Connect2



On Dec 3, 10:32 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
> > Could be dangerous...
>
> > "Beautiful Cycleway Bridge of the Silvery Tay!
> > With your numerous arches and pillars in so grand array,
> > And your central girders, which seem to the eye
> > To be almost towering to the sky"
>
> Though we have now hopefully learned the Bard of Patons Lane's lesson
> that buttresses are in order. Viz:
>
> "your central girders would not have given way,
> At least many sensible men do say,
> Had they been supported on each side with buttresses,
> At least many sensible men confesses,
> For the stronger we our houses do build,
> The less chance we have of being killed"

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/415414021_1272f3982d.jpg?v=0
for the beautiful cyclepath along the bridge over the Tay.

Patons Lane is one of the quiet roads we use en famille when heading
to the bridge, via the nice quiet cyclepath along the railway from
Magdalen Yard Green to Sensation. A bit better than getting my 9 yo
to ride round three roundabouts (Bikeability 3) on the inner ring
road.

It is also conveniently close to a cycle shop, though Mcgonnagal(sp?)
would not have known that at the time.

...d
 
Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
[Sustrans]
>In the meantime, enjoy the bits which are useful, and avoid the bits
>which are unusable.

All very well, but it's pretty hard to get any indication of which is
which. NCN #x might be anything from tarmac to mud and boulders.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Chedday, November.
 
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
> [Sustrans]
>> In the meantime, enjoy the bits which are useful, and avoid the bits
>> which are unusable.
>
> All very well, but it's pretty hard to get any indication of which is
> which. NCN #x might be anything from tarmac to mud and boulders.

So look it up on the accompanying map, which will tell you, which should
pass for a "good indication".

I would prefer it if the map reference wasn't necessary of course, but
it's important to note the difference between "can do better" and "is
utterly pointless".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Quoting Peter Clinch <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>>[Sustrans]
>>>In the meantime, enjoy the bits which are useful, and avoid the bits
>>>which are unusable.
>>All very well, but it's pretty hard to get any indication of which is
>>which. NCN #x might be anything from tarmac to mud and boulders.
>So look it up on the accompanying map, which will tell you, which should
>pass for a "good indication".

Let's see. Sustrans have maps on their Website. So far, so good. They
distinguish NCN on-road, other on-road, and NCN "traffic-free route
(including some forest tracks and paths alongside busy roads)", the last
of which might be anything from tarmac to mud and boulders.

So that's no better an indication than I could get by knowing that roads
have tarmac on them, in fact.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Chedday, November.
 
> In the countryside you simply don't require special farcilities. Roads have
> relatively little traffic compared to urban areas - in my bit of the
> countryside, there's places I can cycle for miles and not see a car,
> especially on a weekend or out of 'rush hour' times when folk are driving to
> work. No fumes, little traffic (if any at all at times) and absolutely no
> need for any special Sustrans farcilities to achieve that - I simply look at
> an OS map & decide where I'm going.

Your bit of the countryside is obviously a bit different to mine. I
cycle once or twice a week for fitness/pleasure and also use an OS map
(through Anquet Maps software) to decide where I'm going. I cycle on
the road most of the time, even when I have the option not to. However
my commitments mean I usually cycle sometime between 2pm and 6pm.
Between the school run and rush hour theres barely a country lane
round here without a speeding nutter on it at some point. I admit it
is an awful lot better in the mornings but thats not an option for me
right now. We also get (seasonally) a lot of massively wide and quite
fast tractors which scare the hell out of me. They never show any sign
of slowing down and I often wonder if they've even see me and try to
get off the road. I have a lot of friends who think I'm quite mad
riding on the roads. I'm sure they would cycle more if traffic free
paths were available. I started that way and now have the confidence
to ride on a lot of different traffic conditions.

Whats surprised me recently is that since I've started cycling in the
dark (with some marvellously bright lights my hubbie bought for my
birthday) I'm getting a much wider birth from motorists. Great, but
somewhat bizarre.

Also, I'd like to mention that one of the sustrans routes happens to
be a traffic free path from the outskirts of Banbury to the town
centre, starting from the end of my road! I am all for this as my son
is starting school after christmas and for the next 3 years I'd like
to be able to go shopping with my daughter in the trailer. I've been
going out on my bike looking for a safe and not too steep route but
have had no luck so far. As it happens there is already an on-road/
shared use pavement track that is awful. This would be a big
improvement and is designed to link the station/centre with on-road
rural cycle routes.

Vicki
 
> Are you honestly saying you have never had "Get on the cyclepath!"
> shouted at you while cycling on the road and that you've never seen
> letters like this one in last week's Cambridge Evening News (sorry link
> seems not to be working at the moment)

As it happens, I've had "Get on the path" shouted at me when there
wasn't a cyclepath. This was along a very narrow and busy stretch of
main road where the majority of cyclists use the pavement (not a
designated cyclepath and quite unpleasant to ride on, I now avoid this
stretch of road whenever possible). So, there don't need to by
cyclepaths nearby for motorists to want cyclists to get off the road.
They just don't want anyone to slow them down...

> > Segregated facilities encourage more cycling. More cycling on
> > segregated facilities will lead, in time, to more cycling on roads.
>
> On the other hand there is no evidence that that is the case. If you
> can come up with any research that investment in segregated facilities
> encourages significantly more cycling I would be interested to know
> about it.

I daresay there is no evidence, but for what its worth just over a
year ago I started cycling again having not done so for several years.
I started off with short rides on traffic free paths and gradually
worked my way up through quiet roads to busier ones and am now
reasonably confident in a range of traffic situations. This was not
planned, it just worked out that way. So, for me using the traffic
free routes did lead to me cycling more on the roads. If they hadn't
been there I'm not sure I'd have had the confidence to get started.

Vicki
 
redbirdo <[email protected]> wrote:

> > In the countryside you simply don't require special farcilities. Roads have
> > relatively little traffic compared to urban areas - in my bit of the
> > countryside, there's places I can cycle for miles and not see a car,
> > especially on a weekend or out of 'rush hour' times when folk are driving to
> > work. No fumes, little traffic (if any at all at times) and absolutely no
> > need for any special Sustrans farcilities to achieve that - I simply look at
> > an OS map & decide where I'm going.
>
> Your bit of the countryside is obviously a bit different to mine. I
> cycle once or twice a week for fitness/pleasure and also use an OS map
> (through Anquet Maps software) to decide where I'm going. I cycle on
> the road most of the time, even when I have the option not to. However
> my commitments mean I usually cycle sometime between 2pm and 6pm.
> Between the school run and rush hour theres barely a country lane
> round here without a speeding nutter on it at some point. I admit it
> is an awful lot better in the mornings but thats not an option for me
> right now. We also get (seasonally) a lot of massively wide and quite
> fast tractors which scare the hell out of me. They never show any sign
> of slowing down and I often wonder if they've even see me and try to
> get off the road. I have a lot of friends who think I'm quite mad
> riding on the roads. I'm sure they would cycle more if traffic free
> paths were available. I started that way and now have the confidence
> to ride on a lot of different traffic conditions.
>
there are lanes and lanes, the lanes nr my folks place are narrow and
twisting, a wide tractor wouldn't fit let alone reach any speed.

you only get local traffic so it's quite possible to walk though the
lanes with out meeting a car etc.

> Whats surprised me recently is that since I've started cycling in the
> dark (with some marvellously bright lights my hubbie bought for my
> birthday) I'm getting a much wider birth from motorists. Great, but
> somewhat bizarre.
>
i rather like night riding, it's good fun.
>
> Vicki

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > Do you honestly think that a stretch of route that is frequently
> > submerged beneath a river is usable? When it's not submerged, non-expert
> > cyclists risk falling into the river where the path becomes bog.
>
> Have alook at one of the Sustrans route maps and it point sout
> obstacles like this, and access gates etc., so you can tell in advance
> what's coming.

i have to say i can't see where thats listed on the cycle path nr my
folks place, there are plenty of gates and such that would present
problems even with paniers, all sustrans have is the os map with yellow
access points ie where the railwayline meets the roads no sign of the
various gates along the railwayline, many have been around long before
sustrans arrived.
>
> > What is the point of the NCN?
>
> There's a clue in the name.

thats not how they tryed to sell it to the local people in the clydach
gorge it has to be said, it was for kids to ride to school, one look at
a map with gradiant lines would tell one how much hot air that was.
>
> > If the word 'again' is to be used in this discussion then please let me
> > use it to suggest that again you ignore my concerns that perhaps
> > Sustrans ought to ensure that their paths are at least usable by
> > non-expert non-mountain bikers.
>
> I complained to them about an alternative bit of NCN1 we tried just N of
> Queensferry, taking a "scenic route" rather than the other, more direct
> branch alternative, so clearly I don't think everything is all right.
> However, one should bear in mind that it takes a remarkably big set of
> leaks to really sink a ship, and the actuality is that non-expert
> mountain bikers can and do use rather large amounts on it.
>
my problem is the other way in that i think they think the countryside
is just a big park. the area has lot of history and wildlife that had
built up on the line, sustrants have damadged and removed a lot of that,
and introduced problems that never existed by laying down a tarmack lane
people use it as a road, so every one needs a key, to open gates etc.

the idea of useing the line as cycle lane isn't by it's self a bad idea
but they have destroyed more than they gained.

> Pete.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
David Damerell wrote:

> Let's see. Sustrans have maps on their Website. So far, so good. They
> distinguish NCN on-road, other on-road, and NCN "traffic-free route
> (including some forest tracks and paths alongside busy roads)", the last
> of which might be anything from tarmac to mud and boulders.

let's see on this one here... there's a text box with an indicator
saying "unsuitable for laden tourers" (as it happens, we took it on our
laden tourers and managed anyway).

> So that's no better an indication than I could get by knowing that roads
> have tarmac on them, in fact.

Well, actually it is, because the above is a separate indication to
merely "no tarmac".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Roger Merriman wrote:

> i have to say i can't see where thats listed on the cycle path nr my
> folks place, there are plenty of gates and such that would present
> problems even with paniers, all sustrans have is the os map with yellow
> access points ie where the railwayline meets the roads no sign of the
> various gates along the railwayline, many have been around long before
> sustrans arrived.

Our NCN1 map specifically notes access gates. Further worth noting that
although many Sustrans routes have the bloody things, it's not their idea.

>>> What is the point of the NCN?
>> There's a clue in the name.
>
> thats not how they tryed to sell it to the local people in the clydach
> gorge it has to be said, it was for kids to ride to school, one look at
> a map with gradiant lines would tell one how much hot air that was.

How it was sold to local people and implemented for them is not really
the point I'm making, which is it is a *national* network

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Damerell wrote:
>
> > Let's see. Sustrans have maps on their Website. So far, so good. They
> > distinguish NCN on-road, other on-road, and NCN "traffic-free route
> > (including some forest tracks and paths alongside busy roads)", the last
> > of which might be anything from tarmac to mud and boulders.
>
> let's see on this one here... there's a text box with an indicator
> saying "unsuitable for laden tourers" (as it happens, we took it on our
> laden tourers and managed anyway).

Would you give a URL for that please? I've scoured the website and none
of the online mapping that I've seen has that indicator. Why do they not
bother to indicate the dangers here <http://tinyurl.com/2h8998> for
example?

> > So that's no better an indication than I could get by knowing that roads
> > have tarmac on them, in fact.
>
> Well, actually it is, because the above is a separate indication to
> merely "no tarmac".

Huh?

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > Do you honestly think that a stretch of route that is frequently
> > submerged beneath a river is usable? When it's not submerged, non-expert
> > cyclists risk falling into the river where the path becomes bog.
>
> Have alook at one of the Sustrans route maps and it point sout
> obstacles like this, and access gates etc., so you can tell in advance
> what's coming.

Silly me for not realising that I would need a special map to follow a
route from the bottom of the road to the city centre that bears the sign
'Preston City Centre'. The map at <http://tinyurl.com/2h8998> shows no
obstacles, despite there being a 'Warning' symbol in the key that could
have been used on the map.

> > What is the point of the NCN?
>
> There's a clue in the name.

So, it's just to link some places across the nation for some bicycles.
It's not for commuters, who might have panniers. It's not to encourage
sustainable transport solutions. It's only for people keen enough to
invest in a special map (because OS maps and those published by the
council and publicised by Sustrans don't carry the necessary warnings)
who are willing to swim or wade part way to work.
>
> > If the word 'again' is to be used in this discussion then please let me
> > use it to suggest that again you ignore my concerns that perhaps
> > Sustrans ought to ensure that their paths are at least usable by
> > non-expert non-mountain bikers.
>
> I complained to them about an alternative bit of NCN1 we tried just N of
> Queensferry, taking a "scenic route" rather than the other, more direct
> branch alternative, so clearly I don't think everything is all right.
> However, one should bear in mind that it takes a remarkably big set of
> leaks to really sink a ship, and the actuality is that non-expert
> mountain bikers can and do use rather large amounts on it.

Indeed, hence my suggestion that those stretches which are dangerous or
clearly unsuitable should not be classed as part of the network.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
On Dec 3, 1:27 pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Let's see. Sustrans have maps on their Website. So far, so good. They
> distinguish NCN on-road, other on-road, and NCN "traffic-free route
> (including some forest tracks and paths alongside busy roads)", the last
> of which might be anything from tarmac to mud and boulders.

I think Peter's talking about the printed maps and you're talking
about the website maps. The former are excellent - not just the paid-
for ones, a lot of the free ones are top quality too. The website maps
are indeed terrible (I've blithered on about building an OSM
alternative here before so will stop there).

Richard
 
Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 1:27 pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Let's see. Sustrans have maps on their Website. So far, so good. They
> > distinguish NCN on-road, other on-road, and NCN "traffic-free route
> > (including some forest tracks and paths alongside busy roads)", the last
> > of which might be anything from tarmac to mud and boulders.
>
> I think Peter's talking about the printed maps and you're talking
> about the website maps. The former are excellent - not just the paid-
> for ones, a lot of the free ones are top quality too. The website maps
> are indeed terrible (I've blithered on about building an OSM
> alternative here before so will stop there).

Why build an OSM alternative? Couldn't people just contribute to OSM?

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > i have to say i can't see where thats listed on the cycle path nr my
> > folks place, there are plenty of gates and such that would present
> > problems even with paniers, all sustrans have is the os map with yellow
> > access points ie where the railwayline meets the roads no sign of the
> > various gates along the railwayline, many have been around long before
> > sustrans arrived.
>
> Our NCN1 map specifically notes access gates. Further worth noting that
> although many Sustrans routes have the bloody things, it's not their idea.

in this case the gates are needed because of sustrans they chose to rip
up the railway bed and put in tarmack thus people will drive down it as
it looks like the road.
>
> >>> What is the point of the NCN?
> >> There's a clue in the name.
> >
> > thats not how they tryed to sell it to the local people in the clydach
> > gorge it has to be said, it was for kids to ride to school, one look at
> > a map with gradiant lines would tell one how much hot air that was.
>
> How it was sold to local people and implemented for them is not really
> the point I'm making, which is it is a *national* network

>
> Pete.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> > I think Peter's talking about the printed maps and you're talking
> > about the website maps. The former are excellent - not just the paid-
> > for ones, a lot of the free ones are top quality too. The website maps
> > are indeed terrible (I've blithered on about building an OSM
> > alternative here before so will stop there).
>
> Why build an OSM alternative? Couldn't people just contribute to OSM?

Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I mean; we are using OpenStreetMap to
build an alternative to the Sustrans cycle maps. It's a cycle route-
focused rendering, so NCN routes etc. are played up, motorways played
down. http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm , updated weekly with the
latest db dump from OSM. All contributions welcome. :)

cheers
Richard
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> Would you give a URL for that please?

hdcpy://ourhouse.dundee.realworld/bookshelf3/maps/sustrans

I'm not aware of the full formal mapping being online. It would be
nice if it was, certainly, but again we need to differentiate
between "it would be nice if they did that freely available for
everyone" and "bloody useless gits don't do it at all".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > Would you give a URL for that please?
>
> hdcpy://ourhouse.dundee.realworld/bookshelf3/maps/sustrans
>
> I'm not aware of the full formal mapping being online.

Which leads me to wonder why they bother with having an online map if
it's incomplete.

> It would be
> nice if it was, certainly, but again we need to differentiate
> between "it would be nice if they did that freely available for
> everyone" and "bloody useless gits don't do it at all".

Do Sustrans and the OS have a good reason for not cooperating with one
another?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> > > I think Peter's talking about the printed maps and you're talking
> > > about the website maps. The former are excellent - not just the paid-
> > > for ones, a lot of the free ones are top quality too. The website maps
> > > are indeed terrible (I've blithered on about building an OSM
> > > alternative here before so will stop there).
> >
> > Why build an OSM alternative? Couldn't people just contribute to OSM?
>
> Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I mean; we are using OpenStreetMap to
> build an alternative to the Sustrans cycle maps. It's a cycle route-
> focused rendering, so NCN routes etc. are played up, motorways played
> down. http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm , updated weekly with the
> latest db dump from OSM. All contributions welcome. :)

If you remind me about this after Christmas, I'm reliably informed (by
the postman who delivered the thing) that I'll be getting one of these
<http://tinyurl.com/ywalqg>.

In particular, I'm planning to have a go at the Lancashire Cycleway
(routes 90 and 91) next year and I notice that there's a bit of a gap
there.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
In message <[email protected]
ups.com>
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> There
> are the usual cut throughs onto otherwise cul-de-sac roads (the old
> London Road by the red telephone boxes being a case in point.)

Thanks, David, I'll try that one!

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Connect2 phone voting
Replies
37
Views
785
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
M
Sustrans Connect2 projects, vote early vote often!
Replies
7
Views
482
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
Top Bottom Back