Allow the community to unflag "hazardous" segments

Quite often a segment gets flagged as hazardous, and it is really anything but.  The workaround has been that cyclists create duplicate segments.  That is frustrating because as a cyclist, I lose the history that was on the flagged segment, and the duplicates get really annoying on an activity as well.  It takes a long time through the support tickets to try to request that a segment flag be removed.  It would be nice if we as users could put in a vote for or against a hazardous segment once it has been flagged.  If it clears a certain threshold (to be determined) then the hazardous flag can be removed.

79

Commentaires

83 commentaires
  • It's been just shy of a week since the last time time I posted about this issue. Contacted Strava about it issue and someone actually replied but all they responded with is "they're looking into it...blah blah blah". Really, Strava? You're looking into? This thread is two years old so I beg to differ! With that said, I could care less about leader boards, KOMs but I do use Strava for tracking my progression and fitness which has been rendered pretty much useless because of this ridiculous issue. If I had paid for a pro level account this year a refund would have been demanded by now. I feel this is the beginning of Strava's demise due their smug approach to this issue unfortunately. 

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • This was flagged as a hazardous segment and it isn't hazardous.  I believe a duplicate has been created.

    This is the segment in question...

    https://www.strava.com/segments/15405824

    My best effort through there is 6:54 not 8:11.

    Someone please fix this.  Thanks.

     

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • It's quite clear Strava have no inclination to sort this issue.  Round our was a local council member signed up on Strava with the sole purpose of flagging segments.  While some of them I agree with,he block flagged every segment in a part of town that is well used by cyclists and walkers. While there are a number of cyclists abuse the paths (the KOM holder for the route around a lake - 9km round - had an average of almost 40km/h on a twisty path that is in a few areas affected by poor visibility in the height of the plant growth season. The uphill slogs where most people were achieving a huge 15km/h at the top of the list however could have been allowed to remain.
    Today I spotted that a segment on my route home from work is suddenly flagged, despite being a straight road, with good visibility,and a cycle lane for it's entire length. My suspicion is that someone dislikes that  bikes make the journey a lot quicker than the cars in the queue.
    This feature either needs to be a 2 stage thing that if someone flags as dangerous, it's marked up and the regular users can agree or disagree, allowing a change to stop people simply flagging for no reason. Also a button to "flag for review" where we can enter a counter argument to be looked into and have the flag removed.

    2
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • I think in my area some local "parent" that likes to take their unruly children on the local trail to let them expend energy just went on and marked every segment they could find as hazardous. It might seem easier for them to attempt to get cyclists to stop riding on a beautiful path, rather than be a parent and teach their children common decency, or to follow laws that apply to right of way. Just because cyclists have to give right of way to everyone else on a path doesn't mean everyone else gets to take up the entire path and not leave a lane for passing. The hazard on Murdock Canal isn't anything more than traffic, in the middle of the night when I prefer to ride, there is ZERO hazard (well maybe deer). As long as inconsiderate people are not on the trail there is ZERO hazard (or maybe ice in the winter).

    It just doesn't seem right for one person to be able to spoil the fun for the rest of us (tracking our training and personal efforts) for some arbitrary reason, at the very least there needs to be a specific warning of the actual hazard other than traffic. And if it is traffic that is causing the hazard, there should be a time range that people can submit so those of us who want can just simply avoid that time... right?

    https://www.strava.com/activities/1167902224/analysis/682/809 

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Strava users need to understand that the reason a segment is flagged as hazardous is down to the use of the path. It may not be hazardous for cycling, but if other people use it, e.g. walkers, then the segment is flagged to prevent Strava users from attempting to beat their best time. 

    Large numbers of organisations work with Strava to ensure their trail networks are flagged as hazardous due to a small number of badly behaved Strava and non-strava users. It's an important part of corporate responsibility, unfortunately.

    -2
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • I think the point most people are making is not that some segments are marked as dangerous, but that where it's clear is someone marking segments for no real reason (locally I've found one that is a dedicated cycle route, not shared that was marked as dangerous, despite no crossings, no risk to anyone whatsoever) but that there is no realistic means for the users to give any feedback on these decisions.
    Being marked as dangerous does not stop anyone trying for a best time IF they really want to, they just need a couple more clicks of the mouse when they get home to see how they did.  

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • I'm very much aware of what you are saying however dedicated cycle routes are likely to be marked dangerous as they invariably attract all types of people on bikes, even the odd 3 year old. Having such a route treated like a race track will inherently create major issues for the more vulnerable users. It is not simply a measure of whether it is used by pedestrians but whether the route is also a route used by a mixture of users. 

    Whether you like it or not, this has been brought on by a bunch of 'bad' strava users and their irresponsible behaviour. Expect, long term, for any dedicated leisure cycle route to become marked as dangerous and not suitable for high speed cycling. That is a good thing.

    -5
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • The point we are all making is that one person has the "authority" to "decide" that a certain route is hazardous. Once it is flagged, all KOM and Leaderboards for that segment are taken off. How can one person have that ability over hundreds of riders, with absolutely NO oversite!! It makes NO sense! We are all furious that STRAVA WILL NOT GET INVOLVED IN THIS. Such a good company, but CLEARLY MISSING THIS ASPECT BIG TIME! 

    There are dozens of ways to repair this. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY STRAVA CONTINUES TO IGNORE THIS!!!

     

    2
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • I experienced the same. One segment with a crossing with absolut no traffic was flagged as dangerous. This was unflagged after i send a ticket. So everything was fine.

    Then another segment was flagged. 8 Kilometer with one crossing. I made a ticket and a Video about the crossing. In 3 Minutes 30 seconds i counted 5 cars at the crossing. Its a rural street in a forrest. The Strava-Support did not unflage the segment. But the worsed thing: I get no explanation why this segment is dangerous! 

    I gues some strava-support-members think that cyclists are stupid. I feel  treated like a little child. 

    It is the same with tied KOM´s. Only the first one that set the best time is shown in his personal stats. Strava will not fix this issue in years!

    I was a premium member since 2 years. But now i get frustrated by strava. I will change my focus and have cnacelled the premium-membership. If it is no fun to me anymore, why pay for it? 

    -1
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • The attitude of some of the posters on here is why some counties are now considering closing access to trials to bikes. You just don't get it. People have got so annoyed with the bad behaviour of some users when the trails are popular that they have HAD to go out of their way to register as a strava user and then mark the trail as Hazardous to discourage the idiots taking it at speed. 

    Seriously get over yourselves and start recognising you are sharing spaces with pedestrians and other more vulnerable less confident people on bikes. 

    In the UK there is a concerted effort by organisations like Sustrans and Canal and River trust to mark ALL their routes as hazardous and it seems to be successful at keeping the more abusive sport cyclists off the routes.

     

    -8
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • I don't think anyone is denying that some segments correctly need marking as dangerous where there is a conflict risk, the issue is that where routes that are safe to use at speeds get flagged, and the one-sided system in place where it's easy to flag but much  more complex to request a review.
    If a segment is flagged for a risk of conflict of use for example, surely it should indicate why it's flagged. I'm seeing nothing more than a feeling that a simpler means of requesting a review where segments that are not a risk get flagged.

    2
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Doesnt make any sense sorry. I and others have an issue for exactly what you’re talking about.

    This isn’t a pissing match between who’s more irresponsible hikers or riders (plenty of both). Things are supposed to be marked hazardous to let them know when there is something out of the norm. If the standard for hazardous = any trail that a bike rides on...then there isn’t a point right? Hazard no longer tells people really anything now.

    You may like it because it fits with what you believe but there are a TON of folks out there who obviously disagree.

    This wasn’t what Strava built this flag for. It’s being taken advantage of by one segment of users. Unfortunate but it won’t take long for someone to get an app out there that doesn’t let a few dictate for the many.

    Sorry but banning riders or hikers from using trails for what they love doesn’t solve anything. Minority on both sides are irresponsible...irrational to go down that road but doesn’t surprise me at all.

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Is it too difficult to add a drop down list of reasons for hazards, such as: construction, trail damage, animal migration, traffic - time blocks? I really think that little extra information would help us all, as responsible users, as well as the PR racers to understand why something has been flaged as hazardous. And then we could avoid some of this frustration.

    As far as clearing a segment of its hazardous status, a vote system could work if it was implemented properly, only allowing people who have actually used the segment and giving feedback based on a specific time line taking into account weather and other factors. It is a lot of data analysis, but for how many people use strava I don't think it would be that difficult once the programming is done.

    The other real problem is with individuals being respectful of others on trails... When there is a large group of clearly novice riders, sometimes I will stop and talk with them about trail usage and ethics. Simple things like right of way, and getting off the trail if you are standing still. But most importantly, I do this in a non-confrontational, helpful tone directed toward education. Also encourage people to be a part of riding clubs so they can take part in their community to help prevent the loss of access to trails.

    Be an upstander, not a bystander.

    1
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • I think people are misunderstanding the flag. It is not meant to indicate it is hazardous for cycling. It is to remove the segment to prevent cycling in a way that is hazardous to other users. It is specifically the way that strava asks organisations and individuals to remove segments.

    It is an indicator for you, as a rider, to ride carefully. 

    The fact this is 'ruining your fun' is simply self-entitled whining. The routes that are marked hazardous are done so for the benefit of non-strava users and the mechanism is promoted and recommended to organisations and individuals as a way to remove segments from being used as Strava race tracks.

    Being involved with some of these organisations that have a policy to mark all their paths as hazardous as they are shared paths, even the fact they have to have members ride a segment before they can mark it as hazardous is a lot of work. For example the 2000 miles of UK canal and river paths are slowly being flagged.

    The sad thing is that marking all paths as hazardous is a reaction to the 'bad' strava users and devalues the flag. It just takes one bad cyclist gunning past a family 'almost' hitting their child, and suddenly you have a very angry parent who is more than happy to do their bit for the community and flag every section they walk on as hazardous and go out of their way to mark more.

    People had enough of inconsiderate cycling and felt this was the only way to address it. I suspect, eventually all shared paths will be flagged.

    -7
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Adam, 

    With all due respect, you miss the point.

    How can it be that a single person and determine the outcome of hundreds, even thousands of riders? One person should not be given that much power, which cancels all the PR's on that stretch. And it is so inconsistent! And that doesn't explain how the flags are even ALLOWED on a road segment.

    It is proper to judge people favorable, but simply put, Strava has messed up big time on this AND THEY NEED TO ADDRESS IT!!!!!!!!! 

     

    7
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Honestly Strava I think is doing it's best to address behaviour their app encourages within a certain segment of their users on shared paths or even roads.

    What is clear is that they have made it 'hard' to report a segment as hazardous by forcing a user to have ridden the section before being able to report it as hazardous. 

    I also recognise the right of individual land owners to mark routes across their lands as hazardous. 

    Also recognise that, as somebody that campaigns for cycle infrastructure, Strava is now one of our biggest bug bears, creating the 'speeding killer cyclist' and justification used for not making paths and routes all weather wide surfaces.

    I really have absolutely no sympathy for this demand to unmark routes that you perceive are safe and have resulted in a loss of a PR. If however, your request to unmark the route, would then give legally liability for any collisions that occur on a route to the person that advised it was safe, I'm sure Strava would listen.

    In the meantime organisations, land owners, parents, and many others will continue to mark routes as hazardous to try and get the avid stravaist to share space responsibly and in a way that does not make other people feel uncomfortable or in fear of their lives.

    I recognise that none of the above applies to anyone reading this and that it is a small minority of Strava users that are the problem, but collective responsibility is an absolute pain to deal with.

    -6
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Wow realy glad to see i am am not the only one concerned with this issue. My feeling is that anybody with a grudge against cyclists can just sabotage Strava with no consequences!!!!. Come on Strave I pay you so fixt it.

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Wow realy glad to see i am am not the only one concerned with this issue. My feeling is that anybody with a grudge against cyclists can just sabotage Strava with no consequences!!!!. Come on Strave I pay you so fix it.

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Just remove all hazardous segments, period.

    Every single segment is as dangerous as you make it.

    3
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • I've been doing some thinking, is flagging hazards on segments is the best spot to do it?
    I see the value in identifying a dangerous intersections, construction, gravel road etc - but should this be part of the segment feature? Should it really ruin the leaderboard of an entire segment? 

    Is there a way to report potential hazards or dangerous intersections outside of Segments?
    I'd love to point out a few scary spots to other runners and I could see this data being valuable to the Strava Metro product to help cities build better roads and leisure spaces.

    Let me know!

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Totally inconsistent. A ride I love to do has the northbound sector flagged as hazardous. The same segment southbound is not flagged. If you do both sectors together it's not flagged. What's the point in that? Get rid of hazardous segments altogether. If you ride like an idiot then you will face the consequences of being an idiot. If councils etc are worried about riders racing put up speed limits and enforce them the same as they do on roads.

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Rather than a blanket "hazardous" that gives absolutely no detail to users, a flag marking a segment as (for example) "shared use, travel with care", "blind junction" or similar. Flagging a section will not stop the speed demons, just as fixed speed cameras only slow people down at one point. 
    If there was accountability built into flagging, and a sensible means to get incorrectly flagged sections reviewed, it would be great.  Flagging a trail as dangerous only has an effect on Strava users, not on "cyclists" and I can assure you some of the worst cycling I see is people not on Strava. (Seen a few idiots when on a ride and lo and behold they are not showing in the flyby section), also speed is not the issue, inappropriate speed is. MOST cyclists understand that when a path is in use by others to ease off, but yes there are always idiots, and those idiots will go fast, flagged segment or not.

     

    2
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • They need to get rid of the stupid flagging system all together. We have miles and miles of paved asphalt flat designated bike trails in our area that have been flagged as hazardous. The feature might have had a use if it wasn't for the fact that idiots abuse it. I'm sure it is some moron who got his KOM bumped from the segment so they flag it hazardous.

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • It most likely exists more so to protect Strava in legal situations, which makes it really tough to remove, even if it is an obvious gain for the user by removing it.

    I do think Strava's legal team likely needs to have to have some sort historical record that they identified dangers to their users and didn't encourage people to race once identified. I'm not sure if it's the right approach, but I'm curious why they haven't allowed people to report hazards outside of segments.

     

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Someone recently went in and marked the majority of the segments on the W&OD trail in Virginia as hazardous.  As has been stated here several times, I have been riding these segments for years and enjoy watching my progression on them as the year progresses.  Seems like we have no control either.  For me to e-mail 50+ segments for review is ridiculous.  Why is this hazardous segment feature even in this?  If it's to warn riders/runners who are planning a ride, then it's useless when virtually every segment is being flagged.

    1
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • As somebody that has talked to organisation that manage many shared paths, the issue of "strava segments" and the behaviour of some strava users has come up and their solution is a policy of aggressive hazardous marking to prevent racing along segments.

    They want to keep these trails inclusive and good to ride, but they don't want people time trialling along their trails. There may also be a liability issue around them doing enough to ensure they mitigate that behaviour. 

    In the end, this comes down to one or two bad users on trails and organisations having to deal with that. Now a lot of the public are also doing a similar thing if they experience aggressive time trialling on their favourite walks. 

    -1
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ao Adam, what you are saying is that because of "some users" and bear in mind someone cycling fast does not mean that they are a Strava user, that's a guess, they are going to remove the feature from everyone ? So because some BMW drivers break the speed limit, you think all should be speed limited ?  
    Just because there is a time set at a high speed, does not mean it was dangerous to do so. Most Strava users understand there is a time and a place. One of my local segments was marked dangerous, Strava are unwilling to provide info on why, as it's a road section, with straight road, clear vision, and the top times set (outside of the 1 day a year the road is closed for a major international cycle race) is under the speed limit anyway (50km/h)
    So because "someone" has decided this is "dangerous" I can't see my progression in fitness here where I had a chance for a longer run to pace myself.
    If a route has a problem with inconsiderate cyclists, these cyclists need addressing, not Strava.  Since this issue in Strava came to light I've checked periodically when I've spotted someone being a pratt on a route and riding like a loony, and in many cases they are simply not on Strava, they are nothing more than an idiot on a bike. 

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • I'm not saying what is happening here is right just that this practice is of Strava's own doing. I know one organisation that approached Strava and asked them to flag their network. Strava refused and told them to use the provided mechanism. Organisation then trained up 1000s of volunteers on how to flag on Strava. There are a *lot* of people that don't use Strava regularly but know how to flag segments. The reality is that segments encourage going fast, safely or otherwise, particularly with KOMs and that behaviour is not wanted on certain trails. Splash damage with more considerate Strava users is what's now happening. It unfortunately is perceived as a war of attrition.

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Also, from what I've experienced, whether I'm riding 16mph or 20 mph, if the walker decides to do a U turn without looking, the results are the same.  Having been a runner/rider on multi-use trails for a long time, it amazes me that people don't look before they act on these trails.  Most cyclists either have a bell or give people some other kind of heads-up when passing, "On your left."  Walkers don't give any heads-up, so who is hazardous?

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Adam, I don't think you get what the flag is about either. Honestly, I don't think I do either. It just seems like a stupid idea to block times when someone random person flags it as hazardous. If I can see the path is clear as far as I can see, I'm not going to hold back. But as soon as I see someone walking, I'm down to a slow speed. I'm not interested in ruining someones walk. Flagging a segment hazardous because someone may be walking on it when an idiot rudely blasts past them makes no sense. The path isn't hazardous, the idiot is.

    Us bicyclists can go off on walkers just as easily as walkers can go off on us. I can't count how many times I've passed a walker blasting their earbuds oblivious to the surroundings. Is it my fault if they can't hear me shouting "on your left" due to being deafened by earbuds. I don't blame all walkers for this behavior.

    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.

Ce n’est pas ce que vous cherchez ?

Nouvelle publication Agent Only: Button marked