<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
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>
</body>
</html>