Penny, an example would be helpful - From where to where.

Assuming you're referring to the app, I've just checked and mine (Android) will plan a route using 'Routes'. But I'm in Spain on a well known cycle route. 

Are you sure that recognised bike routes actually exist between your two points? If none exist, then my experience is that CT can't plot a route. Choosing 'Any' will be your best option. 

Alternatively, try to plot your route on the website. That'll then be available on the app. 

Penny, another user here. I have just done some tests using the Android app, with the Setting menu set at Cycle Routes. 

My current location is not on a designated cycle route. When I use the "Where to?" box at the top of the map to enter a place that is on a designated cycle route, and then choose "Go there", I get a solution which starts at the nearest point on a cycle route to my current location, and then uses only designated routes. If the "Where to" destination is also not on a desgnated cycle route, it shows a route to the nearest point on one. 

Note there is no indication of how to get from my present location to the start of the route, and likewise at the end of the planned route if the desired destination is not on a designated cycle route. The terminal point(s) of the planned solution can't be dragged as that would be breaking the ""Cycle routes" (only) setting, so it means doing further plans to get solutions for those legs.)

BUT if I choose "Start there", no solution is found in the app. I guess that replicates what you are doing, and does seem a bit odd. (Easy workround: first create the route as "Go there", then use the app's Settings menu option to Reverse the route.)

I have also tried the same scenarios in the website, which behaved in essentially the same manner.

In passing (you may well be aware already, but just in case it helps anyone): forcing "Cycle routes" will not always mean they are easy under wheel. I was testing with Rookhope as a destination, and the solutions use the section of the C2C cycle route on the old railway past Bolts Law, which is distinctly rough going (and steep!). 

The website gives useful details of the planned route indicating the nature of the surfaces (not not how rough "unpaved" actually is), and whether busy roads etc. The website works well on a smartphone so it's recommended to plan using that, although obviously for the actual in-ride tracking and direction you need to save your planned route into your CycleTravel account, and access it in the app. (Accounts are free, but its nice if we users help to make the platform viable by signing up as Supporters ...)

HTH

Thanks for the helpful and quick comments.  I was using the app.  I just now tried to use the website and I got a clearer error message that explained there wasn't an (official) cycle route between my two points.

I was trying out the app to see how useful it might be for route planning in London and the answer seems to that I should stick to doing it by hand with the help of information from various sources e.g. a Youtube channel of cycle routes plus I can work out my own routes if I look at Open Cycle map in detail as it shows where cycle paths are and also where roads are closed to cars but open to bicycles (usually as a result of LTNs).

Sometimes Komoot can suggest a useful route that I can use as a starting point.  Based on the examples I tried, Cycle Travel tends to favour busier roads even if there are very quiet alternatives (that I would call cycle routes). It may be because it prefers more direct routes rather than quiet routes.  

I know a number of (unofficial) cycle routes but wanted to find more.  Examples I tried were from South Woodford to Leytonstone High Rd station and another was South Woodford to Stratford.  There are nice quiet cycle routes in both case but the app only shows busier routes.   It was a useful exercise but I was probably expecting too much from an app.

Thanks for your help though. 

Penny

Making your own routes is easy in Cycle Travel, using via points. In areas you know it enables all ones own local knowledge and preferences to be reflected.

But when you say you found  "Cycle Travel tends to favour busier roads even if there are very quiet alternatives", that is the exact opposite of what the Cycle Travel algorithm is trying to do. If you were seeing that sort of result when you were allowing Cycle Travel to find the best route with "Any" selected, I supect Richard would value feedback on specific examples so he can invetigate "under the hood". 

But perhaps it's just a matter of terminology - in Cycle Travel, the "Cycle Routes" option does specifically refer to using only formally designated routes.  (For provincials like myself, in London they can be disconcertingly busy with cyclists behaving in a rather car-like manner, but that's a different aspect.) 

Thank you.  It sounds as if the "Cycle Routes" option isn't that useful in urban areas where you just want to go from A to B and there is unlikely to be an official route that goes there. 

What would be useful if the app could have an option that prioritised low traffic routes from A to B.  At present it doesn't seem to do this.  Large parts of London are full of quiet low traffic routes - many Londoners don't own cars and there is nowhere to park anyway so most people use public transport (or walk or cycle) to get around plus there are now quite a few LTNs with modal filters to stop rat running in residential areas.  The more major roads are always busy because that is where the buses, taxis, vans plus some cars go.  This is much less true of outer London which is more car centric but definitely the case in most of the rest of London.  It maybe also be partially true of other large cities.  I suppose the practical problem is how to design a route finder that prioritises streets with very low traffic.  It is a nice idea but maybe not simple to do in practice? 

Penny, to quote Simon above 

I suspect Richard would value feedback on specific examples (my emphasis)

Absolutely, yes – I’d be very keen to hear of specific examples. If you could cite a start point and end point where you think it could do a better job of finding a low-traffic route, I can look into it.

cycle.travel does very much aim to prioritise low-traffic and cycle-friendly streets by default, but this is a particularly difficult challenge in London. The city has a lot of low quality cycle infrastructure, mostly dating from the 1990–2015 period, and the map data doesn’t necessarily differentiate between good and bad infrastucture. Perhaps the most notorious example is ‘Cycle Superhighway 7’ which is really just some blue paint along the existing A3 road through South London.

I'm trying to plot a route from Pine River MN to Little Falls MN in the USA using the Paul Bunyan trail, but the route planning (web) ignores the rail trail and forces me onto roads.  Is there someway to force the route planner to stay on the trail or rail trail?

That does seem surprising. If you share the url of the journey that you have planned (it needs to be set as a "public"), that will enable investigation. 

Meantime: perhaps the Open Streetmap data that CycleTravel relies on is the issue ie it does not contain a (short?) section of the rail trail, or a link into it, so the algorithm can't find a feasible route using the trail.

If you know somewhere where that is the issue, you force the CycleTravel route to "bridge" a gap like that by placing a via point at each end of the (false) gap and using the "direct to ..." function (see top right of the panel that pops up when you click on a via point).

Routes mode isn’t currently supported in the USA because it doesn’t have a developed cycle network like many European countries. I would like to add it in due course, but that will mean working out how to cope with the situation where the nearest cycle route is 500 miles away!

Richard, yes I think you are right.  The problem is that the algorithm is not able to differentiate between between real cycle routes and the horrible old LCN and LCN+ routes which frequently relied on faded blue paint and blue signs and sent riders down busy roads without separating bikes from heavy traffic or else used back streets with dangerous junctions.  All the Superhighways and Quietways (now rebranded Cycleways) are totally different (even those with bluepaint) as some thought was given to the route and junctions. Onroad routes and bluepaint can still work if they are designed properly - the quietways were mainly on-road.  Superhighway 7 is still useable whereas the NCN and NCN+ was a pointless excess. 

These old pseudo routes should really be removed from cycle maps and if there was any way of distinguishing them in your algorithm, they should be avoided but it sounds like it isn't possible. 

In addition to the modern TFL routes, mini holland and other good local routes and sustrans routes, there are also many other routes on quiet routes through LTNs where there is no thru motorised traffic due to modal filters but these aren't official cycle routes.   And there are more of these each year as more modal filters are put in. 

Penny,

There are  few features you may not be aware of that might help you to plan better routes.

First of all, CT offers a variety of map styles (more to subscribers) on the 'hamburger' menu, top left.  These can help us to plan better. This is the standard CT map showing South Woodford. 

And the CycleOSM version

Markers can be added to maps or routes to highlight good or bad features:

Searching CT (search bar, top right) can help us find other users' routes:

Admittedly, large cities can be complicated (various search terms may be required) and there is no guarantee of quality.

Streetview: We can click on any route, right click and choose 'Streetview'. Where available we can see the Google SV image and even follow along on our route. 

Find Alternative:  Can be used to show alternatives:

Now, some tips.

Taking your 'South Woodford to Stratford' non-specific example, this is what CT offers for 'any'

Now, I have no idea if that is a 'good route' but if I manually move the startpoint slightly I get...

We can see that the first half is substantially different. In other words, when planning a relatively short, urban route it's probably worth our while playing around with the obvious parameters (start & finish). For example, I live on a one-way street so I don't plan a route from my front door. I start it from the closest junction and simply walk the 50 meters. 

So, to conclude, CT can offer you different maps. You can search for others' routes (as well as longer routes in the route guides). It usually offers various options for any given route.  You can mark off your own points on the map that are particularly important (busy, unsafe, quiet etc.) It offers direct access to Streetview to 'try before you ride'. 

When all that is done, you can access your route on the app, share routes easily and, if inclined, write a Travelogue with the route and your own comments. This can then be shared. 

All of that is separate from the basic tools of CT. Viapoints, for example, are vital for personalising our routes. The Help page will be useful. 

A few general thoughts. I don't think it's possible for any route planner to satisfy all the people all the time. 'Busy' is a relative term - my idea of busy might be very different from yours. People travelling on a bike from A to B might have very different objectives from someone training to commuting to doing a school run to the shopping. Sticking 'From' &'To' into any planner is unlikely to satisfy all these competing preferences.  Especially in a large urban environment. 

CT uses Open Street Maps. It is possible for users to modify/update the underlying data. The algorithm needs data to do its job. You can help. 

Finally, sharing a route, or specific example, is easy. Here is the url for the route highlighted above. https://cycle.travel/map/journey/995334

Jumping back in again to describe my problem.   In a few weeks I'm going to be riding from Bemidji, Minnesota in the USA to St Louis, Missouri.   There is an established US Bicycle Route - USBR 45 that runs parallel to the Mississippi River which I want to follow - AND shows up on cycle travel maps BUT it will NOT plot a route between two points using USBR 45.  Instead it wants me to travel on roads not associated with USBR 45.   How do I 'force' the app to follow USBR 45?

Jan,

Assuming you are using the Cycle.Travel website (rather than the app), all you need to do is click on the initial route and drag it to route 45. Zoom in so you can see clearly.

You may need to do this at several points, but you will get what you want.

You can then save this, and it will be available on the app, if that is what you intend to use.

Okay...you do it, because it doesn't work.   Starting point:  Baxter MN, ending point: Sartell, MN.  Cycle Travel will plot route, but NOT down USBR 45 which is clearly shown,  Try dragging the Cycle Travel route to USBR and it just won't lock onto the route - it keeps deviating all over the place.

Okay...you do it, because it doesn't work.

Nice attitude, Jan, towards another user who took time to try to help you.

According to your 'Journeys' page, you already have created the route - so it does work! 

You need all those viapoints because CT really doesn't want to stick to USBR 45. In my experience, there is usually a good reason for that. Are you familiar with the road? If you're not, use the Streetview link to compare 45 to what CT suggests. 

Jan, I have replicated what you are wanting to do. It is true that the initial CT solution avoids quite a bit of the route 45. This is because CT is reflecting its design philosophy to suggest quiet roads. (I find it can be a bit over-keen to do that at times, but it is easy to fine-tune by inserting via points - remember the intention is that planning mainly is done in the website, where there are more tools than in the app.) 

So it does take the insertion of a number of via points to make CT use route 45 between about miles 5 and 25, but this not unexpected as this part of route 45 seems to be alongside a big road. (I found I needed to take care to put the via points on the correct direction of the "divided highway" (UK: "dual carriageway")).

After reaching Belle Prairie/Little Falls, CT does pick up route 45 for many miles. In the last section into Baxter it suggests a route on the west side of the Mississippi, but a single via point is enough to get the route to follow 45 if that is what you prefer. 

I have saved the journey that I created - see https://cycle.travel/map/journey/1008958

Hope this helps you get the hang of how to use CT. Good luck.