New route-planner!

[Somnolent]

Ben T's GPX Editor (which uses Google routing) doesn't stray off-road if you set it in car mode (or at least I've not found it to do so).

 it hasn't got user editable routing though yet

Hey, you've given us a choice of four modes, quite enough for most folks.

Somewhat drifting OT, but whilst we are comparing routing.....

On one of my local quick routes out from suburbia into the countryside, there is a corner that can be cut in a variety of ways, or could be if not for some No Cycling signs (and some awkward chicane barriers).   

Taking the road as "nominal" both cycle.travel and the bike option on GPX Editor take a path that cuts off about 150 mtrs.
The walking option on GPX Editor takes an addtional section of path that cuts off a further 100 mtrs.
Surprisingly (in view of what Bianchi Boy says) Velomap takes the road..... which, because of the barriers, is actually the most practical option.

The other thing I found a little odd is that the two sections of path appear to be same category in Google, and have the same tags in OSM (Gr 2 path) so I'm puzzled why one should be selected in "cycling mode" and not t'other.

(Route from N 50 59.825 W 1 23.487  to N51 00.203 W 1 24.289  if anyone is interested in looking into the nuts & bolts of it)
 

[Euan Uzami]

it could be not necessarily the ways themselves but how they connect to roads.
Try route from N50 59.825 W 1 23.487 to 51.000412,-1.395919 in cycling mode to see what i mean. Contrast that to what it does in car mode (just gets as close as it can).

[Ningishzidda]

On the news this morning was a report about ‘more bicycles sold in many EU countries than cars’.
I’ll wager there is a larger variation of opinion amongst cyclists than motorists as to what is the ‘best’ route between two places.
Where does this place the route planner software engineer to accommodate the widely diverse expectations of cyclists?

[Richard Fairhurst]

That's pretty much it - no two cyclists are alike. For that reason I wouldn't really want to add an option to let one cyclist block it for all others; what's intolerable for a guy on a carbon-fibre road bike might be great fun for me on my Croix de Fer.

I figure the best approach is to show the surfaces on the map and let the user drag the route to avoid anything they don't like (whether it be mud or A road), though this does of course rely on the surface being tagged in OSM in the first place. I think NCN 64 north of Newark might be a bit over-optimistically tagged - will take a look.

[andrew_s]

the bit between where it leaves the A1133 and where it joins holme lane is pretty much unsurfaced as far as I know.

I think NCN 64 north of Newark might be a bit over-optimistically tagged - will take a look.

The bit between Holme Lane and the gravel pit access road appears to be surfaced on Google Maps earth view (and Streetview of the ends), from the gravel pit to about 1/4 mile from the A1133 looks to be single track, but not too bad, in dryish weather at least. I wouldn't worry about taking my road bike down there.
It's quite possible that the surfacing has been finished since the google aerial photos.

[Euan Uzami]

My point really was not about whether you can or can't use it due to its surface, but why would you bother using it when there's a perfectly good road that's shorter...
Even if it was smooth tarmac,I wouldn't use it, as it's longer, and there's no reason not to use the road. The A46 I would avoid but the A1133 is fine.
That's the only reason I've never actually been down there... it just pointlessly adds extra distance.

The router obviously attaches a higher cost to A road sections in order to prefer paths and lanes.
That's fine,as long as you know it does that.

[Ningishzidda]

My point really was not about whether you can or can't use it due to its surface, but why would you bother using it when there's a perfectly good road that's shorter...
Even if it was smooth tarmac,I wouldn't use it, as it's longer, and there's no reason not to use the road. The A46 I would avoid but the A1133 is fine.
That's the only reason I've never actually been down there... it just pointlessly adds extra distance.

The router obviously attaches a higher cost to A road sections in order to prefer paths and lanes.
That's fine,as long as you know it does that.

Except if one was an Audax Organiser, there is whooping big hill on it with an INFO control at the top.. 

[Ningishzidda]

NCN5 west of Batchley, Redditch is somewhere you wouldn’t want to take a full sus MTB.

Which brings up the factor of ‘Local knowledge’ and where Google’s Streetview camera van can’t access.
A long stretch of NCN5 in south Birmingham is off road on dual use footpaths and takes canal towpaths.
Some ‘cycling routeplanners’ use this NCN route to avoid the Pershore Road into Brum, which isn’t that bad for an experienced cyclist.
The inexperienced who has a carbon racebike travelling into Brum’s centre to show off, would curse the routeplanner for directing him down muddy tow paths, up-and-down curbstones and through anti-motorcycle barriers, most of which cannot be seen on Streetview.

I’d place myself in the top 10% of cycling’s courageous, but I know there are many cyclists who shudder at the thought of city arterial trunk roads.

Purchasing a fancy road bike lessens a newbie’s options.
Sadly, there are a lot of ‘lycra Sunday newbies’ with light road bikes who endlessly complain about the facilities councils afford to cyclists. Maybe they should have thought about which horse they should have bought for the course.

[hbunnet]

I like the rendering of OSM.   In the area I know  well "Tracks" and "Paths" are rendered the same. It would be better if they were distinguished.

[Ningishzidda]

The time estimation is consistantly outside the Audax UK minimum BR speed allowance.

You should really be showing this off on CycleChat.

[andrew_s]

The altitude profile has ceased to work. Blank canvas, no error message.
Chrome, Firefox and IE11 all the same.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Thank you. Fixed now.

Memo to self: reload cache after rebooting server, idiot.

[Tim Hall]

Lovely stuff. I've planned a short (very short) route to get me from the station to the Tandem Club Christmas Lunch.  I printed the map out by using the PDF button.  Is there anyway to printout turn by turn instructions?  Am I being dense and missing something blindingly obvious?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ultimately the plan is to add the turn-by-turn directions to the end of the PDF, but I've just added a quick-and-dirty "Print" link to the instruction summary - should do the job for now!

[Tim Hall]

Ultimately the plan is to add the turn-by-turn directions to the end of the PDF, but I've just added a quick-and-dirty "Print" link to the instruction summary - should do the job for now!

Lovely.  Can you do something about idiot users who, having printed out instructions, leave them at home, resulting in an a tour of bits of the countryside around Tonbridge they didn't really want?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Been there, done that. I guess the "something" would ultimately be a smartphone app...

[Richard Fairhurst]

New feature: the turn-by-turn directions (or cue sheet, if you like) now shows the placenames along the route. I figured that these things always say "turn left along Chapel Road, turn right along High Street etc.", which is all very well, but I tend to navigate through the countryside by going from one village to the next!

[stu1102]

If you create an account, you can save routes, export them as PDF or GPX, etc. And there's a few other things (like elevation and nearby hotels).

Quite impressed with it, gave me a good route between Rugby and Oxford

However I have tried to create an account but there is no confirmation email that is sent etc, can Richard advise?

cheers

[Richard Fairhurst]

Fun new feature!

Plan a route on cycle.travel/map, click any part of the route, and click 'View photos'...



Particularly useful for planning routes along bridleways/cycle paths where you're not sure how good the surface is. Pics are from the ever-wonderful Geograph.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Couple more new features: circular routes are draggable now (which sounds like it should be easy, but was complicated) and there's an undo button (which sounds like it should be complicated, but was easy). And if you've got a modern-ish browser, you can now download GPX files without having to save the route first.

[andyoxon]

Couple more new features: circular routes are draggable now (which sounds like it should be easy, but was complicated) and there's an undo button (which sounds like it should be complicated, but was easy). And if you've got a modern-ish browser, you can now download GPX files without having to save the route first.

Dragging circular route is neat.     km/mls option would be good; unless I missed it.  Annotations such as national park boundaries would be useful.

[T42]

Your site looks great, although I can't obviously use it for France.

How do you like Leaflet (I'd guess "a lot")?  My own routing site just went belly up because Cloudmade yanked free API licences. The minimum business licence is 1500 €/month, so now I've got several months of work to do over again. Google bike routing is creaky and their free-use terms rather limiting, so I'm looking for a replacement.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andy - if you register, there's a little miles/km toggle on your user page. Good idea about the National Parks - added to the todo list!

T42 - Leaflet is brilliant; one of those rare bits of JavaScript that it's a joy to work with. It only does the presentation, though, not the actual route-finding... that's a whole bunch of other stuff using a highly customised version of the OSRM routing software, and a big server somewhere in a datacentre in Germany. I'm considering adding France but it may need a server upgrade...

[TimC]

This planner seems not to be compatible with an iPad, or is it just me?

[SlowCoach]

works on an Android tablet (though moving the route rather than just scrolling can be a pita - nothing wrong with the site - it's just the touchscreen trying to work out what you are trying to do).