<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><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="">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. </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><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></body></html>