Riding on rural Public Footpaths
Comments
-
Just big ones. I don't know the official term.. Mine have cinema mode on anyway
0 -
Got some Shure in-ear headphones (with the foam thingies) and they're fantastic. Can have the volume set far lower as all the sound is directed into the ear, and with the foam moulded to the ear right the bass tones are infinitely superior to those crappy iPod style things the majority have.north-sure wrote:Though I bought some in the ear headphones, they are brilliant, £20, they block out most of the outside noise (stuff buying bose noise reducing headphones) so you don't have to have them loud at all. Though this still creates the problem of not being able to hear other people.
The disadvantage of not being able to hear other people is my advantage. It's great for work
. Also very good on planes.
But still I need to be cautious on the volume. It's tempting to crank it up as they sound so good, but it's dangerous.
Oh, and I'd never ride with these! One impact on the side of the head and it's through the ear drum! :shock:. For riding it's better to get those helmets that take inserts for headphones in the sides. They mainly come on pisspot style helmets, though I've generally seen them on ski & snowboard helmets.
I'd normally avoid footpaths with styles unless it's necessary. Thankfully the vast majority of what I ride is open common land and the footpaths tend not to have the styles. If it's not a big wide fire road you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a footpath and a bridleway without looking on an OS map.Cj83 wrote:the thing that usually puts me off footpaths is that they normally start with a style and assume that is to keep people on two wheels out and i reluctantly obey...
But then as I say, all the trails off the side aren't either footpath or bridleway and technically no one has an explicit right. I find not so many dog walkers use these, but some do (and some use the dedicated singletrack walking on berms etc).0 -
deadkenny wrote:
Got some Shure in-ear headphones (with the foam thingies) and they're fantastic. Can have the volume set far lower as all the sound is directed into the ear, and with the foam moulded to the ear right the bass tones are infinitely superior to those crappy iPod style things the majority have.north-sure wrote:Though I bought some in the ear headphones, they are brilliant, £20, they block out most of the outside noise (stuff buying bose noise reducing headphones) so you don't have to have them loud at all. Though this still creates the problem of not being able to hear other people.
The disadvantage of not being able to hear other people is my advantage. It's great for work. Also very good on planes.
But still I need to be cautious on the volume. It's tempting to crank it up as they sound so good, but it's dangerous.
Oh, and I'd never ride with these! One impact on the side of the head and it's through the ear drum! :shock:
The bass blew my mind when i first got them, i couldn't believe the difference.
I would never ride with any earphones in. (And to keep this on topic) Especially not while out on rural footpaths. Just listen to the sound of nature, it also means you can listen out for any ramblers that might be on these footpaths round the next corner allowing you to slow down and not irritate anyone by barreling them over.0 -
One of the places I used to ride as a teenager had a style on the entrance to it. I spent years determinedly trying to ride the thing, thinking there must be a way
There was another style at the other side, joining two fields of differing heights (which has only just occurred to me now, how odd that is!).
That one was great fun, since we could just launch off the highest field, off the style, and land in the lower field.
That sounds very odd. I'll try and get a picture of it next time I'm there.0 -
The only thing stopping me around here are ditches with 3 steps in them that you have to carry a bike over.
I go by the theory that if it's difficult for me access, I shouldn't be there.0 -
I don't use footpaths much but I occasionally use them to join bridleway routes. I also occasionally use tracks which aren't rights of way (farm and forest tracks) and farmers or forestry workers have always been very friendly when I meet them.
The thing is wtf can anybody do about it anyway? How on earth could they know who you are unless you tell them? If they put a walking stick through your spokes and subject you to waterboarding to find out your name and address I think their assault might overshadow your civil misdemeanour.
I've rarely been challenged as my rides are usually remote but when I have had somebody shout at me I've just smiled and ridden on. I mean, we don't have registration plates do we?Canyon XC 8.0 '11
Whyte 19 steel '100 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:One of the places I used to ride as a teenager had a style on the entrance to it. I spent years determinedly trying to ride the thing, thinking there must be a way
There was another style at the other side, joining two fields of differing heights (which has only just occurred to me now, how odd that is!).
That one was great fun, since we could just launch off the highest field, off the style, and land in the lower field.
That sounds very odd. I'll try and get a picture of it next time I'm there.
There's one like this at my local dog walking spot. Except the fence is on top of the raised field. It's all good though as the raised transition makes a great quarter pipeHappy Harry wrote:The thing is wtf can anybody do about it anyway? How on earth could they know who you are unless you tell them? If they put a walking stick through your spokes and subject you to waterboarding to find out your name and address I think their assault might overshadow your civil misdemeanour.
The only time I really get worried is when I'm deep in the forest and I hear guns blasting away near by (which is quite common). I don;t want to be mistaken for a passing deer :shock:0 -
You could try sticking feathers in your helmet and they might mistake you for a pheasant. On the other hand ...butcher of bakersfield wrote:The only time I really get worried is when I'm deep in the forest and I hear guns blasting away near by (which is quite common). I don;t want to be mistaken for a passing deer :shock:Canyon XC 8.0 '11
Whyte 19 steel '100 -
Happy Harry wrote:I don't use footpaths much but I occasionally use them to join bridleway routes.
I wish there was enough bridleway locally for me to do that. Here's a very bridleway-rich part of my 'local' riding. (It would be a 25 mile ride to take in any of this, it's even worse closer to home)
The red dotted lines are footpath, the green dashes are bridleway.0 -
Where did you get the map from, bails?0
-
A print screen from here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/0 -
cheers.0
-
Ah bollocks. I thought I could use that to doublecheck a right of way round here, but it's so innacurate it's not even funny.
Most of the roads I drive on don't exist on it at all :roll:
Best bet is still to use www.bing.com/maps and stick it in OS maps view.0 -
OSM is volunteer fed and varies on accuracy. However one benefit is in places people have marked singletrack (generally blue, though it makes it difficult to distinguish between singletrack and official cycle paths).
Contentious though as a lot of singletrack is not desirable to publicise because once they get attention the land owners can get very twitchy and decide to close off access through fear of litigation. It's bad enough as it is with official trails and in trail centres where stuff gets closed off or tamed because some muppet broke their neck through their own stupidity or inability and then sued.
I'd love to have public maps of singletrack, but at the same time I realise that this would just end up with most of them being closed off or destroyed (even more so where there are jumps and shore).
P.S. OpenCycleMap gives a slightly different view from OSM. It's the same maps but with different layers of information applied I think to be more relevant to cycling.0 -
pfft. There's actual ROADS missing on that! bollocks to finding any singletrack on it.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:pfft. There's actual ROADS missing on that! bollocks to finding any singletrack on it.
Draw them on then.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:pfft. There's actual ROADS missing on that! bollocks to finding any singletrack on it.
Yeah, but you live out in the sticks! 0 -
Why bother? Seriously?chedabob wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:pfft. There's actual ROADS missing on that! bollocks to finding any singletrack on it.
Draw them on then.
There are maps around that already have the roads all marked up. Why not START with that, and then add things on top? Rather than start with a blank canvas?
Cartographers have been doing a good job of making maps for ages. Why do a bunch of open-source hippies think they can do better by starting from scratch?
As for "living out in the sticks"? What the hell has that got to do with anything? It's a map!
Should maps only cover cities and vastly overpopulated areas?0 -
Roads? I don't do roads 0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:
That's what I mean. Why not start off with a pre-existing map?bails87 wrote:No, but it's user provided content isn't it. so if there's less people living there, there's less people to submit stuff to it.
Oh, I see, I don't know. Expensive I guess.
And we all know hippies don't have any money.
0 -
Money. I think the reason for doing it was because mapping companies charge for the data. It's okay just looking up on Google Maps on the web, but if you want to use those maps in your application or device you're going to sell, it costs money for licences etc.
Plus OS were charging a fortune for their map tile data. Though they've opened them up I think (not that it stops certain companies for charging a fortune still, *cough* ViewRanger *cough*).0 -
How does google maps work then? I've seen plenty of devices where you can use a google maps application, for free, with no advertising.
I'm guessing Google just absorb the cost.
if so, THAT would have been a good starting point.
OR, even better, you know....
Add them as a user maintained layer on google earth :roll:0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Why bother? Seriously?chedabob wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:pfft. There's actual ROADS missing on that! bollocks to finding any singletrack on it.
Draw them on then.
There are maps around that already have the roads all marked up. Why not START with that, and then add things on top? Rather than start with a blank canvas?
Cartographers have been doing a good job of making maps for ages. Why do a bunch of open-source hippies think they can do better by starting from scratch?
As for "living out in the sticks"? What the hell has that got to do with anything? It's a map!
Should maps only cover cities and vastly overpopulated areas?
Licensing, and the data being in a format that you can't do anything meaningful with.0 -
but you CAN overlay things on the google earth software. It's already done in fact.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:but you CAN overlay things on the google earth software. It's already done in fact.
Again, licensing issues. If part of a trail runs along a road, then someone would have to trace that road onto the overlay, and then they'd need to prove they didn't trace it straight off Google's images.
Also, if you're in an area with a decent amount of data, it'd absolutely cripple Google Earth.0 -
Maybe using Google Maps in your app is one thing. Creating your own maps from their data is a difference licence requirement.yeehaamcgee wrote:How does google maps work then? I've seen plenty of devices where you can use a google maps application, for free, with no advertising.
I'm guessing Google just absorb the cost.
if so, THAT would have been a good starting point.
Besides I'm not sure you can use their maps for free in an application you sell. A free app maybe. May depend what the app purpose is too.
That may explain why Sports Tracker has switched from Google Maps (when it was Nokia Sports Tracker) to OSM now it's an independent company.
Though as I say, I welcome OSM for the trails that just aren't marked on Google. In fact, go off road and most of Google Maps is just blank!0 -
Google earth has immense covereage, even in the mountains and forests. People are already using it to share routes and so on.
Sounds like a bunch of beardy hippy OS nutters finding a way to make life more difficult in the pursuit of "freedom from the man".0
