Navigating city streets on a bicycle can be an exhilarating and efficient way to commute or explore. However, ensuring a safe and efficient route is crucial for any cyclist, whether you’re a daily commuter or a weekend adventurer. With the rise of digital mapping, cyclists now have access to powerful tools designed to guide them through urban landscapes. Two prominent players in this arena are Google Maps and Ride the City. Both offer bicycle routing, but which one truly provides the superior experience for cyclists? This article offers a detailed Bicycle Compare, pitting Google Maps against Ride the City to help you choose the best app for your cycling needs.
Ride the City emerged as a specialized service focused exclusively on bicycle navigation, while Google Maps, a ubiquitous mapping giant, integrated bicycle routing into its vast platform. For cyclists in cities like Austin, Texas, and beyond, understanding the nuances of each service can significantly impact their daily rides. Let’s delve into a head-to-head bicycle compare to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of both Google Maps and Ride the City.
Head-to-Head Bicycle Compare: Google Maps vs. Ride the City
To effectively bicycle compare these two services, we need to examine them in action. Let’s consider real-world scenarios, particularly focusing on routes within Austin, Texas, as highlighted in the original review.
Route Accuracy and Safety: Real-World Austin Tests
The best way to bicycle compare route planners is to test them on the road. The original article detailed several common routes in Austin, providing a practical basis for our comparison.
1. Route to Hancock Center/ ‘Austin Chronicle’ Office:
For a route to the Hancock Center and ‘Austin Chronicle’ office, Ride the City (RTC) demonstrated a strong understanding of local cycling preferences. While suggesting crossing North Lamar at Brentwood instead of Romeria/Denson, the route largely aligned with common cyclist paths. Notably, RTC required “Austin, TX” to recognize the address “4000 N. I-35,” a minor but important detail for users.
Google Maps, on the other hand, faltered in the final stretch. Directing cyclists down Red River south of 45th Street, a segment known for its high-speed and high-volume traffic without bike lanes, raises safety concerns. While some cyclists might brave this route, it’s not ideal for safety-conscious riders. A safer alternative, like Duval Street to Park or 41st, would be preferable.
2. Route to Capital Metro Headquarters (2910 E. Fifth):
Navigating to Capital Metro Headquarters reveals further differences. Neither RTC nor Google Maps initially suggested the author’s preferred route, which involves navigating through parking lots and under I-35. However, RTC’s more conventional route wasn’t inherently flawed. A minor “jog” to avoid Pleasant Valley seemed overly cautious but could be adjusted by switching to RTC’s “safe” route option, indicating a degree of customization absent in Google Maps.
Ride the City bicycle route recommendations highlighting the Johnson Creek Trail area for a trip to Deep Eddy Pool in Austin, Texas.
Google Maps’ recommendation for this route presented significant issues. Once again, it directed cyclists onto the dangerous stretch of Red River for an extended distance – almost two miles. Furthermore, it routed through Boggy Creek Park, a path deemed unnecessary due to the availability of bike lanes on North Pleasant Valley, which Ride the City correctly prioritized.
3. Route to Deep Eddy Pool:
The Deep Eddy Pool route is where Ride the City truly showcased its superiority in this bicycle compare. RTC accurately identified the Johnson Creek Trail and its underpass beneath MoPac, a crucial piece of local cycling knowledge that connects cyclists to Austin High School and the MoPac pedestrian bridge.
A close-up view of a Google Maps bicycle route recommendation, showcasing the suggested path for cycling to Deep Eddy Pool, potentially lacking local trail knowledge.
Conversely, Google Maps not only missed the Johnson Creek Trail underpass but also incorrectly depicted the trail’s endpoint. Worse, it suggested using North Lamar, an even more hazardous option than Red River, further emphasizing its shortcomings in local cycling route expertise compared to Ride the City.
4. Route Along Lady Bird Lake:
For a longer recreational route from Deep Eddy to Longhorn Dam along Lady Bird Lake, both services offered viable options, but with different priorities. Google Maps defaulted to the Lady Bird Lake Trail for the entire distance, a popular but sometimes congested route.
A comprehensive Ride the City bicycle route recommendation for a trip to Deep Eddy Pool, illustrating a detailed and cyclist-focused route plan.
Ride the City, demonstrating a more nuanced understanding of local conditions, recognized the western section of the Lady Bird Lake trail’s congestion. It intelligently directed cyclists to the Lance Armstrong Bikeway, a dedicated bike path north of Cesar Chavez, before rejoining the trail at Shoal Creek. This highlights Ride the City’s awareness of cyclist preferences for less congested and potentially faster routes.
A comprehensive Google Maps bicycle route recommendation for a trip to Deep Eddy Pool, showing a route plan that may not be as optimized for cyclist safety and local trail knowledge as Ride the City.
Features and Functionality: Beyond Basic Routing
Beyond route accuracy, a crucial aspect of bicycle compare is the features offered by each service. Ride the City distinguishes itself by offering safety levels for streets – “safe,” “safer,” and “direct.” This granular approach to safety is a significant advantage for cyclists prioritizing low-traffic or bike-friendly routes. Ride the City also integrates points of interest relevant to cyclists, such as local bike shops and rental businesses, enhancing its utility for the cycling community.
Google Maps, while lacking Ride the City’s nuanced safety levels, differentiates between streets with bike lanes, streets without, and trails. Its strength lies in its interactivity, allowing users to manually adjust suggested routes. Google Maps also boasts broader city coverage, spanning approximately 200 cities, whereas Ride the City focuses on excelling in a select number of urban areas.
Advantages of Ride the City for Cyclists
Based on our bicycle compare, Ride the City presents several key advantages for cyclists, particularly in cities where it has focused its efforts:
- Superior Route Accuracy and Local Knowledge: Ride the City consistently demonstrated a deeper understanding of optimal and safe bicycle routes, especially in Austin, often outperforming Google Maps in identifying bike trails and avoiding hazardous streets.
- Safety-Focused Routing Options: The “safe,” “safer,” and “direct” route choices provide cyclists with valuable control over their route planning based on their comfort level and traffic tolerance.
- Cycling-Specific Features: Integration of bike shop and rental locations, along with a focus solely on cycling navigation, makes Ride the City a tailored tool for the cycling community.
Google Maps: Strengths and Where It Shines
Despite Ride the City’s specialized advantages, Google Maps remains a powerful and widely accessible tool with its own strengths in this bicycle compare:
- Broad City Coverage: Google Maps’ bicycle routing extends to a significantly larger number of cities globally, making it a more versatile option for cyclists in various locations.
- Interactive Route Adjustment: The ability to manually modify routes directly on the map provides users with flexibility and customization.
- Integration within a Comprehensive Platform: Google Maps offers a vast ecosystem of features beyond cycling, including public transit, driving, walking directions, and business information, making it a convenient all-in-one mapping solution.
Conclusion: Choosing the Right Bicycle Route Planner
In this bicycle compare, Ride the City emerges as the more cyclist-centric and often more accurate route planner, especially within its focus cities like Austin. Its dedication to cyclist safety and local route knowledge provides a distinct advantage for riders seeking the best possible navigation experience.
However, Google Maps remains a strong contender due to its widespread availability, interactive features, and integration into a broader mapping platform. For cyclists in cities not covered by Ride the City, or those who value the versatility of an all-encompassing mapping app, Google Maps is a serviceable option.
Ultimately, the best choice depends on individual needs and location. For serious cyclists within Ride the City’s supported areas, especially those prioritizing safety and accurate local routing, Ride the City is the recommended tool. For broader coverage and general-purpose mapping needs, Google Maps remains a viable alternative. Experimenting with both services in your city is the best way to determine which bicycle route planner best suits your personal cycling style and preferences.
