RWGPS Paved/Unpaved Modality
 

Just discovered today that RWGPS has implemented a new paved/unpaved modality.
It is automatically implemented in all maps - current & previous - with dotted lines.
It's lousy and inaccurate - and users received no notice beforehand.

The problem when you have any program which locks you in -
Is that it is difficult to transport out your files.
Because they are unique to that program.

But I am very disappointed in RWGPS.
Again.

i noticed this as well, or rather noticed that it was not accurate initially. one obvious paved segment which was mis-categorized has now been fixed.

personally, i think it's a useful feature. i like to know when i'm going to be going off-road. also, it's VERY easily turned off. one click and it's gone from the map, another and it's gone from the elevation profile. it's also very clearly explained.

https://ridewithgps.com/help/surface-types

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...c2d52bc3b8.jpg

For many people it may be nice.
But I have hundreds of routes filed - some for cycling organizations -
And I should not have to go back and "fix" all of them.

I noticed the same thing two days ago. Wildly inaccurate. It showed paved that I have ridden on countless times as being unpaved. And I’m not talking rural roads.

I think it would be very useful if it were accurate, but how do I know if an unpaved road is being accurately presented as such if it inaccurately represents paved roads?

Exporting files from RWGPS is easy..in KML, GPX..etc standardized file formats. In those formats you can take them anywhere and use them. A bulk export would be nice, but exports are only one at a time as far as I know.

Just did a group ride this past Saturday, downloaded the RWGPS .gpx file the ride leader posted and magically many roads had turned into dirt/gravel roads. Didn't really impact anything - these were all roads I know. I'm sure they will rectify the problem, not planning on using RWGPS to go any route planning until they do.

I don't seem to have it the new "feature" on all my routes
 

I have the free version. I looked at my settings and the "Surfaces" line is missing on some routes. Some of the newest created routes are non-Surfaces but almost all of the older ones are Surfaces. Go figure.

I have noticed also that if you use the "Map" map setting instead of the "RWGPS" map setting, it doesn't show the various surfaces. It looks like they have maybe tried to incorporate some of OSM Cycle map's look.

I just always cross reference Google's satellite view if in doubt. Except for areas of the country that use a more bluish/black gravel (like the Palouse area of Washington) I can almost always tell if it is gravel or pavement by either the color and/or if there are tell-tale signs, i.e. tar cracks, patterns in the road, a change of color from side streets, etc. Sure it would be nice if the maps were totally accurate but many times the underlying map data from the state government is wildly out of date.

I know how to check. My question was somewhat rhetorical.

Here is day one of a tri[ I have planned for next month. Looks like it got most of it correct, but there is definitely one mistake. That first section shown as unpaved is 100%$ paved. I rode it three years ago.

[url=https://ridewithgps.com/routes/37033501]Dashboard · Ride with GPS

The map for Day 2 as at least one mistake. If you look at Street View where one road meets another, one of the road I will be riding looks unpaved. But if you switch to Satellite View you can clearly see that it's paved and even has a median stripe.

I think this will be nice once the data is better. After finding this I've been updating all ore club routes. I've also been updating OSM for the roads I know the surface type of. See https://ridewithgps.com/help/edit-routing-data

Again, to me RWGPS is just using the crappy data that is out there, just like OSM Cycle does. Yes, I wish the data was accuate but if it is their sources that are bad. They are only showing what was given to them. If you don't like the new look ( I don't either), just unclick Surfaces and use the Map map method.

i generally like RWGPS, except for a few very annoying bugs in the app that they haven’t been able to fix. their support was very responsive and professional but ultimately unhelpful. as a result i really only use it for route planning and visualizing upcoming elevation profiles while riding.

i don’t entirely trust their interpretation of roads and trails, so i do usually run a quick common sense check, or if i’m really not sure about an area, i’ll switch it to vehicular routing and make it show me definitively public paved roads.

i fail to understand how anything is lost with the new data - it’s not like it somehow prevents you from making the route, riding the route, etc. if you don’t trust or like the data just ignore it? does it actually damage the route data somehow? i looked at a dozen of my old routes on the phone app and they look exactly the same.

For one, I can see someone blindly trusting it and avoiding roads listed as unpaved which are, in fact, paved. (As we know, not every paved road is available to check out on Street View, and satellite imagery can be inconclusive.)

Interestingly, this afternoon I looked at another route I mapped out maybe a month or so ago. It now shows a random 0.3 mile stretch somewhere in the middle of of an 8 mil road segment as unpaved when it's not. I am curious to know how something like that happens. It's not like it was paved any time recently. I think I first traversed that road by car 45 years ago on the way to a week down the Jersey shore.

I've started informally calling some of my fair city's streets "allegedly paved." Maybe somebody heard me and decided streets and roads like that are now unpaved?

:)

If only it were that. Just rode it a few weeks ago. Smooth as ever.

Now I am curious to check my other mapped routes.

whatever the data set is, it has some very random little glitches.

somehow this one partial segment of downtown city street is unpaved. :twitchy:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...1d48d58fc7.jpg

It's beginning to look like another Edsel roll-out.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6ac14ac618.jpg

Personally, I'm in awe at the excellence of RWGPS. I planned an entire 2 week tour in the Czech Republic with it, and the data was flawless, though it's always possible to be confused or taken aback when things don't look like you expected. I have hundreds of routes planned with it. If I want to check out if a road is gravel, I zoom in using Satellite view. That works well IME. I'll leave Surfaces turned off, no need for it. It's remarkable how well it can estimate my riding time for a new route.

Well..if RWGPS is a such total disappointment..there are a dozen or two other applications you can use..for free..pick one and go. That'll shown'em..or develop your own system and do it the "right way".

I've used RWGPS for years and it's been excellent. So they try something new and it needs some tweaking..not unheard of in the R&D world. They'll figure it out. (It's good to know of the potential for errors..the edsel thing is a bit much..)

Hey Fishboat - -

I've been using RWGPS for years - and paying for it, too.
Yes, I can go elsewhere, but as a long-term paying customer, I expect better.
And, no, I shouldn't have to go out and make my own website.
That's what I have been paying for over the years.

At least, that's how the customer service model used to work back in 1958.
Acceptable loss has replaced customer retention -
When marketing discovered that it is cheaper to hustle up new customers that make good.
In addition, Ford couldn't change how your Edsel operated once you bought it back in 1958.
You know - like switching where the brake and gas pedals are.

Forgive me, but I though one of the aspirations of the digital age -
Was more choice, not less.

Let's start a petition to regain the CS of 1958..that'll go far. Man screams at cloud..more news at 11!

I worked in RDE for 30+ years. Sometimes, sometimes a launch of something new has unintended consequences. The people in RDE are overwhelming trying to do something valuable and useful..you know..like you think you're doing. Their career isn't based on, "..let's see..how can we hose our customers today!"

Rather than giving them a proctology exam on day 2 of a launch, maybe report the issue to them and wait a bit to see how they handle it? If they ignore the issue a month or two down the line, well, then I suppose it's open season. If they lose business..it's their problem. If you need to go somewhere else..take a deep breath..you might learn something..like exporting files in a generic, industry standard, easily transferrable format.

That said..thanks for making us aware of the issue..though all of us users would have noticed this quite soon anyway. The rest of the (continued) drama..is just... needless drama.

..and the ignore list goes N+1

Obviously there are issues with the underlaying data base. It does nothing to show where a paved road transitions to dirt on the section I just checked, Adirondacks, NY

I think the idea that this feature "ruins" RWGPS is overwrought.

Moving off of RWGPS for this feature seems drastic. And what you move to might end up implementing it too.

It's easy enough to ignore it or turn it off.

I wonder what data they are using and whether they use OSM with the OSM maps.

Good question. I've only seen one online map data base that does an OK job at showing you what road is gravel/dirt and what's asphalt and that is Gaia GPS. Even there you need to consult the legend to verify road surface as they let you download a lot of different maps, Gaia Topo, USGS Topo, Nat'l Geo, etc... Gravel Maps does some good stuff, but it functions like TrailForks in that a road surface would be indicated as gravel IF somebody road and tracked a ride, then uploaded or traced a route.

Heck, I wonder where anybody gets the data. Gaia is getting it from somewhere.

​​​​​​At the present, I'd expect this info not to be great.

Focused things like trailforks is probably fine but it's also limited in coverage. Also, the data they have is access limited (unlike info in OSM).