Online route planner for Plymouth to Cambridge

[dim]

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.

very good post ....

 

[mjr]

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)

Can it see bus lanes and road widths? So consider a bus lane that's a CS as better than a narrow carriageway of a residential road that's a LCN route. I'm not a fan of bus lanes but when they're signposted and get decent numbers cycling in them, they're preferable to playing car door chicken on the back streets. I'd still like it not to use Euston Road's very busy bus lanes too readily though, hence the importance of it being a major cycle route too.

But this is all freaky corner cases. Cycle travel does a remarkably good job everywhere else that I've asked for.

 

[andrew_s]

http://cycle.travel/map
Edit: Looks like you need to fill in the start and end points to view the route.

You've got to save a route to be able to link to it, which means registering.
The link are by route ID, which doesn't exist until saved - eg http://cycle.travel/map/journey/222

 

[ufkacbln]

Personally I use Cycle Streets

Mainly because although the routes have the same issues as all the algorithm based route planners, it does give you three options: Fastest, Quietest , and Balanced

The variations can be quite major or quite subtle

The way I work is to base the trip on the fastest and then look at the quietest or balanced routes to avoid parts I feel are unsafe or unnecessary

The only snag is a ridiculous limit of 300 km for a route!

What I do is draw a straight line, and plan two journeys

 

[Blue Hills]

agree about the barmy limit.

Though you can often work around my using another prog to indicate what places you might pass through.

Then get cyclestreets to plan the bits.

Does cycle travel have any limits at all?

seems very generous/easy going with the things I have chucked into it.

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

There's no limits - it'll happily plan New York to San Francisco in one go if you ask it to (just tried: 3457 miles. The route through Kansas doesn't look very exciting though). I suspect it might get a bit fussy if you try to add more than 50 via points, but I've never got anywhere near that many.

Can it see bus lanes and road widths? So consider a bus lane that's a CS as better than a narrow carriageway of a residential road that's a LCN route. I'm not a fan of bus lanes but when they're signposted and get decent numbers cycling in them, they're preferable to playing car door chicken on the back streets. I'd still like it not to use Euston Road's very busy bus lanes too readily though, hence the importance of it being a major cycle route too.

But this is all freaky corner cases. Cycle travel does a remarkably good job everywhere else that I've asked for.

It might be able to do something like that. I wonder if the trick is just to override (at least partly) the traffic weighting on the Cycle Superhighways. I'll have a play around and see what works best...

(Corner cases are fun. Though the biggest corner case when dealing with OpenStreetMap data is "the USA". Getting London right should be much easier!)

 

[ufkacbln]

Actually, the default map is Google - but you can change that very easily simply by clicking on the 'Map' button in the top right hand corner of the map. You can choose:

• Bog standard Google
• Bike Path Google
• Google Maps Terrain
• Google Satellite

Does anyone actually just rely on auto-routing without checking the route and fettling it appropriately?

When bored and feeling playful

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

I always use these as a base to plan upon

You are never and I do mean never going to be able to satisfy everyone

In my case I love churches and often meander off to visit one, I will see an " interesting" road or place name.... and off I go


Wreaks havoc with the route that I have planned... and there is no way that anyone else will be able to provide a route

That is why Pubs and Cafes were invented ... to allow errant cyclists to recover and replan their routes

 

[mjr]

There's no limits - it'll happily plan New York to San Francisco in one go if you ask it to (just tried: 3457 miles. The route through Kansas doesn't look very exciting though). I suspect it might get a bit fussy if you try to add more than 50 via points, but I've never got anywhere near that many.

I thought I'd see how many via points were on some of my longer routes. The most I've got seems to be 32 and that's fine, but it's currently sulking with http://cycle.travel/map/journey/31542 - any idea why?

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

I think "sulking" is probably the best way to describe it! Obscure code issue. I think I've squished it and it should be happy now - let me know if not.