My best guess is it’s a busy road so it’s dangerous and not really meant for bicycle and walking. I’ve done 13 miles yesterday to get a comic book on a bike and this right here is the distance between my house and a friend’s house I told I can come on bike because what I just did gave me a feeling I could do it but my ass hurts so not right now. But yeah I want to see how this would play out. Before I would walk but I took a bike to a comic book store because it would’ve closed if I walk and I ended up getting there in time. Took longer than expected something that should’ve been an hour probably took 2 or 3 hours. So yeah I can do half of that for sure.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve seen that same warning for walking. I think it’s just Google saying “good luck with that; we’re not legally responsible”. I think those warnings have shown up more since cars would follow the GPS with zero common sense and drive into a lake or something.
Good point. It does read like a liability disclaimer.
I’ve noticed that Google doesn’t always get the speed limit correct on more rural roads.
Or it can’t tell if a temporary, lowered speed sign has been posted in a construction zone, for example.
Or as I’ve seen when they have got the lowered speed because of roadworks, but then keep the low speed after everything is finished. No, I think I can drive faster than 50kmh on the motorway.
The warning makes sense when you consider gmaps randomly tells you to ride into the traffic on major highways.
I’ve never had that one happen and, until recently, that was the only navigational aid I had. It’s still the only one I use on my motorbike.
Dwight did try to warn him…🤷♀️
Mostly it’s just CYA for google since cycling is more dangerous than driving (due to the people driving), so there’s more surface area for them to get sued.
But yeah
- turns and crossings that look safe on a map don’t have very much data on whether they’re actually safe, because google has a thousand times as much information about drivers than cyclists.
- google sometimes suggests routes that can’t be traversed, legally or at all, by a bike. Same reason.
- sometimes google suggests avoiding something a bike doesn’t actually have to worry about. This is actually the category of error I see the most: google sends you around something when you could simply walk your bike through it, or ride through it, because you’re not a car.
It’s 100 % because they don’t really know if bikes can go on the roads it tells you. Their focus is clearly on cars, and they don’t feel comfortable in their guesses on bikes, specially considering that the risks of bad injury skyrocket if you ride somewhere where you shouldn’t.
“We make more money from cars. We half assed the walking instructions. Good luck and fuck you.”
My guess is that it may not be factoring traffic conditions for bicycle directions
deleted by creator
I use organic maps for biking and walking and it’s a lifesaver. It actually takes me along bike paths rather than massive high speed stroads and even gives an elevation graph for the path it gives.
deleted by creator
It means that for legal purposes Google is going to assume you stop for red lights.
There are no traffic lights in this route.
PeOpLe On BiKeS dOn’T StOp On rED LiGhTs! HueHehUhEHUhE!
Meanwhile people driving multi-tons vehicles are not coming to a complete halt at every stop sign and it’s completely fine. People in cars are important. They have places to go. Not like those idiots on bikes that may start ahead on a red light not to get hooked by a car turning right.
Look at all those damn people on bikes not stopping at stop signs:
Probably “this route may or may not be a construction zone and/or actually have any kind of bike lane”
You might be interested in CyclOSM to plan your routes
I do a lot of biking and for me Organic Maps has proven to be worthy of the navigation.
A lot of the bike routes are mapped using car data. If you are biking on a one way street and have to turn around, maps will route you around the block (uphill) like a car, even if there’s a sidewalk you coukd bike or walk down instead.
It’s not super great for biking data, but it works. It tends to miss protected bike lanes, though.
In Australia Google maps has issues with routing cyclists on 80km busy truck transit roads that have no bike lanes, footpaths or shoulders. You’ll regularly get stuck behind lost uber eats cyclists whose map took them through a motor vehicle only underpass.
The other day google maps decided to reroute me from a quiet, wide street with no bike lane that was otherwise perfectly safe, and tried to send me through a nightsoil alley, down a heritage stock run that was paved with cobblestones and crossed over a storm drain 4 times in a zig zag.
Yeah, “safer” because there’s no cars I guess, but not suitable for bikes at all.
It’s just a legal safety net that they cannot know whether at the moment the route is cycling-safe. So while you can follow their route, real-world situations might differ and hence you need to think for yourself.
Over here they show the same warning for pedestrian and car routes. Which is sad, because it tells me that enough people blindly drive into shit based off of a routing app that they need to tell people to please not turn their 2 braincells off, as much as a difference that is going to make…
It might tell you to go a way that is unsafe, blocked, impassable, flooded, etc.
