Touring pics
05-03-16, 09:04 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Salem Oregon
Posts: 1,019
Bikes: 2019 Trek Stash 7, 1994 Specialized Epic 1986 Diamondback Ascent 1996 Klein Pulse Comp, 2006 Specialized Sequoia Elite
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked 463 Times
in
263 Posts
05-04-16, 12:41 AM
#30
Crazyguyonabike
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lebanon, OR
Posts: 697
Bikes: Co-Motion Divide
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
Even if there are 2 billion photos, this thread is still a fun spot to share some more. The presence of a photo host does not invalidate anyone asking for pics!
Also, am I the only one? Crazy Guy on a Bike was the first website (and that's cool!), but their interface is so antiquated, I don't even bother with it. It's just not user-friendly anymore. Not saying it has to be updated- I just won't use it.
Also, am I the only one? Crazy Guy on a Bike was the first website (and that's cool!), but their interface is so antiquated, I don't even bother with it. It's just not user-friendly anymore. Not saying it has to be updated- I just won't use it.
05-04-16, 01:16 AM
#31
Crazyguyonabike
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lebanon, OR
Posts: 697
Bikes: Co-Motion Divide
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
I know this thread isn't supposed to be about crazyguyonabike, and I'm not the one that kept bringing it up. But since there are some really gratuitously disparaging comments being thrown around, I think I have a right to respond.
I respectfully disagree that anything about crazyguyonabike is "outdated". That is purely a matter of personal opinion. The website has a purposely simple design in terms of html, one that has scaled just fine from 100 to over 10,000 journals. Crazyguyonabike is unusual in that it has been developed and run from day one by a single developer - me. As a result, the website hasn't seen any of those "total redesign version 2.0" fiascos that so many other websites have fallen prey to. As in, you have a website that works, which the users know, and then one day the developers get some bright idea about "updating" it to use the current shiny new back-end resume-friendly buzzword application framework, and on the front end here come the inevitable pastel shaded boxes with rounded corners and huge fonts and popup menus everywhere and way too much white space. And, usually, in the process of doing this total redesign, this "we'll get it right *this* time", you lose all the little bits and pieces of design wisdom that had been accumulated over the years that the original version had been developed. So you have the new rewrite, with a new look and missing features and maybe even a new website focus, and the users hate it. And often you never even get back to the same level of functionality that you had before. Eventually the users might get used to it, just in time for the next redesign churn cycle. I don't like it, never have, and I don't want to subject my users to it. I like the design of crazyguyonabike, there's nothing "outdated" about it. There are real links to every part of the site (and they are real links that you can bookmark, not fake Javascript magic buttons that break bookmarking and the "Back" button). You can get around anywhere on the site with a few clicks.
Is it pretty? Does it have rounded corners? Does it have pastel shades? Nope. But it works! And it's fast. And most people find the design much more intuitive for ACTUALLY READING A JOURNAL than most of those "modern blogs" people go on about. When I go to one of those modern blogs, what do I see? A page that takes 10 minutes to load because it has ten zillion full size pics on it, ordered latest first, with no table of contents, and no way to easily get an overview of the journal (or, sometimes, even find the journal). The page takes so long to load because it has lots of Javascript junk and 10 different CSS style sheets to load separately. What's better about that? Hey, if you like a simple design that asks nothing at all of the user and copies Facebook's braindead ethos, then good for you. But my website is functional. It works. You read a journal by clicking 'Next' and 'Prev'. There's text and pics, in a simple layout that emphasises the content, not the ego of the website designer. What's wrong with that? Is functional and "just works" outdated now? If so, then I take pride in being outdated.
And what is so "uninviting" about the Serendipity page? It shows 30 thumbnails in about the simplest way possible. You are getting a random sample of over two million pictures, and you can very quickly see if there's anything there that looks interesting. If so, you just click on it, and there you are in the relevant journal (or forum thread, or whatever). What's "uninviting" about it? Is it that I don't present them one at a time with a billion ads? Or that I don't tease you with "You won't believe what pic 17 shows you!"? I'm not interested in all that manipulative crap. Here's 30 thumbnails, you're an adult, do you really need to be hand-held to figure out if any of them look interesting? Come on.
Secondly, the comment about it being run by a cash-strapped developer and not being likely to change anytime soon. I am still actively developing the site. It's true that I have my pits and troughs when it comes to getting things done. I've been running the thing for a long time, for free, so please give me a break if I don't always run the site like a corporation that has a team of 10 developers and 4 sysadmins and a marketing department and who knows what else. I do everything myself. And in the meantime I try to have a life as well as answering people's questions (often within 5 minutes of them asking). So sorry.
In any event, I do have big plans for the site, new features, improvements to the layout for small screens, special apps for Android and iOS which will have cool features leveraging stuff like location services, a new maps browser, a wiki section to replace the Resources, ability to subscribe to journals and authors, social networking features (as makes sense - the good stuff, not the evil)... lots of stuff. And I'll update the sparse design as and when it makes sense to do that. I'll use Javascript and CSS when I think it makes sense. And I'll continue to do things in the most simple, bare, minimalist manner which makes sense to me as a developer, and appeals to me in terms of user interface design and functionality. It's never been about flashy graphics or pastel shaded boxes for me, it's always been about what works.
I don't want to turn this thread into an argument, but I didn't bring up crazyguyonabike, these other people did. Some of them seem to have a definite chip on their shoulder - is it personal? Some of these comments seem a little bit unnecessarily spiteful, coming out of nowhere, when the thread wasn't even supposed to be about crazyguyonabike. So please, post your pics here, but if you don't like my website, I don't see why you have to go spreading such gratuitous negativity.
Moderator, I hope you'll let this post stand, I don't intend to pursue an argument here, but since I seem to have been the target of some really disparaging remarks, I think I had the right to respond.
Neil
I respectfully disagree that anything about crazyguyonabike is "outdated". That is purely a matter of personal opinion. The website has a purposely simple design in terms of html, one that has scaled just fine from 100 to over 10,000 journals. Crazyguyonabike is unusual in that it has been developed and run from day one by a single developer - me. As a result, the website hasn't seen any of those "total redesign version 2.0" fiascos that so many other websites have fallen prey to. As in, you have a website that works, which the users know, and then one day the developers get some bright idea about "updating" it to use the current shiny new back-end resume-friendly buzzword application framework, and on the front end here come the inevitable pastel shaded boxes with rounded corners and huge fonts and popup menus everywhere and way too much white space. And, usually, in the process of doing this total redesign, this "we'll get it right *this* time", you lose all the little bits and pieces of design wisdom that had been accumulated over the years that the original version had been developed. So you have the new rewrite, with a new look and missing features and maybe even a new website focus, and the users hate it. And often you never even get back to the same level of functionality that you had before. Eventually the users might get used to it, just in time for the next redesign churn cycle. I don't like it, never have, and I don't want to subject my users to it. I like the design of crazyguyonabike, there's nothing "outdated" about it. There are real links to every part of the site (and they are real links that you can bookmark, not fake Javascript magic buttons that break bookmarking and the "Back" button). You can get around anywhere on the site with a few clicks.
Is it pretty? Does it have rounded corners? Does it have pastel shades? Nope. But it works! And it's fast. And most people find the design much more intuitive for ACTUALLY READING A JOURNAL than most of those "modern blogs" people go on about. When I go to one of those modern blogs, what do I see? A page that takes 10 minutes to load because it has ten zillion full size pics on it, ordered latest first, with no table of contents, and no way to easily get an overview of the journal (or, sometimes, even find the journal). The page takes so long to load because it has lots of Javascript junk and 10 different CSS style sheets to load separately. What's better about that? Hey, if you like a simple design that asks nothing at all of the user and copies Facebook's braindead ethos, then good for you. But my website is functional. It works. You read a journal by clicking 'Next' and 'Prev'. There's text and pics, in a simple layout that emphasises the content, not the ego of the website designer. What's wrong with that? Is functional and "just works" outdated now? If so, then I take pride in being outdated.
And what is so "uninviting" about the Serendipity page? It shows 30 thumbnails in about the simplest way possible. You are getting a random sample of over two million pictures, and you can very quickly see if there's anything there that looks interesting. If so, you just click on it, and there you are in the relevant journal (or forum thread, or whatever). What's "uninviting" about it? Is it that I don't present them one at a time with a billion ads? Or that I don't tease you with "You won't believe what pic 17 shows you!"? I'm not interested in all that manipulative crap. Here's 30 thumbnails, you're an adult, do you really need to be hand-held to figure out if any of them look interesting? Come on.
Secondly, the comment about it being run by a cash-strapped developer and not being likely to change anytime soon. I am still actively developing the site. It's true that I have my pits and troughs when it comes to getting things done. I've been running the thing for a long time, for free, so please give me a break if I don't always run the site like a corporation that has a team of 10 developers and 4 sysadmins and a marketing department and who knows what else. I do everything myself. And in the meantime I try to have a life as well as answering people's questions (often within 5 minutes of them asking). So sorry.
In any event, I do have big plans for the site, new features, improvements to the layout for small screens, special apps for Android and iOS which will have cool features leveraging stuff like location services, a new maps browser, a wiki section to replace the Resources, ability to subscribe to journals and authors, social networking features (as makes sense - the good stuff, not the evil)... lots of stuff. And I'll update the sparse design as and when it makes sense to do that. I'll use Javascript and CSS when I think it makes sense. And I'll continue to do things in the most simple, bare, minimalist manner which makes sense to me as a developer, and appeals to me in terms of user interface design and functionality. It's never been about flashy graphics or pastel shaded boxes for me, it's always been about what works.
I don't want to turn this thread into an argument, but I didn't bring up crazyguyonabike, these other people did. Some of them seem to have a definite chip on their shoulder - is it personal? Some of these comments seem a little bit unnecessarily spiteful, coming out of nowhere, when the thread wasn't even supposed to be about crazyguyonabike. So please, post your pics here, but if you don't like my website, I don't see why you have to go spreading such gratuitous negativity.
Moderator, I hope you'll let this post stand, I don't intend to pursue an argument here, but since I seem to have been the target of some really disparaging remarks, I think I had the right to respond.
Neil
Last edited by NeilGunton; 05-04-16 at 11:34 AM.
05-04-16, 04:22 AM
#33
Grace Johnson
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
First of all, a plug for the non-commercial bicycle touring magazine that I publish online. The latest edition of Bicycle Traveler is full of great cycle touring images from photographers around the world. You can download it for free at: www.bicycletraveler.nl
Also wanted to say - kudos to Neil Gunton and his Crazy Guy on a bikewebsite!
My husband and I met a lot of long distance touring cyclists during our multi-year bike tour and the most referred to resource by far was: Crazy guy on a bike. (Andes by bike and Travelling Two were a very distant second and third.)
The reasons:
Just before they enter a new country, cyclists want to research good, traffic free routes, information on money, etc. So instead of spending hours trying to google wordpress bicycle touring blogs (very time-consuming since google ranks commercial bicycle tour companies ahead of individual cycle travellers). So instead they head to crazy guy on a bike since the site lists scores of cycling journals on almost every country in the world.
The way the journals are set up on CGOAB encourages the cyclists to write down factual information such as distance cycled per day, where they slept, etc. These are important facts if you want to know road conditions (kms cycled per day will give an indication of road conditions, hills, etc.) plus other important info. Many cycling blogs (including our own) don’t include this type of information and are just full of pretty pictures and / or short atmospheric yet uninformative articles.
The Crazy guy on a bike hosts Bill Weir’s very informative Asia journals. Bill has cycled almost everywhere in Asia and numerous cyclists were “pedalling in the footsteps of Bill”.
The majority of multi-year bike trip blogs disappear from the web a couple of years after the cyclist has finished their tour. This could be due to the site being hacked, the cyclist not wanting to pay for website hosting, the cyclist has “moved on” in his life and no longer wishes to maintain the website, etc. This is a pity since a lot of good information is being lost. Neil maintains the CGOAB site so that no cycling journals, even ones from years ago, are lost.
The advantage of Crazyguy is that it has a singular focus on bike touring. One doesn't have to search the blogosphere to find touring journals. .. it serves a purpose and is easy to use.
My husband and I met a lot of long distance touring cyclists during our multi-year bike tour and the most referred to resource by far was: Crazy guy on a bike. (Andes by bike and Travelling Two were a very distant second and third.)
The reasons:
Just before they enter a new country, cyclists want to research good, traffic free routes, information on money, etc. So instead of spending hours trying to google wordpress bicycle touring blogs (very time-consuming since google ranks commercial bicycle tour companies ahead of individual cycle travellers). So instead they head to crazy guy on a bike since the site lists scores of cycling journals on almost every country in the world.
The way the journals are set up on CGOAB encourages the cyclists to write down factual information such as distance cycled per day, where they slept, etc. These are important facts if you want to know road conditions (kms cycled per day will give an indication of road conditions, hills, etc.) plus other important info. Many cycling blogs (including our own) don’t include this type of information and are just full of pretty pictures and / or short atmospheric yet uninformative articles.
The Crazy guy on a bike hosts Bill Weir’s very informative Asia journals. Bill has cycled almost everywhere in Asia and numerous cyclists were “pedalling in the footsteps of Bill”.
The majority of multi-year bike trip blogs disappear from the web a couple of years after the cyclist has finished their tour. This could be due to the site being hacked, the cyclist not wanting to pay for website hosting, the cyclist has “moved on” in his life and no longer wishes to maintain the website, etc. This is a pity since a lot of good information is being lost. Neil maintains the CGOAB site so that no cycling journals, even ones from years ago, are lost.
Likes For Grace Johnson:
05-04-16, 04:32 AM
#34
Homey
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,498
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked 1,343 Times
in
863 Posts
I know this thread isn't supposed to be about crazyguyonabike, and I'm not the one that kept bringing it up. But since there are some really gratuitously disparaging comments being thrown around, I think I have a right to respond.
I respectfully disagree that anything about crazyguyonabike is "outdated". That is purely a matter of personal opinion. The website has a purposely simple design in terms of html, one that has scaled just fine from 100 to over 10,000 journals. Crazyguyonabike is unusual in that it has been developed and run from day one by a single developer - me. As a result, the website hasn't seen any of those "total redesign version 2.0" fiascos that so many other websites have fallen prey to. As in, you have a website that works, which the users know, and then one day the developers get some bright idea about "updating" it to use the current shiny new back-end resume-friendly buzzword application framework, and on the front end here come the inevitable pastel shaded boxes with rounded corners and huge fonts and popup menus everywhere and way too much white space. And, usually, in the process of doing this total redesign, this "we'll get it right *this* time", you lose all the little bits and pieces of design wisdom that had been accumulated over the years that the original version had been developed. So you have the new rewrite, with a new look and missing features and maybe even a new website focus, and the users hate it. And often you never even get back to the same level of functionality that you had before. Eventually the users might get used to it, just in time for the next redesign churn cycle. I don't like it, never have, and I don't want to subject my users to it. I like the design of crazyguyonabike, there's nothing "outdated" about it. There are real links to every part of the site (and they are real links that you can bookmark, not fake Javascript magic buttons that break bookmarking and the "Back" button). You can get around anywhere on the site with a few clicks.
Is it pretty? Does it have rounded corners? Does it have pastel shades? Nope. But it works! And it's fast. And most people find the design much more intuitive for ACTUALLY READING A JOURNAL than most of those "modern blogs" people go on about. When I go to one of those modern blogs, what do I see? A page that takes 10 minutes to load because it has ten zillion full size pics on it, ordered latest first, with no table of contents, and no way to easily get an overview of the journal (or, sometimes, even find the journal). The page takes so long to load because it has lots of Javascript junk and 10 different CSS style sheets to load separately. What's better about that? Hey, if you like a simple design that asks nothing at all of the user and copies Facebook's braindead ethos, then good for you. But my website is functional. It works. You read a journal by clicking 'Next' and 'Prev'. There's text and pics, in a simple layout that emphasises the content, not the ego of the website designer. What's wrong with that? Is functional and "just works" outdated now? If so, then I take pride in being outdated.
And what is so "uninviting" about the Serendipity page? It shows 30 thumbnails in about the simplest way possible. You are getting a random sample of over two million pictures, and you can very quickly see if there's anything there that looks interesting. If so, you just click on it, and there you are in the relevant journal (or forum thread, or whatever). What's "uninviting" about it? Is it that I don't present them one at a time with a billion ads? Or that I don't tease you with "You won't believe what pic 17 shows you!"? I'm not interested in all that manipulative crap. Here's 30 thumbnails, you're an adult, do you really need to be hand-held to figure out if any of them look interesting? Come on.
Secondly, the comment about it being run by a cash-strapped developer and not being likely to change anytime soon. I am still actively developing the site. It's true that I have my pits and troughs when it comes to getting things done. I've been running the thing for a long time, for free, so please give me a break if I don't always run the site like a corporation that has a team of 10 developers and 4 sysadmins and a marketing department and who knows what else. I do everything myself. And in the meantime I try to have a life as well as answering people's questions (often within 5 minutes of them asking). So sorry.
In any event, I do have big plans for the site, new features, improvements to the layout for small screens, special apps for Android and iOS which will have cool features leveraging stuff like location services, a new maps browser, a wiki section to replace the Resources, ability to subscribe to journals and authors, social networking features (as makes sense - the good stuff, not the evil)... lots of stuff. And I'll update the sparse design as and when it makes sense to do that. I'll use Javascript and CSS when I think it makes sense. And I'll continue to do things in the most simple, bare, minimalist manner which makes sense to me as a developer, and appeals to me in terms of user interface design and functionality. It's never been about flashy graphics or pastel shaded boxes for me, it's always been about what works.
I don't want to turn this thread into an argument, but I didn't bring up crazyguyonabike, these other people did. Some of them seem to have a definite chip on their shoulder - is it personal? Some of these comments seem a little bit unnecessarily spiteful, coming out of nowhere, when the thread wasn't even supposed to be about crazyguyonabike. So please, post your pics here, but if you don't like my website, I don't see why you have to go spreading such gratuitous negativity.
Moderator, I hope you'll let this post stand, I don't intend to pursue an argument here, but since I seem to have been the target of some really disparaging remarks, I think I had the right to respond.
Neil
I respectfully disagree that anything about crazyguyonabike is "outdated". That is purely a matter of personal opinion. The website has a purposely simple design in terms of html, one that has scaled just fine from 100 to over 10,000 journals. Crazyguyonabike is unusual in that it has been developed and run from day one by a single developer - me. As a result, the website hasn't seen any of those "total redesign version 2.0" fiascos that so many other websites have fallen prey to. As in, you have a website that works, which the users know, and then one day the developers get some bright idea about "updating" it to use the current shiny new back-end resume-friendly buzzword application framework, and on the front end here come the inevitable pastel shaded boxes with rounded corners and huge fonts and popup menus everywhere and way too much white space. And, usually, in the process of doing this total redesign, this "we'll get it right *this* time", you lose all the little bits and pieces of design wisdom that had been accumulated over the years that the original version had been developed. So you have the new rewrite, with a new look and missing features and maybe even a new website focus, and the users hate it. And often you never even get back to the same level of functionality that you had before. Eventually the users might get used to it, just in time for the next redesign churn cycle. I don't like it, never have, and I don't want to subject my users to it. I like the design of crazyguyonabike, there's nothing "outdated" about it. There are real links to every part of the site (and they are real links that you can bookmark, not fake Javascript magic buttons that break bookmarking and the "Back" button). You can get around anywhere on the site with a few clicks.
Is it pretty? Does it have rounded corners? Does it have pastel shades? Nope. But it works! And it's fast. And most people find the design much more intuitive for ACTUALLY READING A JOURNAL than most of those "modern blogs" people go on about. When I go to one of those modern blogs, what do I see? A page that takes 10 minutes to load because it has ten zillion full size pics on it, ordered latest first, with no table of contents, and no way to easily get an overview of the journal (or, sometimes, even find the journal). The page takes so long to load because it has lots of Javascript junk and 10 different CSS style sheets to load separately. What's better about that? Hey, if you like a simple design that asks nothing at all of the user and copies Facebook's braindead ethos, then good for you. But my website is functional. It works. You read a journal by clicking 'Next' and 'Prev'. There's text and pics, in a simple layout that emphasises the content, not the ego of the website designer. What's wrong with that? Is functional and "just works" outdated now? If so, then I take pride in being outdated.
And what is so "uninviting" about the Serendipity page? It shows 30 thumbnails in about the simplest way possible. You are getting a random sample of over two million pictures, and you can very quickly see if there's anything there that looks interesting. If so, you just click on it, and there you are in the relevant journal (or forum thread, or whatever). What's "uninviting" about it? Is it that I don't present them one at a time with a billion ads? Or that I don't tease you with "You won't believe what pic 17 shows you!"? I'm not interested in all that manipulative crap. Here's 30 thumbnails, you're an adult, do you really need to be hand-held to figure out if any of them look interesting? Come on.
Secondly, the comment about it being run by a cash-strapped developer and not being likely to change anytime soon. I am still actively developing the site. It's true that I have my pits and troughs when it comes to getting things done. I've been running the thing for a long time, for free, so please give me a break if I don't always run the site like a corporation that has a team of 10 developers and 4 sysadmins and a marketing department and who knows what else. I do everything myself. And in the meantime I try to have a life as well as answering people's questions (often within 5 minutes of them asking). So sorry.
In any event, I do have big plans for the site, new features, improvements to the layout for small screens, special apps for Android and iOS which will have cool features leveraging stuff like location services, a new maps browser, a wiki section to replace the Resources, ability to subscribe to journals and authors, social networking features (as makes sense - the good stuff, not the evil)... lots of stuff. And I'll update the sparse design as and when it makes sense to do that. I'll use Javascript and CSS when I think it makes sense. And I'll continue to do things in the most simple, bare, minimalist manner which makes sense to me as a developer, and appeals to me in terms of user interface design and functionality. It's never been about flashy graphics or pastel shaded boxes for me, it's always been about what works.
I don't want to turn this thread into an argument, but I didn't bring up crazyguyonabike, these other people did. Some of them seem to have a definite chip on their shoulder - is it personal? Some of these comments seem a little bit unnecessarily spiteful, coming out of nowhere, when the thread wasn't even supposed to be about crazyguyonabike. So please, post your pics here, but if you don't like my website, I don't see why you have to go spreading such gratuitous negativity.
Moderator, I hope you'll let this post stand, I don't intend to pursue an argument here, but since I seem to have been the target of some really disparaging remarks, I think I had the right to respond.
Neil
05-04-16, 04:59 AM
#35
Salmon Glacier Alaska
Here's my bicycle on the way to the summit to take the photo:
Last edited by BigAura; 05-04-16 at 01:57 PM. Reason: added bike pic
05-04-16, 05:58 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Universe Spain
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
193 Posts
I know this thread isn't supposed to be about crazyguyonabike, and I'm not the one that kept bringing it up. But since there are some really gratuitously disparaging comments being thrown around, I think I have a right to respond.
I respectfully disagree that anything about crazyguyonabike is "outdated". That is purely a matter of personal opinion.
Neil
I respectfully disagree that anything about crazyguyonabike is "outdated". That is purely a matter of personal opinion.
Neil
https://donalrey.exposure.co
I don't want to spend hours to find nice pictures or the right story.
05-04-16, 06:09 AM
#38
Hooked on Touring
Neil is absolutely right.
If people are going to disparage him and Crazyguy - then he has the right to respond.
Neil has made a major contribution to the touring community -
And some people who may have managed a three-hour tour are whinging.
The hypocrisy in this thread is deafening.
If people are going to disparage him and Crazyguy - then he has the right to respond.
Neil has made a major contribution to the touring community -
And some people who may have managed a three-hour tour are whinging.
The hypocrisy in this thread is deafening.
Likes For jamawani:
05-04-16, 06:13 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 1,090
Bikes: 1980's Spectrum 10 sp Campagnolo Centaur, 1990 Eddy Merckx 10 sp Campagnolo Centaur, Bushnell Tandem, Co-Motion Speedster Tandem
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked 100 Times
in
63 Posts
Thank you Neil for CGOAB!
Love seeing the pictures here too, keep them coming.
Love seeing the pictures here too, keep them coming.
05-04-16, 06:22 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 38,098
Mentioned: 209 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17732 Post(s)
Liked 14,053 Times
in
6,675 Posts
Chief Mountain:
05-04-16, 06:36 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,923
Bikes: Nature Boy 853 Disc, Pugsley SS
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Edit: I think it's best if I keep my comments to myself and let everyone else do whatever they want with their own site. Sorry for causing trouble.
Last edited by mdilthey; 05-04-16 at 01:15 PM.
05-04-16, 06:50 AM
#42
Hooked on Touring
CGOAB rocks.
If you want to see good bicycle touring photos - -
Plus, if you are interested in reading, indeed, reading - -
It is the go-to website.
Kudos to Neil
If you want to see good bicycle touring photos - -
Plus, if you are interested in reading, indeed, reading - -
It is the go-to website.
Kudos to Neil
Likes For jamawani:
05-04-16, 06:58 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Universe Spain
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
193 Posts
right!
there was no offence anywhere, neither something "unnecessarily spiteful"
just opinions, and when you expose yourself in www sometimes it happens that people have a different opinion than yours.... thats life, any problem.
""""The ultralight backpackers are the "serious" backpackers""""
your only a serious touring guy if you carry 40-50kgs of load
))
there was no offence anywhere, neither something "unnecessarily spiteful"
just opinions, and when you expose yourself in www sometimes it happens that people have a different opinion than yours.... thats life, any problem.
""""The ultralight backpackers are the "serious" backpackers""""
your only a serious touring guy if you carry 40-50kgs of load
))
Likes For str:
05-04-16, 07:10 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,923
Bikes: Nature Boy 853 Disc, Pugsley SS
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
https://vimeo.com/164231071
Not mine, but fun. A trailer for a longer video to come, in about a month.
Not mine, but fun. A trailer for a longer video to come, in about a month.
Last edited by mdilthey; 05-04-16 at 01:15 PM.
05-04-16, 09:32 AM
#50
Grace Johnson
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Attractive, high-resolution photo hosting
Plus high-resolution images are great to see when the person is a good photographer. When the cyclist isn’t one – than I prefer viewing smaller low-res pictures – they are easier and faster to scroll through.
Cyclists can already photo host on sites such as Flickr. One of the reasons why people are leaving the Flickr community is because a lot of Flickr users are doing “photo dumps” – uploading all of the pictures from their camera card at once without editing the images beforehand. Then with all of their pictures from the “photo dump” (even non bicycle touring images) they then dump them into the Flickr bicycle touring group...
It’s exasperating when someone writes me that they want to contribute a photo and send me the link to their Flickr site – which turns out to contain hundreds of un-edited pictures – many of which have no relation with their bike trip.
Even Adventure Cycling writes in the photography submission guidelines:
Also keep in mind that we are extremely busy and being asked to browse hundreds or thousands of photos online is not our idea of a good time. If you are serious about being published in Adventure Cyclist, you'll need to submit only your best “selects”...
Actual publishing avenues for strong writers in the community to share trip stories
Newsletters that push relevant and exciting content to members
Newsletters that push relevant and exciting content to members
At this time the digital magazines are the places to look for links to some of the best individual bicycle touring writers and photographer’s websites.
And not to lose site of the original subject – here are some bike touring pics
Baralacha-La pass on the Leh - Manali highway in North India
Rickshaw near Delhi, India
Cycling in Tajikistan
Camping in Kyrgyzstan
Last edited by Grace Johnson; 05-04-16 at 09:33 AM. Reason: some formatting mistakes
