Geofencing technology is nothing new: in urban mobility, the motor on e-scooters in cities like Vienna is automatically deactivated as soon as the user enters a no-riding zone. Software is already being used today to intervene in e-bike riding behavior on the same basis. This system is now being applied to mountain bike braking technology: A tiny GPS chip in the brake lever continuously tracks the bike’s location. The software compares this position with digital map data. As soon as the mountain bike reaches a path marked as restricted in the database, the wireless lever transmits a corresponding signal and the system automatically applies the brakes. This new feature is known as “Automatic Perimeter Regulation for Illegal Lines” (APRIL).

Brake manufacturers are not implementing APRIL technology entirely of their own volition. It is part of a new regulatory framework for nature and off-road sports in the European Union. In the recently adopted standard, the EU requires bicycle manufacturers to technically prevent the use of sports equipment in prohibited areas. Motor manufacturers like Bosch have already introduced APRIL without much fanfare; until now, it was unclear how bicycle manufacturers were supposed to comply with the standard for non-motorized bicycles. This is where wireless brakes with integrated APRIL technology come in just at the right time.   

A map entry puts the brakes on

The data source for the first versions of APRIL is particularly controversial: Information on closures and riding bans is supposed to come from OpenStreetMap—the map that is continuously updated and modified by registered users and serves as the basis for many navigation and touring apps. That is precisely what makes the situation tricky: In OpenStreetMap, routes can not only be recorded but also tagged with driving bans, access restrictions, or closures. In the best-case scenario, this keeps the Map up to date. In the worst-case scenario, a single incorrect entry is enough for your favorite trail to suddenly be digitally off-limits.

Then the mountain bike doesn’t slow down because a trail is closed on-site, but because a map entry marks it as closed. A technical issue thus immediately becomes a trail issue: Who verifies the data? Who corrects errors? And what happens if a trail is incorrectly marked as closed on the Map and can therefore only be ridden at a walking pace?

The hiker who used to lay branches across the path would be obsolete in the digital age. In the future, all it will take is a user account and a questionable entry to turn an after-work descent into a shortcut.