[Talk-GB] difference between bicycle and MTB cycle routes

[Michael Collinson]

One thing I've not seen in this thread is any mention of the mtb:scale 
tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale

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.

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.

I ride a hybrid and my rule of thumb is

0-  should be able to ride at speed and probably still good when wet etc
0 and 0+ Should be able to stay on 100%
1    You'll be get off at least here and there.
2    Will need to walk/carry the bike for significant portions. 
Generally I put a high penalty on these for non-MTB biking
3 and above, forget it mate

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.

Mike


On 2021-06-16 17:36, Chris Hodges wrote:
> On 16/06/2021 16:18, Simon Still wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 16 Jun 2021, at 16:06, Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk 
>>> <mailto:chris at c-hodges.co.uk>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> 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.
> 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
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> I’m reminded of a bridleway warning sign up in Cumbria - “Route may 
>> be impassable for horses when wet”
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Isn’t this just the ’surface’ tag though? Does it need any more?
>
>
> "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.
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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!)
>>
>>
> Even then, a friend has done the local blue MTB trail on his Brompton 
> and swears he got some air.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210616/0e8ebcac/attachment.htm>