I suggest that many groups (like the OP's perhaps) don't carry paper maps so they are slaves to the little machine on their handlebars 'Kylie says "At the junction, turn right"'. This gives little perspective of the general (road) layout of the countryside through which they've routed their ride (which I think is their loss) and limited inclination to divert from the 'pink line'. The ubiquitous use of such navigational aids has, I surmise, also led to the general atrophy of navigational skills (I speak with all the prejudice and hubris derived from a long term competitive orienteering background).
Yeah, that's quite some prejudice. First of all, how do you think the routes get into the little machines? Secondly, it's much easier to vary the route by browsing the machine map than it is if you're following a route card / cue sheet... and most importantly, the map stored in wafers of silicon is far more likely to be up-to-date than ink on wafers of dead tree pulp - plus if it's wrong, you can correct it and share that correction with everyone else, instead of it being kept your secret until some self-appointed gods of mapping issue a new set of dead tree.
Its pretty widely known that most Sustrans routes can be a bit unreliable, tending to follow the safest or quietest traffic free route as opposed to the most direct or rideable, and are aimed at all cycling groups not just peletons of roadies.
If it's not suitable for "peletons of roadies", then it's not "aimed at all cycling groups", is it? It's as much a sin to be unsuitable for the fast riders as it is to be unsuitable for cargo trikes IMO - and thankfully the latest update to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges seems to have moved in this direction, with the first part of module 2 of
https://cycletraffic-elearning.com opening the eyes of a lot of engineers to the range of cycles that are actually used.
Problems arise with lack of prior planning or peoples ability to reroute during a ride. Yes it would be great if all routes were hard surface and traffic free, but whats wrong with either planning to avoid the bits that are dodgy before you leave or whipping the old map out when you come across a bit that your bike or ability can't handle and finding another route around.
How much prior planning do you think people should have to do? If I want to drive to Birmingham, three hours away, then I get in my car, follow signs for the Midlands, then for Birmingham and then for a car park. It helps if I know that both Peterborough and Spalding are acceptable alternative waypoints but I don't need to. I can just follow the signs. If I want to cycle to somewhere three hours away along Sustrans routes, then I need to check and remember lists of extra waypoints to avoid the bits where they go on a five-mile detour through several Wisbech suburbs and the town centre or go very muddy (on the approaches to March and Whittlesey), which is extra faff you just don't have to do when driving. That's just not SUStainable TRANSport, so surely it's a fair criticism of so-called Sustrans routes?
And just to add another favourite refrain: look abroad. You get off the boat in the Netherlands, follow cycle route signs for Den Haag or Rotterdam and it just works and you're not going to be dumped onto the gravel leisure routes. Even farking France is within 2 roads of making it work for arriving on boats there - at the moment, the route network doesn't seem to reach the port gates like in the Netherlands, but once you find your way onto it, it seems to work without the mad mud of our network.
