Strava Premium segments

ddraver

morstar said:

I’m guessing at numbers but surely it can only be c10% of users subscribe.

Less than 5% apparently...

But 'users' also includes all your friends who signed up and never used it, or just use it to record walking the dog on their phone...

lito

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

rick_chasey

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Would knock out about 50% of my rides for a start. I don't have a power meter on my commuter bike, and don't wear a HRM.

I'm only interested in whether I am in the top 50% or top 5% overall, not how I directly compare with individual randoms. And how they compare with people they know.

But I do remember when I did some running how mildly annoying it was to get the "someone has taken your CR" email from someone going at 3 minute miles because they didn't know how to set it to a bike ride. Once more runners actually started using Strava, those emails dried up

Ben6899

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

rick_chasey

Ben6899 said:

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

Not bragging - have always found the downhill stuff as useful as the uphill stuff tbf.

dabber

They also need to cater for mtb segments. The current "not long enough" rules aren't particularly relevant for technical, steep mtb segments.

Ben6899

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

Not bragging - have always found the downhill stuff as useful as the uphill stuff tbf.

Maybe on a decent length descent, but most stuff particularly in the UK you're at the bottom in a minute or so... hardly worth it and the KOM holder is probably more wreckless than a worthy descender.

trivial_poursuivant

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

I'll clarify a bit more.

I appreciate that many people don't use any of the above devices but I think the percentage that do in one form or another is higher than you think. You can buy plenty if bikes with at least a cadence sensor fitted as standard - Giant even ship bikes with factory fitted power meters now. If this is to be a premium service then the people who are paying deserve premium management and maintenance of it. For an example, I ride in Harrogate a lot. Many of the segments on the world championships circuit are filled with Zwift GPS tracks. Its fake and its unfair on someone who is riding these routes and paying fir a service that ignores the fact the leaderboards are full of fakes and cheats. It is after all the cornerstone of what Strava is. If the integrity of the data on there is questionable then how can they justify making you pay for it? If it were all free then you could maybe turn a blind eye but to be paying £4 a month to see a leaderboard with the top rammed with fake times is a bit of a joke.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

Not bragging - have always found the downhill stuff as useful as the uphill stuff tbf.

Kids, don't try this at home. Average life expectancy of downhill KOM holders is 6-12 months.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

Not bragging - have always found the downhill stuff as useful as the uphill stuff tbf.

Kids, don't try this at home. Average life expectancy of downhill KOM holders is 6-12 months.

Don't think I've ever held a KOM in the 6 or 7 years I've used Strava. Perils of using it in central London for the most part.

I would be happy with a #1 spot on a segment that day.

I think some around here are a bit more achievable, but certainly not for a while.

rick_chasey

I tell a lie! I picked up some random ones in Yorkshire.

rick_chasey

rick_chasey said:

I tell a lie! I picked up some random ones in Yorkshire.

One is a negative gradient, natch.

Cargobike

Meh.
I've taken it on a monthly basis at £6.99 after a months free trial, until the road bike goes into hibernation for the winter. It's good for logging where you've actually been and how long it's taken, but all the other gubbins are of little interest to me, although hopefully I can track an upward trend in my fitness over time.
Even at £6.99, it's cheaper than a couple of pints and I've not drunk for 10 weeks so it's hardly braking the bank.
I'll likely pay a years subscription in the spring if the country hasn't fallen into a dystopian wasteland.

joe2019

Cargobike said:

Meh.
I've taken it on a monthly basis at £6.99 after a months free trial, until the road bike goes into hibernation for the winter. It's good for logging where you've actually been and how long it's taken, but all the other gubbins are of little interest to me, although hopefully I can track an upward trend in my fitness over time.
Even at £6.99, it's cheaper than a couple of pints and I've not drunk for 10 weeks so it's hardly braking the bank.
I'll likely pay a years subscription in the spring if the country hasn't fallen into a dystopian wasteland.

You don't need to pay for it to see 'where you've actually been and how long it's taken' - it's the other gibbons that are of little interest to you that you are paying for...

N0bodyOfTheGoat

I wish I had the programming skills to create a competitor to Strava as regards segments, based on power and W/Kg, I reckon in these power meter days it would make a mint.

Strava's segment database is such a mess, it would be a lot easier just to bin the lot and start again with much more stringent rules about elevation data and time to complete.

joe2019

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

I wish I had the programming skills to create a competitor to Strava as regards segments, based on power and W/Kg, I reckon in these power meter days it would make a mint.

Strava's segment database is such a mess, it would be a lot easier just to bin the lot and start again with much more stringent rules about elevation data and time to complete.

I think Strava have proven otherwise

capt_slog

Hmm, the new starva is not so bad.

According to the little chart next to the subscribe button, I'm 57th on all leaderboards

This is an overall improvement.

kingstonian

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

Not bragging - have always found the downhill stuff as useful as the uphill stuff tbf.

Kids, don't try this at home. Average life expectancy of downhill KOM holders is 6-12 months.

This.

I was in the Surrey Hills last weekend, bombed down a few of the better known downhill segments but was way off the times that the KOM holders recorded - on the shoddy road surfaces those roads tend to have they must be certifiably insane with a huge death wish to record their times.

Cargobike

joe2019 said:

Cargobike said:

Meh.
I've taken it on a monthly basis at £6.99 after a months free trial, until the road bike goes into hibernation for the winter. It's good for logging where you've actually been and how long it's taken, but all the other gubbins are of little interest to me, although hopefully I can track an upward trend in my fitness over time.
Even at £6.99, it's cheaper than a couple of pints and I've not drunk for 10 weeks so it's hardly braking the bank.
I'll likely pay a years subscription in the spring if the country hasn't fallen into a dystopian wasteland.

You don't need to pay for it to see 'where you've actually been and how long it's taken' - it's the other gibbons that are of little interest to you that you are paying for...

Good job I didn't pay £48 to find out that nugget of information then
I'll try it for a few months, then make up my mind. I'm sure the missus will squander any savings I make in the long term anyway, so either way I'm getting f**ked over.

davidof

It is quite a big loss of information. The best bet is to register as a woman as you still get leader boards. :-)

I'm a bit annoyed that I invested time creating a lot of the more interesting segments around here, there was nothing on Strava when I started so I kicked started things a bit. Still that's how things are.

From a techie viewpoint it is clear that their model uses a lot of resources. First of all I would lossy compress the gpx data that is uploaded - they preserve gps tracks as they are sent at we're talking hundreds of kb per upload (ok that maybe stored in a compact format). Then there are all the photos. It is a lot of data.

They clearly built their platform with just cycling and running in mind they tacked on other sports but these are second class citizens. You can't, for example, create a "nordic walking club" with a filter on this activity only. This suggests they got their original data model wrong and can't fix it easily, or can't be bothered.

They don't really understand a lot of sports that well. They wanted to cater for everyone, or at least "profit" without putting the effort in. "Oh yeah, Marcus, create a new tag for parcours, that will bring the lucrative urban teen segment in."

The segments are a total mess. They could allow voting so that unpopular segments get deprecated unless, this happens to some extent but we don't really need 1000 segments for l'alpe d'Huez. Segments that start i people's garages or gardens etc should be out! However as others have said segments for one sport don't make sense for another so you need to understand domain specifics.

Segments have never worked that well. Matching rides against someone else's shonky gpx track is not a great idea. Far better to let someone define a start and end point and any key waypoints on the route.

Searching for routes and segments in flakey.

Advertising, would have helped their revenue a bit but I doubt they could fund the platform on ads. It is not hard to build their own ad platform as open source solutions exist to do this if they won't want to partner. But running something like google ads on your website really just makes money for google in 2020

The social side never really took off, people don't seem to post many stories or talk about their rides. Probably most people are just uploading a track and a couple of pics from a mobile.

As someone above said, it might just be better to bin the whole thing and port what data they can onto a new platform.

pblakeney

Worst case scenario is that I might actually look at Garmin Connect for once.
Really, it will make zero difference to my life whatever. Shot in foot IMO.
Not that I have noticed any difference, so far......

cruff

kingstonian said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

Not bragging - have always found the downhill stuff as useful as the uphill stuff tbf.

Kids, don't try this at home. Average life expectancy of downhill KOM holders is 6-12 months.

This.

I was in the Surrey Hills last weekend, bombed down a few of the better known downhill segments but was way off the times that the KOM holders recorded - on the shoddy road surfaces those roads tend to have they must be certifiably insane with a huge death wish to record their times.

Or a better descender than you?

rick_chasey

kingstonian said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

Not bragging - have always found the downhill stuff as useful as the uphill stuff tbf.

Kids, don't try this at home. Average life expectancy of downhill KOM holders is 6-12 months.

This.

I was in the Surrey Hills last weekend, bombed down a few of the better known downhill segments but was way off the times that the KOM holders recorded - on the shoddy road surfaces those roads tend to have they must be certifiably insane with a huge death wish to record their times.

Used to have a few top 10s downhill around there back in the day.

Wasn’t chasing times especially.

You know going downhill is a part of cycling too, right?

You just (hopefully) spend less time doing it.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

kingstonian said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

rick_chasey said:

lito said:

For Strava to start charging more for basic functionality I would suggest they do a few of the following:

1. Tidy up obviously fake rides on segments. I still maintain to be on a leaderboard your ride must show anything from cadence, heart rate or power. Zwift won't allow you on theirs if you have no HRM so its not too much to ask

2. Clean up lots of faffy pointless segments. The criteria for what qualifies as a segment should be tighter. At least have a positive average gradient and/or a minimum distance . The reasons for this is each segment as they rightly point out eats data and processing power on servers. To reduce their own workload and to be a bit greener cut the Niff naff segments. No point preaching you ride a bike cos its better for the environment when strava is eating up energy just to keep your local 100m downhill sprint segment updated.

If you are going to start charging premium for previously free functionality you need to show a bloody good reason why its needed other than just fleecing your following.

I recon point 1 would knock out a good 70-90% of strava users....

Agreed. I don't need cadence, HR and power when I'm out on my bike. Leave those for training on the turbo.

I agree with the segment rationalisation though. Bragging rights going downhill... seriously?

Not bragging - have always found the downhill stuff as useful as the uphill stuff tbf.

Kids, don't try this at home. Average life expectancy of downhill KOM holders is 6-12 months.

This.

I was in the Surrey Hills last weekend, bombed down a few of the better known downhill segments but was way off the times that the KOM holders recorded - on the shoddy road surfaces those roads tend to have they must be certifiably insane with a huge death wish to record their times.

Used to have a few top 10s downhill around there back in the day.

Wasn’t chasing times especially.

You know going downhill is a part of cycling too, right?

You just (hopefully) spend less time doing it.

You don't remember that court case in San Fransisco, no?

rick_chasey

Don’t think I ever came across it?

Darius_Jedburgh

davidof said:

The social side never really took off, people don't seem to post many stories or talk about their rides. Probably most people are just uploading a track and a couple of pics from a mobile.

This. The main social part of Strava seems to be amassing as many followers as you can then your rides will get lots of meaningless kudos.

It's rare to receive little more than a cursory reply to any comment made on a ride. Seems to be pandering to the brain dead Twitbook brigade.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Don’t think I ever came across it?

Guy died chasing a KOM (on a decent, never understood the naming) on a dangerous segment. Parents sued Strava. Parents lost.
https://www.velonews.com/news/strava-wins-dismissal-of-civil-suit-over-berkeley-death/

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Don’t think I ever came across it?

Guy died chasing a KOM (on a decent, never understood the naming) on a dangerous segment. Parents sued Strava. Parents lost.
https://www.velonews.com/news/strava-wins-dismissal-of-civil-suit-over-berkeley-death/

Sad story.

It’s not like people only started bombing downhill when strava turned up.

kingstongraham

davidof said:

It is quite a big loss of information. The best bet is to register as a woman as you still get leader boards. :-)

I'm a bit annoyed that I invested time creating a lot of the more interesting segments around here, there was nothing on Strava when I started so I kicked started things a bit. Still that's how things are.

From a techie viewpoint it is clear that their model uses a lot of resources. First of all I would lossy compress the gpx data that is uploaded - they preserve gps tracks as they are sent at we're talking hundreds of kb per upload (ok that maybe stored in a compact format). Then there are all the photos. It is a lot of data.

They clearly built their platform with just cycling and running in mind they tacked on other sports but these are second class citizens. You can't, for example, create a "nordic walking club" with a filter on this activity only. This suggests they got their original data model wrong and can't fix it easily, or can't be bothered.

They don't really understand a lot of sports that well. They wanted to cater for everyone, or at least "profit" without putting the effort in. "Oh yeah, Marcus, create a new tag for parcours, that will bring the lucrative urban teen segment in."

The segments are a total mess. They could allow voting so that unpopular segments get deprecated unless, this happens to some extent but we don't really need 1000 segments for l'alpe d'Huez. Segments that start i people's garages or gardens etc should be out! However as others have said segments for one sport don't make sense for another so you need to understand domain specifics.

Segments have never worked that well. Matching rides against someone else's shonky gpx track is not a great idea. Far better to let someone define a start and end point and any key waypoints on the route.

Searching for routes and segments in flakey.

Advertising, would have helped their revenue a bit but I doubt they could fund the platform on ads. It is not hard to build their own ad platform as open source solutions exist to do this if they won't want to partner. But running something like google ads on your website really just makes money for google in 2020

The social side never really took off, people don't seem to post many stories or talk about their rides. Probably most people are just uploading a track and a couple of pics from a mobile.

As someone above said, it might just be better to bin the whole thing and port what data they can onto a new platform.

A segment from (close to) my home to (close to) my work is only useful to me, but it's still interesting.