Online route planner for Plymouth to Cambridge

[mythste]

Whereas I prefer to look at quality rather than quantity...

The amount of completely unhelpful posts you've popped on this thread seems to suggest otherwise

I really am happy to talk about the pros and cons of all the systems, I don't know enough about them. Based on my limited experience I've preferred Strava, but if I'm missing something why not be a champ and inform me! We're all here to learn!

 

[Dave 123]

Do you have a Garmin bike GPS_

I do, but never use it as a navigational tool......

 

[steveindenmark]

I do, but never use it as a navigational tool......

Well now is your chance to give it a go. I am happy to help you with plotting a route on plotaroute and getting it into your device.

But before you do that I could plot a couple of local routes for you and send you on a short trip

I carry maps on long trips but working with the GPS is great fun.

 

[Dave 123]

Well now is your chance to give it a go. I am happy to help you with plotting a route on plotaroute and getting it into your device.

But before you do that I could plot a couple of local routes for you and send you on a short trip

I carry maps on long trips but working with the GPS is great fun.

I say I've NEVER used it.... but here's an admission.
On an Oxford-Cambridge ride I did have the route in there but the Garmin had a freeze about 10 miles in. Also (and here's the fun bit) I need my reading glasses to see the map. But I'm willing to give anything a go.

After that incident I've always known I never use it to its full potential.

If I'm anywhere new I'll plot a route on a map then write a crib sheet of place names and stick it in my pocket.

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

Oooh, where do I start. Disclaimer to begin with: I run http://cycle.travel/map which is clearly the best route-planning website there is (ahem), so I may be more than a little biased...

Bike route-planners are essentially rules-based. For each road, they calculate a weighting, which is distance multiplied by a quality factor. So 10km of quiet lane will get a better score than 10km of motorway, and so on. The basis of this is usually road classification, but other factors such as surface quality can be taken into account. The route with the best weighting overall is the one that's then presented to you. So the trick is to find a route-planner whose weightings accord most closely to your style of cycling.

RideWithGPS uses Google route-planning (i.e. exactly the same as the bike mode in Google maps) if you have the Google background map switched on. If you have an OpenStreetMap-based background map, it switches to an open-source program called Graphhopper which uses OpenStreetMap data. The Google-based routing is often tolerable, sometimes terrible. The Graphhopper routing is slightly better but I wouldn't say that either produces particularly brilliant results. There are lots of other good things about RWGPS, but the auto route-planning isn't their strongest point.

Cyclestreets uses an entirely custom routing engine they've written themselves, again based on OSM data. You can choose from three sets of weightings (quiet, balanced, fast). The balanced routing is very good - one of the best I've seen. The downside is that the user interface is a little old-fashioned - you don't get a big map display, you can't drag the points around, and so on. But it'll almost always find you a good route.

Garmins have their own little built-in routing engine, but the processing power available in a Garmin is a fraction of that available to the online route-planners, so don't expect too much.

Which leaves cycle.travel and Strava. Both of these two are based on OSM data but augment it with additional information.

For Strava, this is popularity with other cyclists. For cycle.travel, it's motor traffic levels (where such data is available, which means the UK and the US). Put broadly, Strava is the best choice if you think a good route is defined by "lots of other cyclists", whereas cycle.travel works if your definition of a good route is "not many cars".

There is no right answer - it all depends what sort of cycling you enjoy. Personally I find planners like Strava direct me onto busy roads too often (e.g. asking for a route from Oxford to Chipping Norton sends me along the B4044 over the Eynsham toll bridge - no chuffing way am I cycling that), which is why I built cycle.travel to prioritise quiet roads. But for some people it's more important that you get your head down and the miles in, so Strava will be fine.

 

[jay clock]

Not ever so difficult these days. Click a section of route on cycle.travel's map and you can choose between streetviews and geograph photos.


Trouble is that Strava users tend to eschew even fairly good wide tarmac cycle tracks in favour of unfriendly busy A-roads where they can hit higher top speeds, at least in areas I know best and have checked the heatmaps for.

I am a Strava "user" but only in the sense that my Garmin uploads to Connect and somehow I have ticked a box that copies what I did to Strava. There must bel

Oooh, where do I start. Disclaimer to begin with: I run http://cycle.travel/map which is clearly the best route-planning website there is (ahem), so I may be more than a little biased...

Bike route-planners are essentially rules-based. For each road, they calculate a weighting, which is distance multiplied by a quality factor. So 10km of quiet lane will get a better score than 10km of motorway, and so on. The basis of this is usually road classification, but other factors such as surface quality can be taken into account. The route with the best weighting overall is the one that's then presented to you. So the trick is to find a route-planner whose weightings accord most closely to your style of cycling.

RideWithGPS uses Google route-planning (i.e. exactly the same as the bike mode in Google maps) if you have the Google background map switched on. If you have an OpenStreetMap-based background map, it switches to an open-source program called Graphhopper which uses OpenStreetMap data. The Google-based routing is often tolerable, sometimes terrible. The Graphhopper routing is slightly better but I wouldn't say that either produces particularly brilliant results. There are lots of other good things about RWGPS, but the auto route-planning isn't their strongest point.

Cyclestreets uses an entirely custom routing engine they've written themselves, again based on OSM data. You can choose from three sets of weightings (quiet, balanced, fast). The balanced routing is very good - one of the best I've seen. The downside is that the user interface is a little old-fashioned - you don't get a big map display, you can't drag the points around, and so on. But it'll almost always find you a good route.

Garmins have their own little built-in routing engine, but the processing power available in a Garmin is a fraction of that available to the online route-planners, so don't expect too much.

Which leaves cycle.travel and Strava. Both of these two are based on OSM data but augment it with additional information.

For Strava, this is popularity with other cyclists. For cycle.travel, it's motor traffic levels (where such data is available, which means the UK and the US). Put broadly, Strava is the best choice if you think a good route is defined by "lots of other cyclists", whereas cycle.travel works if your definition of a good route is "not many cars".

There is no right answer - it all depends what sort of cycling you enjoy. Personally I find planners like Strava direct me onto busy roads too often (e.g. asking for a route from Oxford to Chipping Norton sends me along the B4044 over the Eynsham toll bridge - no chuffing way am I cycling that), which is why I built cycle.travel to prioritise quiet roads. But for some people it's more important that you get your head down and the miles in, so Strava will be fine.

nice balanced comment, thanks very much!

 

[Pale Rider]

Oooh, where do I start. Disclaimer to begin with: I run http://cycle.travel/map .

Richard's site produces a significantly different route to the one posted by the guy on RidewithGPS.

CycleTravel suggests going via Bristol, Oxford and Milton Keynes.

It clocks about 13 miles more, although that's almost in the realms of measurement tolerances so I doubt it would feel much longer to ride.

No idea what the roads are like, although over that distance there's bound to be some iffy bits whatever route you take.

http://cycle.travel/map

Edit: Looks like you need to fill in the start and end points to view the route.

 

[Blue Hills]

Yes, Richard's post was very fair and even handed.

I have the impression that cycle travel does often produce longer routes than cyclestreets, but jolly nice ones. I think for cross country touring routes I'd choose it. It also covers Europe I think, which cyclestreets doesn't.

Within London though I tend to use cyclestreets - cycletravel, and this isn't really a criticism in view of my comments above, does sometimes produce some slightly bonkers routes/diversions within London, at least for experienced cyclists. I think this is maybe partly because it goes to some lengths to avoid right turns. And as Richard says, to avoid lots of traffic.

Great site/package though Richard - thanks.

 

[mjr]

Yeah, cycle travel in London doesn't take the superhighways routes into account and only sees CS7 as a very busy A road so is pretty determined to avoid it and use some pretty dicey narrow streets with cars parked both sides. Just ignore the diversion and use the CS instead for that bit

 

[robjh]

Richard's site produces a significantly different route to the one posted by the guy on RidewithGPS.

CycleTravel suggests going via Bristol, Oxford and Milton Keynes.

It clocks about 13 miles more, although that's almost in the realms of measurement tolerances so I doubt it would feel much longer to ride.

No idea what the roads are like, although over that distance there's bound to be some iffy bits whatever route you take.

http://cycle.travel/map

Edit: Looks like you need to fill in the start and end points to view the route.

I wonder if the cycle.travel route is trying harder to avoid hills that the earlier ridewithgps one that went across Dartmoor, along the Dorset coast and later the Chilterns. For my money that looks like a more enjoyable route than this one through central Bristol and Milton Keynes, but not necessarily faster.

 

[mjr]

I wonder if the cycle.travel route is trying harder to avoid hills that the earlier ridewithgps one that went across Dartmoor, along the Dorset coast and later the Chilterns. For my money that looks like a more enjoyable route than this one through central Bristol and Milton Keynes, but not necessarily faster.

Riding Bristolian greenways and MK redways are experiences worth having, if you never have.

 

[robjh]

Riding Bristolian greenways and MK redways are experiences worth having, if you never have.

Maybe MK cycle paths would work well if you have gps to guide you, but as a long-distance cyclist I found them very hard to navigate as they are only signposted to the local MK districts, and don't connect well with the main roads when you need to get out of the MK grid. As for Bristolian greenways, I've heard of them but not yet had the pleasure!

 

[mjr]

Maybe MK cycle paths would work well if you have gps to guide you, but as a long-distance cyclist I found them very hard to navigate as they are only signposted to the local MK districts, and don't connect well with the main roads when you need to get out of the MK grid.

The signage is a weak spot, it is true, but it should be better if you're using a GPS. If you do need to use signs, the long-distance routes (mostly added in the 1990s) are letter-numbered like the adjacent roads (H8 alongside the H8 Standing Way aka A421 is probably the most useful for this trip) and you'd probably need to note your exit district which I think is probably Wavendon if heading towards Bedford, but you could go out Broughton Gate/Brooklands if wanted. The MK motorway junctions are best left to the seriously brave and fast IMO.

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

Yeah, cycle travel in London doesn't take the superhighways routes into account and only sees CS7 as a very busy A road so is pretty determined to avoid it and use some pretty dicey narrow streets with cars parked both sides. Just ignore the diversion and use the CS instead for that bit

I'd genuinely love some feedback on that - it's one that's eluded me so far...

The challenge with the Cycle Superhighways is that they're such a mixed bag - CS2, CS3, CS5 and CS6 are more or less proper cycle routes; CS1 is a bunch of quietish residential streets stitched together; and CS7 and CS8 are blue paint on busy roads. So I'm honestly in two minds how to treat them, particularly the latter. On the one hand they're clearly busy with cyclists so cars will at least be looking out for you; on the other, the A24 is still the A24 no matter what colour the tarmac. Suggestions welcome! (ideally polite ones)

 

[Blue Hills]

I'd stick with what you've got on your great prog to be honest richard.

Too many London cyclists are a menace. Worse than car drivers.

I try to avoid the cyclehighways in rush hour. Often too macho, undertaking etc.

My comment about your prog's sometimes bizarre routing in london wasn't really a criticism. There's a whole cycling world out there.