Bicycle Touring and Bikepacking

452 readers

1 users here now

For all the pedal pushers out there that love long distance cycling. There are no gear requirements and no 'minimum distances' here.

Have you ridden for a cheeky overnighter or a 3 year global trek? Doesn't matter, you're welcome here.

Have you got panniers, bikepacking bags or just a backpack with the essentials? Doesn't matter, you're welcome here.

Have you got the latest in carbon engineering or your dads old 10 speed from the 70's? Doesn't matter, you're welcome here.

Related Communities

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Kirca@lemmy.world

AchtungDrempels@lemmy.world

Maps (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 9 months ago by plactagonic@sopuli.xyz to c/bicycle_touring@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Which are you using?

For most things (day trips, few km after work...) I use multiple of them.

Mapy.cz

online and offline mobile app
trip planner works pretty well
you can check out places (photos, reviews...) when online
well maped whole Europe
not enough information about roads (asphalt, paved, gravel...)
basically interactive version of KČT maps

Cykloserver.cz

can't find app
basic planner, but better for drawing your route
much more helpful info about roads
it is just automatically scaled paper map, so you have to know how to read it

Osm clients - I tried multiple of them.

Paper maps - from the same company that makes the Cycloserver maps. You can get set of them for about 100€ (CZ not sure about SK). There is just something special about planning trip on paper maps.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 months ago (9 children)

Organic Maps.

It's also based on OpenStreetMap. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of OsmAnd, but in return it offers a cleaner UI.

And then of course there's no beating brouter for route planning so sometimes I plan the route on PC (or the mobile site!) and import the track to Organic Maps. Mostly I don't bother though as OM routing is pretty good too.

And hey, since all of these tools rely on OpenStreetMap data, let's not forget StreetComplete for contributing! E.g. there's an easy overlay for marking cycleways.

[–] DerPlouk@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

And hey, since all of these tools rely on OpenStreetMap data,

By the way, I have in my area a road that is very dangerous for bicycles because it goes through several unlit tunnels. It's a former single railway line turned into a one-lane, one-way road; most cars enter the tunnels way over the allowed max speed without seeing at all what is inside.

All routing tools based on OpenStreetMap insist on routing through this road, despite the fact that there is another (larger) road on the other bank of the river. They just go in parallel 25 yards away for each other.

A couple of years ago, I edited OpenStreetMap data to mark the tunnel with "lit=no".

But that was in vain, routing tools don't take this parameter into account and keep routing bicycles through the (smaller) dangerous road. They prefer to route through the smaller road, which is generally the right choice, but not at all in the present case.

Does someone know if/how I can mark this road as "non-suitable for bicycles although they are allowed there"?

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

There's no one tag to do this but a combination of mapping the negative sides of the tunnel road and the positive sides of the bigger road should be enough.

Some ideas:

cycleway=no for the tunnel road and perhaps something like cycleway=shoulder for the bigger road
Maybe the bigger road has better asphalt? Tagging smoothness values of both can help.
Are there official cycle routes going through? Many routers take these very seriously. Note that it may be that there's an outdated route mapped through the tunnel road.

[–] DerPlouk@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There’s no one tag to do this but a combination of mapping the negative sides of the tunnel road and the positive sides of the bigger road should be enough.

That's what I feared: the routers can use anything with any weight, and we cannot know about it. It could be a good idea to reach people doing the routers and tell them that stuff like unlit tunnels should be weighted negatively.

Some ideas:

cycleway=no for the tunnel road and perhaps something like cycleway=shoulder for the bigger road

I can add "cycleway=no" for the tunnel road (cycleway is not set there), but the bigger road has "cycleway:both=no" already set, and well, that's the reality.

Maybe the bigger road has better asphalt? Tagging smoothness values of both can help.

That depends on the year :-) But something is constant: the potholes inside the tunnels; so yes, I can at least set "smoothness=bad" under the tunnels.

Are there official cycle routes going through? Many routers take these very seriously. Note that it may be that there’s an outdated route mapped through the tunnel road.

I cant' see such route on RideWithGPS' "Cycle OSM" view (I guess I would if there was one), and I don't see any of the tags present on the page you linked in OpenStreetMap objects data either.

I'll perform the two small modifications I picked from your list, and see after a few weeks or months if something seems to have changed, or not.

Thanks for the pieces of information you gave me.

load more comments (6 replies)