Cycletravel why use it.

[matticus]

CT is a route planner. I believe Veloviewer is not.
It's a bit like complaining that the milk you get from your bull isn't nice on your cornflakes.

:O
Never heard that one before!

 

[Dogtrousers]

A long time

yeah I agree, I used to use ride with GPS as thats what i'd found and got used to, but stumbled onto cycle.travel through this forum and prefer.

I'm very RWGPS based, as I keep all my rides there, and my maintenance logs and stuff and I'm a premium subscriber, so I'd need to be dissatisfied with the route planner to give me impetus to move. I really like the fact that it has a Garmin ConnectIQ app, so I can load routes to my GPS easily wherever I am.

If I wasn't already so comfortable there I'd probably be a CT fan.

Anyway, I tend to micro-plan my routes, and check every inch of them and scout around for alternatives, which kind of negates what I think is probably one of CT's strengths - auto choosing a point to point route so the user doesn't have to do such fine tuning and fiddling (but I like doing that!)

There's a thing called gpxeditor.co.uk which was written by a member of another forum over 10 years ago. I was in touch with the author at the time and used it a lot initially because it had the super selling point (for me) of using OS maps. But then the OS maps became subscription-only and I was a subscriber for a couple of years but the sheer convenience of RWGPS kind of pulled me back in.

So to stay on topic Why use it? two things that could potentially convert me to CT would be: If it has OS Maps and a Connect IQ app, I could possibly be persuaded.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

If it has OS Maps and a Connect IQ app, I could possibly be persuaded.

You can link cycle travel to Garmin Connect. Then you can send your routes direct to Connect for sending to your GPS.

But what has Cycle Travel ever done for us as @matticus alluded to?

 

[ColinJ]

So to stay on topic Why use it? two things that could potentially convert me to CT would be: If it has OS Maps...

I pay a small monthly fee to support cycle.travel and one of the perks is an OS Maps option.

 

[presta]

I don't think CT gives much weight to popularity of route at all. If it did, we'd all be cycling the roads the local peleton rides.
It uses a variety of criteria to pre-prepare routes then pulls those together when we make a request.
(Subscribers have a greater choice of maps and some of those will show most or all the dedicated bike routes or paths in a region).

I believe its main criteria are for quiet roads (or dedicated bike path) then climbing (it likes to minimise it), then surface and believe it or not, scenery!

We really have very few (automatic) choices - paved, gravel, all (both) and lately night (especially for urban UK riding). There is a brand new option to follow "official" bike routes for more long distance rides. However, we can easily add viapoints to change the CT suggestions to suit ourselves. My understanding is that some category of rider don't like CT's automatic routes, preferring direct over meandering and attacking climbs as opposed to avoiding them.

There are a few quirks. For example, a desire to avoid busy roads can see us being dragged off a main road for a km or two only to rejoin it and then be directed off again. Similarly, CT can have a tendency to bypass towns (more traffic), something especially noticeable in NL.
Another quirk is that it rarely chooses to automatically follow an official bike route (although we can now tell it to do just that). That's because CT's own calculations offer a "better" experience than the planners of the routes. In my experience CT is correct.

Any online planner depends on the quality of the underlying data and sometimes that data can be dubious so we should never depend 100% on any planner. In my experience, CT does a better, more reliable job than most others.

As above, I never used software when I was touring but I've played around with a few in retrospect, and my view is that no matter what options you choose they either use too much main road or too little. I often used to set off on a fairly direct main road then divert off it later when I see how the time and mileage are going, and have a better idea how much I have in hand. I like minor roads when they don't add excessive extra mileage, but when it comes to a 3 mile detour just to avoid a mile of main road I'll happily ride on a dual carriageway rather than put up with that. I'll ride around in circles all day long on minor roads when I'm in a national park, but more on direct main roads when I'm travelling between parks. Navigation is an issue too, I'm not keen on minor roads if they form a rats nest that has me stopping to pore over the map at every junction, I like to be able to either ride a few miles between stops or follow classified road numbers and signs.

I use Plotaroute for measuring routes I've chosen, because you just end up fighting a running battle with Cycle Travel trying to stop it going where it wants to.

 

[richardfm]

You can link cycle travel to Garmin Connect. Then you can send your routes direct to Connect for sending to your GPS.

But what has Cycle Travel ever done for us as @matticus alluded to?

And if you are a supporter it has OS maps

 

[Dogtrousers]

You can link cycle travel to Garmin Connect. Then you can send your routes direct to Connect for sending to your GPS.

So, I've got a CT account, and I enabled sharing with Garmin Connect, and created a route in CT. I'm expecting it to automagically show up in GC under Training & Planning/Courses, and from there I can click "Send to Device" and then sync the device and the route will go to the device. At least that's my plan.

But nothing has appeared in GC so far. Am I doing it wrong?

Yes I was doing it wrong! I've just found the "Send to Garmin Connect" button.

 

[Dogtrousers]

OK after a bit more evaluation I have another demand nice-to-have feature. It uses OSM and not Google Maps. This means I can't drag the little man onto the map while I'm planning to go to streetview to check out junctions etc. Although OS and IGN are subscriber features, Google Maps isn't. I want! I want!

 

[Sea of vapours]

Am I doing it wrong?

Maybe not, though I think you need, within CT, to click 'GPS' under the 'Route tools' heading on the left, then click 'Send to Garmin Connect' on the resultant pane. i.e. I don't think it's automatic, though I could be wrong on that. If it is, it doesn't do it automatically for me anyway.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

OK after a bit more evaluation I have another demand nice-to-have feature. It uses OSM and not Google Maps. This means I can't drag the little man onto the map while I'm planning to go to streetview to check out junctions etc. Although OS and IGN are subscriber features, Google Maps isn't. I want! I want!

Googlemaps mapping is truly abysmal, white on pale green, no differentiation between road types, etc etc etc.

I don't understand the streetview issue though - if I right click on the map (whether OS, OSM etc makes no difference) the click streetview, it takes me directly there?

 

[Sea of vapours]

OK after a bit more evaluation I have another demand nice-to-have feature. It uses OSM and not Google Maps. This means I can't drag the little man onto the map while I'm planning to go to streetview to check out junctions etc. Although OS and IGN are subscriber features, Google Maps isn't. I want! I want!

For similar reasons to you - wanting to plan everything, including options, in quite some detail and to use Streetview to check roads / junctions / traffic - I've opted for a hybrid approach when planning routes on unknown roads.

As discussed above, Cycle.Travel is excellent for finding a route which neatly avoids main roads, town centres, traffic in general, which I like. It also avoids hills, a feature which I very much do not like. So I use CT for the first draft of a route, mainly for the 'neat avoidance of stuff' aspect, since it's pretty much the best tool for this stage. Then I modify the route in something else in order to a) add the scenic hilly stuff in, b) remove the most extreme cases of town / main road avoidance. To get to the point: I do the Streetview stuff in the 'something else'.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Googlemaps mapping is truly abysmal, white on pale green, no differentiation between road types, etc etc etc.

I don't understand the streetview issue though - if I right click on the map (whether OS, OSM etc makes no difference) the click streetview, it takes me directly there?

I hadn't found that option, thanks. That's another demand ticked off.

Yes, I'm not a huge fan of Google maps themselves. But I'm a MASSIVE fan of streetview for planning.

It also avoids hills, a feature which I very much do not like.

Given that a lot of my route planning is done with the specific aim of including hills, this could lead to some differences of opinion!

 

[matticus]

Yes, I'm not a huge fan of Google maps themselves. But I'm a MASSIVE fan of streetview for planning.

Brace yourself. I'm gonna change your world, baby ....

 

[Alex321]

Given that a lot of my route planning is done with the specific aim of including hills, this could lead to some differences of opinion!

I think there are quite a few cyclists who do that. I'm a little surprised it doesn't have an option for it.

 

[matticus]

I think there are quite a few cyclists who do that. I'm a little surprised it doesn't have an option for it.

Careful what you wish for ... ! In a lot of scenic areas there are little absurd lanes that are just NO FUN to ascend/descend. Whilst the steadier climbs are more enjoyable AND give the better views. I'm really not sure what algorithm would deal with this; I think I'm happy with routing through known scenic/hilly areas, and in certain cases fixing the route [ and this would apply with most websites/packages] to go up certain iconic/desirable climbs. Could be Fleet Moss, or Le Tourmalet, Ditchling Beacon ... all sorts.

Discuss!