Wayfinding Is the Cheap Fix Most Cycle Networks Skip

This is written to be used rather than admired. Each section below is a decision about cycle wayfinding, and each one has a default.

The route that exists and cannot be found

Cities frequently build good cycle routes and then leave them essentially undiscoverable to anyone who is not already a regular user. A rider unfamiliar with the area cannot tell where the route starts, where it goes or what happens when it stops. That restricts its use to people who learned it from someone else, which is a small and self-selecting group.

The people a network is supposed to attract are precisely the ones who will not risk an unmarked route. Signage costs a small fraction of the construction it makes usable, which is why its absence is so frustrating.

Where signs actually need to be

Long straight sections need almost nothing, because there is no decision to make and no way to go wrong. Junctions, forks and any point where the route changes character are where riders need confirmation. The hardest moments are where a route transitions from a path to a street, since the continuation is often not obvious.

The bit that actually matters: a sign after a decision point, confirming you chose correctly, is as valuable as the one before it. Signs placed for drivers sit too high and too far back to be read from a bicycle at close range.

What the sign should say

Naming destinations people actually think in terms of works better than naming route numbers nobody has memorised. Time to destination is more useful than distance, because most riders do not convert kilometres into minutes reliably. Where a route splits towards different destinations, both need naming rather than one and an arrow.

Consistent design across a city lets a rider recognise the system without reading every sign. Signs that survive being turned by vandals or obscured by vegetation require maintenance that is rarely budgeted for.

Surface markings and the continuous line

Markings on the surface are read naturally, because a rider is already looking at the road ahead. A continuous line or repeated symbol through a complex junction tells you where to go at exactly the moment you need it.

By the second week of riding, they also communicate to drivers that a route passes through, which changes expectation at the point of conflict. Paint wears, particularly where vehicles cross it, so markings need renewing on a schedule that is frequently missed.

Where markings and signs disagree, riders follow the markings, which makes inconsistency worse than absence.

Digital maps do not replace signs

Navigation on a phone requires a rider to look at a screen, which is a poor thing to be doing in traffic. It also assumes a charged device, a signal and data that is current, none of which are guaranteed.

Turn-by-turn audio helps but still demands attention at exactly the complex junctions where attention is scarce. Signs work for everyone, including visitors, people without smartphones and anyone whose battery has died. The two complement each other, and treating the digital version as sufficient is how unsigned networks get justified.

Frames, sizes and riding positions vary enormously; borrow before you buy wherever you can.

What good wayfinding does to a network

A signed route is legible, which means a rider can trust it will continue and can commit to following it. That trust is what allows a network to be used for journeys other than the ones people already make.

It also makes the network visible to people who do not cycle, which affects how it is understood politically. Cities that have invested in consistent wayfinding report that existing routes carry more riders without any construction. It is the least glamorous item on any cycling budget and consistently one of the best returns on it.

The takeaway

A route that cannot be followed by a stranger is a route built for the people who did not need it.

The bike you ride daily beats the better bike you keep indoors.