefer quieter lanes), it'll usually pick it's way through the busy bits for you.

Also, that video is fairly "curated". There are obviously times where he's had to set up a camera and ride past it or he's using a drone on follow-me mode so he's clearly picking the nicer bits to film rather than the bits where he's getting to a dead end or trudging through a field up to his ankles in mud or being close-passed by a lorry along an A-road!

There was a report of his ride on road.cc (maybe?) and various comments underneath it about how it was a bit out of order to basically just scrounge your way around for 2 weeks but I guess he's going for the experience and clicks.

[Pendodave]

Cycle.travel with the OS and satellite layers for me.
But if you have a long enough trip, there's bound to be a few awkward bits.

[cycle tramp]

I started in the same way as others, with o.s. maps. You start by looking at where you are coming from and where you want to go...
..Once you have an idea of a route, you then start your exploration.. and it may not go as well as expected. Certainly when I first started out, I found a number of ideal routes blocked by locked gates and farm tracks which turned out to be ankle deep in mud. But you keep trying and keep exploring. But the exploring isn't restricted to
the countryside, its also urban environments.. I manage to avoid the main road through my village by getting off my bike and walking a short length of footpath which joins one housing estate to a country lane.. likewise in some of my local towns, I avoid the main roads by cycling across supermarket car parks.
More recently I was over joyed to find that I could cycle to a friend's house, not by following tge nain road which lies outside of his front door, but to cycle along the banks of a local canal, take a foot path from it, to a residential parking area and then follow the access road which runs to the side of it. Once you start to develop a habit of looking for such routes, you become more adapt at spotting them.

[cycle tramp]

As an aside there is probably enough local knowledge on the forum to plan a Lejog journey which has minimal contact with any class a or even class b roads.

[PH]

I use Cycletravel. I've just entered Brighton to Edinburgh, it instantly gives a 570 mile route, 8.7 miles of that on busy road, 160 miles on tracks, 120 miles of that paved. If I was actually intending to ride it, I'd have a closer look and maybe make some alterations to suit,plus any detours for interest, shopping or accommodation, but if I needed to I'm confident enough to just follow it. It has twice got it wrong, once a private road with a gate across and the other a muddy farm track that I couldn't even push the bike along, but that's far less frequently than I would have done so doing my own planning.

[pq]

I never ride on main roads, other than for very short distances or when I have good reason to believe they are OK for cycling. That comes from careful planning, nothing more. If I can't find a route avoiding awful roads, I just go somewhere else. But don't confuse how someone presents themselves on social media/more widely on the internet with the reality of their riding. They present the nice bits like we all do. My business requires a social media presence and while we never lie, we only present the nice bits...

[Ron]

As an aside there is probably enough local knowledge on the forum to plan a Lejog journey which has minimal contact with any class a or even class b roads.

Indeed, purchase an OS map of suitable scale at the start, it doesn't take long to learn which colour of roads to avoid!

[Nearholmer]

I use Cycletravel. I've just entered Brighton to Edinburgh, it instantly gives a 570 mile route, 8.7 miles of that on busy road, 160 miles on tracks, 120 miles of that paved.

I’ve always assumed (subject to correction) that like all other similar tools CT applies a limit to the number of nodes is calculates, so that if you choose very long distances between start and finish it will present a less well-tailored route than for shorter segments. So, I tend to ask it to look only at short distances, which it is definitely very good at within the limits of the mapping it is working over.

TBH, Im such an oldie, so steeped in OS, that I still find a big paper OS map best for actually working out routes, because all software-based tools, the OS one included, give only a “tank driver’s view”, whereas what I really want is a helicopter pilot’s view. In the field, clearly the software tools are better, because they don’t get soggy in the rain, or keep flapping in the wind, or whatever.

[roubaixtuesday]

I’ve always assumed (subject to correction) that like all other similar tools CT applies a limit to the number of nodes is calculates, so that if you choose very long distances between start and finish it will present a less well-tailored route than for shorter segments. So, I tend to ask it to look only at short distances, which it is definitely very good at within the limits of the mapping it is working over.

Fascinatingly, this isn't true, at least AIUI.

Richard the site owner explained to me how it works, which is why it's so fast.

First of all, the optimal* route between every single pair of nodes in the entire database is calculated offline. That's a very computationally intensive task, and generates a mahoosive dataset.

It enables, however instant response and rerouting as you put via points in.

*optimal depends on the optimisation. The site weights things like distance, road type, busyness, climbing etc. Your optimal might not be someone else's

I'll find a link and post it.

[roubaixtuesday]

I use Cycletravel. I've just entered Brighton to Edinburgh, it instantly gives a 570 mile route, 8.7 miles of that on busy road, 160 miles on tracks, 120 miles of that paved.

I’ve always assumed (subject to correction) that like all other similar tools CT applies a limit to the number of nodes is calculates, so that if you choose very long distances between start and finish it will present a less well-tailored route than for shorter segments. So, I tend to ask it to look only at short distances, which it is definitely very good at within the limits of the mapping it is working over.

TBH, Im such an oldie, so steeped in OS, that I still find a big paper OS map best for actually working out routes, because all software-based tools, the OS one included, give only a “tank driver’s view”, whereas what I really want is a helicopter pilot’s view. In the field, clearly the software tools are better, because they don’t get soggy in the rain, or keep flapping in the wind, or whatever.

Discussion here viewtopic.php?p=1826840#p1826840

If you want to know more, Richard generally responds to questions on the main cycle.travel thread

viewtopic.php?t=128273

[Bmblbzzz]

For me too, the answer is generally to start with cycle.travel.

[PH]

I use Cycletravel. I've just entered Brighton to Edinburgh, it instantly gives a 570 mile route, 8.7 miles of that on busy road, 160 miles on tracks, 120 miles of that paved.

I’ve always assumed (subject to correction) that like all other similar tools CT applies a limit to the number of nodes is calculates, so that if you choose very long distances between start and finish it will present a less well-tailored route than for shorter segments. So, I tend to ask it to look only at short distances, which it is definitely very good at within the limits of the mapping it is working over.

Before I read roubaixtuesday post I went and gave that a try, Cycletravel plotted the same route for a section as it did for the whole.

TBH, Im such an oldie, so steeped in OS, that I still find a big paper OS map best for actually working out routes, because all software-based tools, the OS one included, give only a “tank driver’s view”, whereas what I really want is a helicopter pilot’s view. In the field, clearly the software tools are better, because they don’t get soggy in the rain, or keep flapping in the wind, or whatever.

I used to enjoy route planning from scratch on paper maps but TBH I don't miss it. When you're presented with a choice of routes, it's very time consuming to make detailed comparisons, particularly with regard to elevation. There's also the simplicity of transferring the map plan to whatever you're using on the ride. I used to plan simpler rides, just to make the navigation easier to follow. The number of junctions makes less difference following a line on a Garmin than if I have to keep consulting a map. Getting lost on an Audax is almost entirely a thing of the past, for me anyway. Whatever works for you of course, I'm just glad we have the choice.