<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
One thing I've not seen in this thread is any mention of the
mtb:scale tag <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale</a><br>
<br>
One early poster mentioned the subjectivity of judging whether a
path is suitable for road bikes, one man's meat and all. While still
subjective, I find mtb:scale useful here in Sweden. <br>
<br>
Allemansrätten (freedom to roam) opens up a huge network of paths
and forest tracks which aren't formally for cycling - so not the
same as the UK, but may be of some use. Routers can apply a penalty
based on the scale - thus nudging routes to more suitable paths but
still potentially using the path if it is short and/or links two
areas otherwise needed a big detour. <br>
<br>
I ride a hybrid and my rule of thumb is <br>
<br>
0- should be able to ride at speed and probably still good when wet
etc<br>
0 and 0+ Should be able to stay on 100%<br>
1 You'll be get off at least here and there.<br>
2 Will need to walk/carry the bike for significant portions.
Generally I put a high penalty on these for non-MTB biking<br>
3 and above, forget it mate<br>
<br>
When playing around with router penalties, I find scale 1 to the
most important. Set high for the most comfortable ride and/or your
swanky road bike, low for a greater variety of routes and your
hybrid.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-06-16 17:36, Chris Hodges
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:13a31793-b2af-b023-d716-bec4687fdb89@c-hodges.co.uk">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
On 16/06/2021 16:18, Simon Still wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8E9C704C-F7B4-4ECC-A009-EBD7CEF837F4@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 16 Jun 2021, at 16:06, Chris Hodges <<a
href="mailto:chris@c-hodges.co.uk" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">chris@c-hodges.co.uk</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">There's a lot of debate in one of my clubs
about what the Sustrans routes are actually for, as
many aren't suitable for practical active travel
(preferring a long muddy off-road route to a short one
on reasonable roads) while others are of limited use
to serious road cyclists (too rough) or leisure/family
cycling (too far from anywhere much). Of course they
shouldn't get all the blame; they're often at the
mercy of local authorities </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>There isn’t a right answer as it wasn’t defined when the
network was built, but I believe there is an ongoing
programme to rectify this (which has started with the
‘declassification’ of parts that really don’t meet even a
low bar. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The impression I've got of the declassification is that it's more
likely to declassify roads than mucky tracks or daft bits, but
that may be a regional effect<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8E9C704C-F7B4-4ECC-A009-EBD7CEF837F4@gmail.com">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> </p>
<p class="">That doesn't help much with mapping of
course. Unfortunately neither does the rate of
degradation of many unpaved routes, whether seasonal
or permanent. I see a middle ground between your two,
or perhaps a split of the "off-road route": somewhere
you could happily take the kids on hybrids in summer
(when most casual riding takes place), but that turns
into a mudbath for an MTB in the winter (when only
hardy riders are out). Mapping that to serve both
user groups may actually be impossible, or require
more detail than can reasonably be recorded and
presented </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I’m reminded of a bridleway warning sign up in Cumbria -
“Route may be impassable for horses when wet”</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>It’s mud that’s the issue in my view - whether just
puddles (which make a route useless for riding in normal
clothes/commuting/utilty cycling), deep mud (that a bike
with tarmac tyres won’t get though) or just a slippery
surface that many riders will find dangerous. </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Isn’t this just the ’surface’ tag though? Does it need
any more?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"Surface=" is good, as it "tracktype=", when displayed on maps
(clearly enough for users) or used sensibly by routers. But of
course it's a snapshot from when one mapper passed that way, and
interpreting it becomes a matter of not just outdoor knowledge
but local knowledge as to things like how quickly it drains
after heavy summer rains/ Example:byway "surface=unpaved,
tracktype=grade3" near me. In dry weather I can go faster on
the tourer with slicks than the MTB, limited more by visibility
of other users than anything else. In winter, even after a dry
week, it's barely passable without knobblies, you'll need to
change clothes and shoes afterwards. In summer it drains quite
quickly after rain, unlike a local bridleway that was still up
to mid calf in places on Sunday despite no recent rain.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8E9C704C-F7B4-4ECC-A009-EBD7CEF837F4@gmail.com">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> </p>
<p class="">As far as some bikes having difficulty, it's
also the rider. I have friends who are willing to
ride stretches of pretty rough tracks on 25mm tyres
and fixed gears (e.g. the byways around Stonehenge
last weekend), while others complain about much easier
gravel on slightly bigger tyres; my own ability to
deal with rough stuff on the tourer improves the more
mountain biking I do.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">Absolutely - I’ve ridden some pretty rough paths
and sections of off road on my road bike which is why I think
the Brompton is a good benchmark. Small wheels and narrow
tyres mean they’re really not good off road and they are the
‘benchmark’ active travel bike for me (everyone should have
one!)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Even then, a friend has done the local blue MTB trail on his
Brompton and swears he got some air.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Overall I think there's agreement it's hard, and, unless
there's a concrete proposal, I've probably run out of useful
contributions, but will watch the thread with interest<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>