Sorry if this is in the wrong sub-forum.
As I await my new bike I’ve been doing some online ‘research’ into a few extras.
One is for some form of navigation.
I know there are three basic options here, 1: Human nav app. Know where you’re going at all times, 2: Use an app on your phone, or 3: Use a specialised cycling nav computer such as a Garmin.
From reading a little it seems that it’s too much to ask for a nav tool that has accurate pre-loaded maps, options to avoid main roads (that actually works!) and an intuitive and easy to use interface.
I’m not interested in pre-loading routes, nor do I want to become a software engineer in order to use the darn thing.
I’d like to disappear into the local countryside and use the in built maps and nav to get home (or to anywhere) should I get lost or just wish to go somewhere but don’t know the way.
I’d like to just set it like I do my car nav, but for it to be cycle friendly and not send me onto dangerous and busy roads (for example just sticking to B roads or country lanes but to also avoid any off-roading).
Why is this such a big ask and why is it seemingly necessary to mess around on complicated settings to even try?
I read so much about so called road avoidance settings simply not working or not being available. This should be a standard and reliable feature of the device or app is sold as for cycling.
I fear for any astronauts being sent to Mars if we can’t even provide a reliable navigation tool for a cycle?
Perhaps I’ve totally missed something here but willingly await education on the subject.
Thanks.
A friend & I used Michelin's updated version (enamelled maps found at most garages) in the 70s to navigate to Scotland.
Si non in Stravarus hoc nunquam happenedThose Roman cyclists had it easy....
It was simple enough in 1889.
View attachment 664179
I don't understand why people think Audax routesheets are difficult to follow. Who needs GPS??
Oooh, I certainly know that pain!Ah ... there is a philosophical problem for a GPS when the rider goes off route, and my Garmin 530 does not deal well with it. I can't speak for Wahoos.
The problem is: Do I route the user back to where they went off route, or as near as possible to it (so the rider covers as much of their planned route as possible) or do I route the user to some point ahead that is on-route, even if that means staying off the route and running parallel for a while.
The second option is what a person would do - keep heading in roughly the right direction until eventually you get back on route. The first option is what my Garmin tends to do, which can mean doubling back just so that it can get back to the security of the route. Algorithms in a little GPS unit aren't good at concepts like "roughly" and "eventually"
How long are you happy to stay off-route? How long is a piece of string. An algorithm can't know whether the user is happy rejoining the route after another hour's riding, or whether they really want to get back on route pronto because otherwise they will miss a lovely view or an audax control point or something. That's where the Google maps trick comes in. You, the user, pick the point where you want to get back on as near or as far away as you feel like.
I really enjoyed riding the Fosse way when I rode it this summer no where near as busy as some said it would be. (Past Coventry iirc.)
I'm not really a fan. Last year I rode the final bit of a Bristol(ish)-Coventry (ish) ride along the Fosse Way. Traffic was a bit busier than I'd like, but not altogether bad. If I'd been in charge of the navigation we'd have gone parallel to the Fosse Way. But I wasn't.I really enjoyed riding the Fosse way when I rode it this summer no where near as busy as some said it would be. (Past Coventry iirc.)