I've been chatting to a colleague about route descriptions/guides - as found in newspaper articles, on websites, in '100 rides' type books, on route cataloging services, and so on - are useful for getting people cycling. We were talking about whether these are useful for getting people out on their bike for the first time, or for supporting people new to cycling to get out again, or for new families to show them that there are nice rides in the vicinity.
We're not sure what we think, have been debating hard, and would welcome opinions.
Have you personally ever used such a route description/guide? Was this when new to cycling? What caught your attention about the guide? Why did it have this effect?
Are such descriptions useful too for people who already cycle? Are they only useful for these people? Or only useful for those new to cycling? Or not useful for either group?
A second part to this question is about what such a guide needs to tell people to be useful.
My contention is that typical route grading isn't sufficient for people new to cycling. Am I right or wrong? Do 'easy' to 'hard' style ratings emphasise the idea of cycling as a sport - that there are 'cyclists' and non-cyclists? Or do they work well? The more we thought about this the more complex it became... people need advice about distance, but also hills, surface, and level of risk to traffic. Guides for a wide range of audiences get wordy - one person needs to know if they can take a 5 year old on a route, another whether there are any barriers to access, a third person needs to know if the gradient is ever above 15%, and a fourth needs to know if it's going to have nice views...
Thoughts very welcome (please)
posts
