Sites for planning new bicycle rides

[Shut Up Legs]

I've just been pondering the following ride for my upcoming annual leave, and plotted it on Bikely. I haven't used Bikely for a while, as I recalled its elevation change estimates a bit dodgy, and this just confirms it!

http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/ringwood-nth-to-mt-baw-baw

Bikely got the distance right (or at least it agrees with Google Maps and at least one other bicycle trip plotting site I sometimes use), but the elevation estimate is ridiculous! My best estimate for the total climbing for the return trip is about 4,500m (or perhaps a bit more), but Bikely says its about 11,500m. Not bloody likely.

Do any of you know of a bicycle trip plotting site that gives better elevation change estimates? I like doing hilly rides (the more mountains, the better), so I like to have a rough idea of what I'm in for when planning new rides.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Bikehike.co.uk or ridewithgps.com

 

[Shut Up Legs]

OK, thanks, I'll give RideWithGPS a go .

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Sorry, only just realised where your based...oops.

 

[Aushiker]

Another vote for http://ridewithgps.com/. I do also use Google Maps as I find it easier to get a bigger picture but then do the detail routing at RidewithGPS.

Andrew

 

[andym]

Try comparing a few on a ride you know? There's also, for example, mapmyride.com or gpsies.com

There are a number of sites aimed specifically at the UK - so maybe there are some for Australia?

 

[briantrumpet]

I always use ridewithgps, but it's not entirely accurate on hilly routes - it doesn't understand tunnels, and inserts some curious lumps & bumps where the road is in fact not lumpy and bumpy at all. (I'm guessing that the elevation data doesn't quite match up with the reality of where the road is, as in the Col de Rousset on this route: http://ridewithgps.com/routes/3611827 - the short sharp peaks are definitely not on the road itself!)

 

[Aushiker]

There are a number of sites aimed specifically at the UK - so maybe there are some for Australia?

Nothing really aimed at Australia. Too smaller user population I suspect and with the likes of http://ridewithgps.com probably not worth developing. That said there are a couple of sites I am aware but they are for planning routes within cities; http://www.bbbike.org/ and http://www.ridethecity.com/ are two that come to mind.

Andrew

 

[andym]

I always use ridewithgps, but it's not entirely accurate on hilly routes - it doesn't understand tunnels, and inserts some curious lumps & bumps where the road is in fact not lumpy and bumpy at all. (I'm guessing that the elevation data doesn't quite match up with the reality of where the road is, as in the Col de Rousset on this route: http://ridewithgps.com/routes/3611827 - the short sharp peaks are definitely not on the road itself!)

(SFAIK - so any experts in the house please correct me if I've got this wrong) they all use variants of the data obtained from the NASA Satellite Radar Topography Mission data - and the satellite measures the height of the ground above the tunnel. If you're using a track you can set track points at the beginning and end of the tunnel - and none in between. The satellite topography data gives information for a points (IIRC) on a grid about 30 metres apart - if you're riding on a steep mountainside a point 30 metres away from the road might be quite a bit higher or lower. (EDIT: it's 30 metres apart in the US but 90 metres apart in the rest of the world).

I think it's worth comparing the results from different sites - Strava for example say they use smoothing to try to reduce the influence of 'gps noise' - how well does it works? Dunno, but it seems worth trying.

The other variant in this is the number of points used by the site in plotting the route and the elevation calculations - a site that uses more points may actually suffer from more 'noise' than a site that uses fewer points.

 

[briantrumpet]

(SFAIK - so any experts in the house please correct me if I've got this wrong) they all use variants of the data obtained from the NASA Satellite Radar Topography Mission data - and the satellite measures the height of the ground above the tunnel. If you're using a track you can set track points at the beginning and end of the tunnel - and none in between. The satellite topography data gives information for a points (IIRC) on a grid about 30 metres apart - if you're riding on a steep mountainside a point 30 metres away from the road might be quite a bit higher or lower. (EDIT: it's 30 metres apart in the US but 90 metres apart in the rest of the world).

I think it's worth comparing the results from different sites - Strava for example say they use smoothing to try to reduce the influence of 'gps noise' - how well does it works? Dunno, but it seems worth trying.

The other variant in this is the number of points used by the site in plotting the route and the elevation calculations - a site that uses more points may actually suffer from more 'noise' than a site that uses fewer points.

Yes, this all makes sense to me. From what I've tried in the past bikeroutetoaster uses a lower resolution of data, so misses a lot of minor undulation that ridewithgps (and the program Mapyx Quo, which uses 50m Ordnance Survey data) picks up, and consequently much lower elevation gain readings, though some of that loss might indeed be down to less 'noise'. Though having tried Quo with lower resolution, it does definitely miss undulation that really is there, at least in the Devon routes I've tried it on that I know really well, and can vouch for every undulation!

 

[Manu3172]

Hello,

You can try:

http://www.bike-and-hike-route.com

It uses Google Elevation service, but smoothes data to cancel GPS noise.

++

 

[andym]

Hi manu - I have to say I rather like that one - I'll have to see how well it works on a tablet.

I'm also wondering what elevation data Google use - all those street view cars must have been equipped with altimeters surely?

 

[Manu3172]

Hi manu - I have to say I rather like that one - I'll have to see how well it works on a tablet.

I'm also wondering what elevation data Google use - all those street view cars must have been equipped with altimeters surely?

Hello,

I designed this website. So if you have any suggestion dont't hesitate .

Elevation data used by Google are not from street view cars but from other providers (it's written at the bottom of Google maps and Google Earth. It depends on the countries). Google is able to provide elevation data all over the world (including oceans), not only on roads. Unfortunately, as written above, elevation data in tunnels are the elevation of the ground above.

 

[andym]

Hello,

I designed this website. So if you have any suggestion dont't hesitate .

The presentation of the data is some of the best I've seen, but since you ask, it would be brilliant if you could produce a cue sheet and maybe have a facility to upload a gpx track or route. (Oh and a version that worked on a tablet - I know, that's a big ask).

Elevation data used by Google are not from street view cars but from other providers (it's written at the bottom of Google maps and Google Earth. It depends on the countries). Google is able to provide elevation data all over the world (including oceans), not only on roads. Unfortunately, as written above, elevation data in tunnels are the elevation of the ground above.

I thought that would be the case, but I'm sure they must be sitting on a whole load of data on elevations. Or maybe they were so busy downloading the IP addresses of people's wifi routers that they didn't think to measure the altitudes.

 

[Manu3172]

The presentation of the data is some of the best I've seen, but since you ask, it would be brilliant if you could produce a cue sheet and maybe have a facility to upload a gpx track or route. (Oh and a version that worked on a tablet - I know, that's a big ask).

I will think about the cue sheet (it's easy to add).
You can already upload a GPX track, using the open button in the toolbox (if this is what you mean). It doesn't work on your tablet?