You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Everywhere I've been in Europe walking paths are really well marked. Good visible signs, destinations, times. theres the big 'GR' routes, but also local stuff - if theres a hill to climb you nearly always find decent signage with estimated times.
Nearly everywhere has mountain bike routes as well. Place like Ainsa in Spain there are a huge number of marked routes at all sorts of different gradings. But every French town I've been to with any hills has had a few marked MTB routes as well (even if some places they're just a fire road loop).
In the UK most of the time you rarely get more than a broken 'footpath' or 'bridleway' sign on a right of way. Somewhere like the Forest of Dean there might be a couple of marked leisure walks but I've never seen any in the Lake District.
There's a load of 'classic' Lake District mtb routes that are fully legal and have been published in magazines, and handed out as maps for decades. Why haven't they ever been signposted? Surely stuff like the Borrowdale Bash, Back of Skidaw, Old man of Coniston should have had route markers by now?
There are quite a few signed routes around here - like the Welsh Coast Path, Gower Way, etc.
if I’m honest, and I know this is a selfish and somewhat arrogant PoV and others will disagree… but I quite like not having too many marked trails. I don’t want a plethora of paint dots and signs all over the hills and through the woods.
As a country, we aren't overly bothered about signposting walks and cycle trails...we like to talk about health and wellbeing, but we aren't overly keen on paying for the signage and the associated upkeep of the signposted network. Suspect maintaining the access with various landowners is also a headache.
Would be brilliant if it could be done, but then you also get everyone using them (exaggeration, but the footfall/wheels used increases) and the quiet spots become less so (maybe another reason why it isn't done).
An aging population and an unhealthy nation suggests we really should be trying to do more!
I'm trying to add images, which I've never had an issue with before, but dont seem able to today.
will try again later but here's some google map links.
Around Ainsa every town that a marked route passes through has a signboard with the route descriptions (so you can start at any point on the loop)
usually located where you're most likely to park. The red double dot arrows as cycle route markers seem common to both France and Spain.
This is the marking at the start point for a few walking routes outside Ainsa
i think it is because as a country all we have ever done is tick boxes. we have done this on all cycle infrastructure that is NOT to do with sustrans.
things get done to a bare minimum and the box is ticked then forgotten.
i spend a bit of time in france/holland/belgium where things are so well signposted and then looked after to the point of not even needing a map.
Because the few people that own everything barely tolerate the proles having a Sunday off, never mind traipsing all over their land.
Gerroff my laaand.
Also, responsibility for upkeep of footpaths, bridleways, stiles, gates, etc etc, and especially signage, is basically (not wholly, granted) down to local authorities in much of the UK, and we all know what's happened to their budgets in the last decade or two.
What supernova says. Where the likes of the NT own land, they’ll happy have route markers in place for walkers. Most of the rest of the land is owned by people who want to discourage walkers on their land, never mind cyclists and horse riders. Actively removing signs and closing up access is pretty normal, challenging local authorities to fight them on it (which takes years and costs money).
I'd always assumed that it's because we didn't want to dumb down the experience.
The replies above had never occurred to me....
But given the propensity towards signing pointless shit like "Danger Hot Water" on taps, I think I may be wrong on this one
Thinking about it a bit more, there are plenty of long distance walking trails with regular markers. Cycling/riding access is much more broken up, but marked and signposted routes do exist… Pennine Bridleway for example.
Signage is helpful to some but can also be a yet another man made object in the landscape. Do we really want paint splashes on rocks extra posts all over our upland areas?
In this day an age surely all we need is a QR code to scan at the trail head.
I think it’s great that the cycling uk routes aren’t signed. They are just a gpx file.
Did an 80km hike/walk in Germany recently, and think I needed the GPS/map maybe twice, where I missed a route marker.
I shudder to think how many different landowners and local authorities that covered.
And I also shudder to think how many different organisations, clubs, tourist boards etc. have walking/hiking/cycling/MTBing trail markers in that territorial patch too.
Several have sponsorship from local businesses, eg to help fund the sign boards etc. close to car parks.
Do we really want paint splashes on rocks extra posts all over our upland areas?
Those little three stripe paint splashes you see on the continent are so easily ignored if you want. As for posts… if there needs to be one to hold the FP or BW marker, then route markers added to it won’t matter. Different for Scotland though I suppose.
I do some voluntary work with the Scottish Rights of Way Society. If you've been here you might have seen some of our green signposts around. Traditionally they are at the start/end of our RoWs, but it's assumed that anyone choosing to walk or ride them has a degree of capability to read maps and so on. We might install smaller arrow markers in some more remote locations where there are a few tracks to choose from, but we avoid putting anything in truly "wild" areas.
You might argue that this is a bit elitist but, given the Scottish access laws allow folk to wander almost anywhere, just how many routes, tracks and paths do you think would be appropriate?
Before the West Highland Way was established there was a bit of a fightback from some of the outdoor bodies, concerned that the Way would create a corridor around which no free access would be allowed. That hasn't come to pass but I can see why it was raised.
There's generally plenty of marked walks if you go to a "destination" but we have far better maps than most countries so it's very easy to plan your own routes.
There's generally plenty of marked walks if you go to a "destination" but we have far better maps than most countries so it's very easy to plan your own routes.
that’s a good point - os maps are a cut above anything I’ve used elsewhere.
just how many routes, tracks and paths do you think would be appropriate?
some. Most areas have a few “classic” walks.
it just seems such an obvious “tourist board” thing to do. Make it easier for people, get more visitors.
it just seems such an obvious “tourist board” thing to do. Make it easier for people, get more visitors.
A lot of it is incredibly piecemeal. Old railway lines for instance - great linear trails such as Tissington Trail, Monsal Trail and so on. But then when you try to connect them up with anything useful, you run into all manner of access restrictions, obstructive landowners, National Park planning regulations...
There's also the issue of over-tourism. Case in point is the NC500 where as soon as it had a "name", it got flooded with people "doing the NC500" which caused its own problems in communities that simply don't have the infrastructure to cope with that many people. Three Peaks (Ingleborough / Whernside / Pen-y-Ghent) is another classic example. Horton-in Ribblesdale, the village at the centre of the Three Peaks is basically a massive car park at weekends and as a counterpoint to the tens of thousands of people who walk it every year raising money for charity is the exorbitant amounts of money that other charities such as Fix The Fells have to spend on maintaining the footpaths.
Signage is helpful to some but can also be a yet another man made object in the landscape. Do we really want paint splashes on rocks extra posts all over our upland areas?
Those landscapes being man-made monocultures of sheep pasture or pine plantations.
The Aínsa example is interesting. The bike/walking trails bring a huge amount of tourism to the town, sure, but there's also a massive amount of wild boar hunting. So if a trail gets blocked by a landslip or fallen tree, it gets flagged on the app and cleared in no time by one of several interested parties.
If I imagine the same scenario in the UK, it's a hand painted "BEWARE - BULL" sign (where there's no bull) dissuading ramblers from crossing the field, and various civil service departments "liaising" to get someone with a chainsaw to go clear the tree. I might be wrong.
Also, Aínsa is still very much an "enthusiast" destination, you've got Zaragoza, Lleida and Pamplona within a few hours but I shudder to think if it were within day-trip distance of the huge cities in Lancs/N Yorks
There's generally plenty of marked walks if you go to a "destination" but we have far better maps than most countries so it's very easy to plan your own routes.
This was exactly my first though.
Sure, some of those Alpine destinations have those lovely waymarked trails with cute blobs of paint on rocks. But they are the 'only' routes to take.
Compare with our countryside which is covered in ROW and all mapped extremely accurately, to a very high standard.
Compare with our countryside which is covered in ROW and all mapped extremely accurately, to a very high standard.
Somerset County Council have an Explore Somerset map where everything seems to be recorded in miniscule detail, almost unwieldly so. I don't know if the ROAM map thingy is national.
That ROAM map resembles the definitive maps on other council websites, albeit with a bit more detail than some.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/f23e0f4ecbe14060926671e1c116541d
Laura Laker is good on this, both in her book and in this episode of Streets Ahead. I'm sure there's something in there about one of the rail trails in Cornwall being in the top 5 tourist draws in the county.
I think a major part of the problem is that the UK is so car-centric. The idea that people might want to walk or travel by bike is so alien that there's no provision made for it and where it does exist it's very half-arsed. National Cycle Route 1 passes through Essex and it's sign posted, but there are so many chicane type fences and weeds growing along the bits of the route that I've seen
All over Germany (and France, and Belgium, and Holland and Spain, and just about anywhere else in the continent) you'll find signs for cycle routes and cycle paths.
In France you'll almost without fail find VVT routes you can follow regardless of where you are.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildtafel_der_Fahrradwegweiser_in_Deutschland?wprov=sfla1
^^ these are a common sight throughout Germany. I reckon you could ride from the North Sea to the Alps purely on cycle paths.
Cycled through France and Germany many times and hardly ever needed to look at a map or phone/GPS (in fact first few tours phones weren't a thing like they are now). Have a general idea of where you're heading and start riding.
Always shocked and saddened by the number of cars and lack of cyclists in the roads when I return to the UK. Not many people cycle locally or commute, but rather rely on their cars to get around.
No wonder there are so many fat people in the UK.
I think a major part of the problem is that the UK is so car-centric. The idea that people might want to walk or travel by bike is so alien that there's no provision made for it and where it does exist it's very half-arsed.
The counter point to that though is that people do and will want to cycle around the place. Difference being that in the UK they load the SUV up with bikes and drive to CenterParcs, an old railway line, a trail centre, a park etc and they ride round and round for a bit, go to the nice cafe then load the SUV up again and drive home.
One of the key selling points of CenterParcs is that it's car-free (apart from driving onto and off of the site in question, you don't drive around it) so it's safe and welcoming to all.
Remove the cars (or provide infrastructure away from cars such as proper decent cycle lanes) and people will happily cycle. Look at Paris, lots of central London, and obviously the usual Dutch / Danish candidates.
The issue with leisure trails as per this thread is that you're catering to an even smaller number of people than usual with cycling. If you provide safe accessible routes to work or school (with secure parking, maybe showers etc) for example, lots of people will ride to and from work or school. If you provide a waymarked trail, well that's something that needs to be done in leisure time, (usually) needs someone to drive you to and from it, and requires a lot more commitment and organisation than "10 minutes on a bike to get to work or school". Hence, smaller pool of people...
The counter point to that though is that people do and will want to cycle around the place. Difference being that in the UK they load the SUV up with bikes and drive to CenterParcs, an old railway line, a trail centre, a park etc and they ride round and round for a bit, go to the nice cafe then load the SUV up again and drive home
You're kinda proving what I said. Car-centric.
If there were decent bike paths made available people would use them, but unfortunately outside of London (and other cities) there aren't really that many places where bikes are seen simply a as a mode of transport as opposed to something to do on a weekend.
There's a massive network of relatively quiet country roads in the UK but they're not used by cyclists because many people don't know they exist.
Difference being that in the UK they load the SUV up with bikes and drive to CenterParcs, an old railway line, a trail centre, a park etc and they ride round and round for a bit, go to the nice cafe then load the SUV up again and drive home.
There are some projects to provide leisure routes that don't require SUVs to get to, but they're few in number, often used as an excuse not to provide proper active travel infrastructure, and even those that are reachable by train suffer from laughable rail bike provision.