In praise of Google Maps

[dellzeqq]

http://maps.google.co.uk/

I may be late in the day here, but the google maps directions thingummy using the 'walking' option is the bees knees for checking distances. My head told me that going from Hyde Park Corner to the Cabin Cafe via Lonesome Lane would be a little longer than going via Epsom, the Dorking bypass and Rusper. But by how much?

Well, typing in the start and finish, and then pulling the line of the route around with the mouse gave me the answer, and not just one answer, but four or five answers. How much distance does going through Mickleham save (answer - not enough to make it remotely worthwhile). How much distance does going across country from Gatwick save (answer - not enough to make it quicker, but worth checking the roads for holes). And so on....

No substitute for checking on the ground if you're planning to invite sixty cyclists out for the night, but what it does it does well.

 

[Globalti]

An amazingly accurate way to estimate distances off a paper map is to count every time your route crosses a blue grid line (it must be every time even if you just dive over it and back) then halve the number, which gives you the figure in miles. It's obviously more accurate the longer the distance, don't ask me how it works but it does!

 

[Piemaster]

The walking option works every well with a G1 phone. Directions to the nearest bike shop when in an unfamiliar town? - no problem at all

 

[Ian H]

Planning my new 150k event for next year I concocted a first set of route instructions from Google Maps, aided by satellite view which allows you to see the white lines on most junctions. Almost the only things I had to guess were the signposts. When I check-rode it it was almost faultless.

 

[dellzeqq]

what it doesn't do is distinguish between road surfaces and types - so you really have to doublecheck on the OS, either in print or on Streetmap - and then ride the route if you're doing it for a group, to check for holes or roadworks or gravel or whatever. But the distance thing is really spot-on. This might not seem a big deal, but the difference between 36.4 miles, 35.5 miles and 34.8 miles matters if you're riding through the night in the cold, not knowing where you are, and wondering if you're going to make it.

 

[summerdays]

If only they would add a cycling option and recognise cycle paths, routes through parks etc. And you have to be careful with the walking option that it doesn't route you the wrong way along a one way street. But other than that - brilliant.

 

[Ian H]

Bikely.com and Bikehike.co.uk are both based on Google Maps but specifically tuned for cycling. With Bikely you can mix 'follow road' and free-drawn sections. Bikehike has the additional feature of a simultaneous OS map window.

 

[Norm]

With Bikely you can mix 'follow road' and free-drawn sections.

bikehike.com has the same.

I don't think much of bikehike's mapping, it sometimes throws a curveball route selection, and I've found a couple of roads which it doesn't like suggesting, but I love the elevation data and, now that I've got used to it, I think it's a fab tool.

Strangely, last night, it wanted to go the wrong way round all the roundabouts and completely refused to use the A332 from Windsor to Slough!

 

[srw]

An amazingly accurate way to estimate distances off a paper map is to count every time your route crosses a blue grid line (it must be every time even if you just dive over it and back) then halve the number, which gives you the figure in miles. It's obviously more accurate the longer the distance, don't ask me how it works but it does!

Because the fractal dimension of roads is approximately 1.6.

 

[zacklaws]

I've switched to :-

http://www.gpsies.com/createTrack.do;jsessionid=E638DE7701E5BDC9A5A1B5843AF4C5C5

for all my route planning now, it gives you the option of all the mapping companies, Google, Yahoo, Micrsoft, Open street, or a combination of them along with sattelite or just use Terrain mapping, but its the use of the OSM cycle mapping that won me over.