Apparently, the newest Cycling UK route is now complete and the gpx can be downloaded.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/west-kernow-way

I'd be interested in seeing a gradient profile for that. I know a few people who are very experienced hillwalkers who were very surprised at the amount of up and down on the South West Coast Path.

I'd be interested in seeing a gradient profile for that.

Download it and open it in bikehike.co.uk

I hope Matt is riding it as we type

Says 4,200m of climbing in the blurb, over 230km

That's about 14,000 ft in just over 140 miles. Definitely hilly

The flat Cornwall route needs a kayak ;-)

Dave Barter wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:24 am The flat Cornwall route needs a kayak ;-)

I looked at that this morning and downloaded it to komoot (keeping it to the original track). Says 77 miles of road. Seems a very high percentage?

rufus748 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:22 pm I looked at that this morning and downloaded it to komoot (keeping it to the original track). Says 77 miles of road. Seems a very high percentage?

Cornwall is not very bridlewaytastic

benp1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:22 am Says 4,200m of climbing in the blurb, over 230km

That's about 14,000 ft in just over 140 miles. Definitely hilly

I don't think of that as being 'hilly' as it's only 100ft per mile, same as the Isle of Wight if riding off road. The Brauton 150 is just over 140 miles with 21,000 feet of climbing, BB300 in 2019 was 200 miles and 27,000 feet, that's hilly

I'll have to have a proper look at the route, I'd guess good weather would be essential as it looks exposed following the coast.

sean_iow wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:37 pm BB300 in 2019 was 200 miles and 27,000 feet, that's hilly

Kin ell! Just out of interest, how much climbing does one tend to rack up over 125 miles in the bb200? Pro rata? Just asking for a (heavy) friend.

Retiredtester wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:34 pm

sean_iow wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:37 pm BB300 in 2019 was 200 miles and 27,000 feet, that's hilly

Kin ell! Just out of interest, how much climbing does one tend to rack up over 125 miles in the bb200? Pro rata? Just asking for a (heavy) friend.

Just shy of 4900m in 2018 according to my Strava

Blimey. He'd better get training.

sean_iow wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:37 pm

benp1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:22 am Says 4,200m of climbing in the blurb, over 230km

That's about 14,000 ft in just over 140 miles. Definitely hilly

I don't think of that as being 'hilly' as it's only 100ft per mile, same as the Isle of Wight if riding off road.

For me, 100ft per mile is the definition of hilly. I'm the other side of the solent from you and I still have it as my benchmark for a ride here. Anything more than that is just hillier until it gets ridiculous

I did 22 miles and 2,150 ft of climbing on my mtb club ride last night, nothing ridiculous but it definitely wasn't flat

Retiredtester wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:34 pmJust out of interest, how much climbing does one tend to rack up over 125 miles in the bb200? Pro rata? Just asking for a (heavy) friend.

Strava reckons I did 6,443m over 204.64km for the 2020 edition. That includes at least 2 wrong turns where I had to backtrack uphill.

I tend to think of my normal riding area as the baseline.

Over 100 ft per mile = hilly
Under 100 ft per mile = flat

But my choice of a single gear does highlight any deviations from the norm more

Don't know about you but 2000m over 100km that's made up of 2 Alpine climbs at 8% feels very different in my legs to 2000m over 100km of the hills of Devon or Wales. And we need to include a factor for frequency of stopping at the top because the views are great.

Landslide wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:16 am

Retiredtester wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:34 pmJust out of interest, how much climbing does one tend to rack up over 125 miles in the bb200? Pro rata? Just asking for a (heavy) friend.

Strava reckons I did 6,443m over 204.64km for the 2020 edition. That includes at least 2 wrong turns where I had to backtrack uphill.

This is getting worse. No more upping of the ante required, thanks

UnderTheRadars wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:36 am I hope Matt is riding it as we type

Oooops, sorry!
I think being Cornwall, waiting until Winter will be best.

What is most interesting to me about this route is that it contains several sections which are not currently classified as Rights of Way. This isn't just a few hundred metres of footpath, that you could choose to push your bike along, but sections of several miles such as the Tinner's Way between Zennor and St Just.

Cycling UK are justifying this on the basis that the relevant sections have been misrecorded on the ROW map as footpaths. They claim, and have collated evidence to back this up, that they are, historically, roads, which ought to be open to cyclists. They have lodged applications to change them on the council's ROW map. But as this process can take years to complete, they believe cyclists are within their rights to ride them now, on the basis that there is an ancient right of way but it has not been properly recorded. Kie Foster, who designed this route and King Alfred's Way, has written a really informative blog post on the issues involved here:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c1 ... 9face73249

This is quite an interesting approach - CUK describe it as 'assertive', others might consider it daring or even cavalier. As someone who writes guidebooks, whenever I've taken the odd liberty with a ROW it invariably comes back to haunt me. Angry emails from the landowners, upset readers who have been shouted at on the trail. As a result I tend to avoid it.

But CUK are making a very conscious and deliberate move - as part of a wider political campaign about the lack of ROWs for cycling. What do you think? Is this the spirit of the radical ramblers of Winter Hill and Kinder Scout, or a rash move that will all end in tears?

This is quite an interesting approach - CUK describe it as 'assertive', others might consider it daring or even cavalier. As someone who writes guidebooks, whenever I've taken the odd liberty with a ROW it invariably comes back to haunt me. Angry emails from the landowners, upset readers who have been shouted at on the trail. As a result I tend to avoid it.

But CUK are making a very conscious and deliberate move - as part of a wider political campaign about the lack of ROWs for cycling. What do you think? Is this the spirit of the radical ramblers of Winter Hill and Kinder Scout, or a rash move that will all end in tears?

That is interesting Jack and I do as you and try to avoid things which could be disputed and even then, simply sending someone down a marked and unquestioned RoW can result in grief.

Brave? Maybe. I'm sure much will depend upon the attitudes of the landowners and also the popularity of the route. Ultimately it could end up costing all involved considerable amounts of money. Possibly couldn't have happened at a worse time though ... feelings seem to be running quite high in many quarters.

Been done…

https://www.strava.com/activities/5906178109

Not me, from STW.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:52 am I'm sure much will depend upon the attitudes of the landowners and also the popularity of the route. Ultimately it could end up costing all involved considerable amounts of money. Possibly couldn't have happened at a worse time though ... feelings seem to be running quite high in many quarters.

The route has been devised in partnership with Cornwall County Council as part of a larger EU funded tourism promotion programme. So presumably the RoW officer at the council didn't raise any red flags regarding the sections that are contested. Whether that counts as tacit approval, and whether landowners will push back, I guess time will tell.

I wouldn't be surprised if CUK are using the issues that might arise from this to push back at Gvt regarding the 2026 deadline. As the articles says in its conclusion:

Conclusions
We don't think that it's right that horse riders and cyclists should now be expected to wait another fifteen or twenty years to process these claims before using a route that, in reality, we have had an unrecorded legal right to use since time immemorial.

More than that, we think that the 2026 cut off date should be repealed. At the time it was proposed, the Government of the day made all sorts of promises, with a whole project with access to extensive archives, dedicated to officially researching these routes. When that was abandoned and funding dried up, the burden was pushed onto volunteers. The Welsh Government have recently confirmed their intent to remove the cut-off date but the Government in England have steadfastly refused to accept that they need to do so, and begin a more substantial review of public rights of access.

As Julian Glover said in the recent National Landscapes review:

RoW is a farce in England and Wales (yeah yeah but "Scotland" ). Those tasked with dealing with it are massively under funded and resourced so cannot do so. The legislation controlling it is not fit for purpose. We couldn't sort it out pre-Brexit and pandemic. Chuff knows if it'll ever be significantly improved. It's tragic because (IMO) it's a significant component to improving multimodal / sustainable transport in the country but hey ho

Looks lovely