I have the same issue with trying to import a GPX file from Europafietsers.nl site. The same file imports without problems in other routing apps I also use. 

This is link: https://downloads.europafietsers.nl/gps/oude-wegen1_gps.zip

I think I’ve identified what the problem is – should be fixed now. Thanks for spotting.

(For those of a technical bent, the BOM at the start of the GPX file was confusing it!)

Thanks Richard, that is working fine now. Greatly appreciated!!

However I did notice another issue working with tracks from the same site. If I try to import the second part of this long distance route I get the message "Sorry that track is too long to import" .

When I use the trace GPX option under the layers selection and choose the same file it shows fine, albeit only to trace not to modify/use it. Is it possible to extend the buffer to load this longer track as a route or otherwise what is the limit?

Thanks so much!

The 2nd leg of this documented track: https://downloads.europafietsers.nl/gps/oude-wegen2_gps.zip 

Turning an imported track into an editable route is quite an intensive process, and it gets more so the longer the track – that’s why it’ll squawk on the very longest tracks.

But I’ve just tweaked it so that it’ll cope with some longer tracks albeit with a slight drop in accuracy/fidelity. Have a go now – it should import that track fine although you’ll need to review it against the thin blue line for discrepancies.

Hi Richard,

Thanks very much for enabling this. In combination with the tracing function this is a great workaround. I notice that for most of the route the accuracy is absolutely no problem and at level of 100m+ you can ignore the difference.

I also notice however as you pointed out that the route created by importing in a few places is indeed following a different trajectory all together. The way it does that it seems that you upload points from the GPX track and use the internal algorithm to create a logical route. Do I understand that correctly? 

I see it for example if you zoom in on the small city Cahors and the route follows the formal V87 cycle path whilst the trace (thin blue line) follows what the makers at Europafieters created precisely. I find that for a long tour quite acceptable as I will deviate anyhow if I am interested to see places. So very pleased with this update

I use the web version to plan longer multi day trips as a guide and in particular to check the height profiles.  Maybe for the future if you have the technology to do so, having the option to plan a route between points with minimalisation of steep gradients going up (not something we worry about living in the Netherlands ;-)),  would for me and my wife be a very nice addition. Thanks again!

I use the web version to plan longer multi day trips as a guide and in particular to check the height profiles. Maybe for the future if you have the technology to do so, having the option to plan a route between points with minimalisation of steep gradients going up (not something we worry about living in the Netherlands ;-)), would for me and my wife be a very nice addition.

HH, if you're not aware there is a 'workaround' for minimising climbing currently.

Obviously it depends on the length of your route, but by opening the gradient profile, adding a via point and then 'dragging' that viapoint around you can see the effect of different options 'live'. 

In fact, we can pinpoint the highest/steepest climb (the red line on the graph above), add a viapoint there and then move that one around to find an elevation profile that suits.

We just need to be careful where we 'drop' that viapoint.

Also, if you're not aware, CT offers the option of an 'alternative' route. (under the different surface options there's 'Find Alternative'). That can help too. 

Hi Hobbes, Thanks very much for sharing this. I will look more into this. I have looked at the gradient profile option and selecting the max value showed where this is in the route, I also noticed that if I break up the longer route in segments these values vary a bit. Not sure how they are calulated? It may be my own inexperience with the tool. Will look at it again. Appreciate the support!

I also noticed that if I break up the longer route in segments these values vary a bit.

HH, my (amateur) understanding is that, generally, the elevation figures become slightly less accurate over longer distances, that there's a kind of 'smoothing' process taking place. That's given that calculating elevation seems to involve a bit of the dark arts as well as science anyway. I use elevation info as a guideline only.   

On a multi-day trip, if you were to use the 'Overnight Stops' feature, then save as individual days, it would make the process of checking each day's ride that bit more manageable. (You may already be doing this). This (normally) has the advantage of using the colour coding on the graph to highlight the steep bits!  

However, as a former resident of your part of the world, I have to caution you that hills are everywhere ....... else! :-) Although Limburg is good for some practise!  

There are alternative planners that will take elevation into account but, frankly, they are far more complicated to use. 

Considering your French route and recent years, another factor to bear in mind is temperature (depending on when you are planning to do this). High summer temperatures can have a big impact on health and energy levels. Sudden, violent storms are a secondary consequence of the heat. 

Hi Hobbes, Thanks very much for your further advice. I am still a newby in using c.t and appreciate you taking the time for me - and no doubt many others - to explain how to best use the site and the app. 

- I have followed your earlier suggestions and played around with interactively moving the tour around. As you can point at the elevation line and with a click you know were you are also on longer routes as it zooms in to that point it was actually a very useful exercise and I now have also a "height optimized" route, I am happy with. I had figured out the saving as individual days, another great feature!

Thanks for pointing out hills are everywhere ;-) We know that and have cycled many of them already just that we are getting a bit older and need to keep practicing....

The point you make on the weather and in particular the temperature is very valid. We will end up cycling part of the route in July and are aware, hence cycling through some more forestry areas, ensure there are places to get water and shorter day trips are ways we try to take that into account. For that I did also use the saving overnight stops by first breaking the total route in longer segments, reading the new segments back in and then save them again using that same option but now with for that part of the route adjusted day lengths, where I manually choose the overnight locations. Really nice the software is so versatile to work this iteratively!

As further suggestions I used in planning also two other sites. One is: https://nl.francevelotourisme.com/itineraire/gps and as the French cycle path network is evolving quite steadily every year I also noticed updated routes on that site. The one I am looking at is the "Saint-Jacques à vélo -  via Vezelay " that follows a slightly updated path. I then played with the different map layers in c.t. and noticed that the "Outdoors" layer showed this new route as well. So here the learning is that it is worth to look at the difference layers if you are planning a route as they may have different update cycles.

Adding to this layer feature in the maps I think it could be useful to also add a layer that specifically highlights the altitude variations. For example the one used on this site: https://nl-nl.topographic-map.com/map-dg4f3/Metropolitaans-Frankrijk/?center=45.27972%2C2.86331&popup=47.51029%2C3.76762&zoom=10&base=6

That site has no routeplanning capabilities, but you can change the base layer to CycleOSM and you can lock the colour bar for the height (the default that it updates depending on the zoom level)

Anyhow lots of interesting stuff and if it helps to enhance c.t over time it was worth writing these observations down ;-)