Connect all worlds together


Yeah, they make a ssu out of me. No one’s ever told me what a ssu is though.

But anyway–if the teleporting isn’t adding to miles, then is it possible that world warping wouldn’t add miles either?

1 Like

Yes perfectly possible.

The issue is that teleporting is only possible within the same world as only one world is loaded at a time. And apparently loading more than one would ruin in game performance.

Should be possible but would probably create two rides, like joining an event when having been riding somewhere else. Id be happy enough with that.

I’d be fine with that too.

One way they could add it but make it a bit of a challenge would be to use the climb portals. Many of these iconic climbs have two ways up. You could go up the climb from one world, and back down it into another :slight_smile:

1 Like

I would too but a lot of people seem to want to have one long activity saved without breaks - if they want to do 50km or whatever they want it all in one ride - which i kinda get.

But it seems like they are stopping something that could be used by some people because of other people that wouldn’t use it which doesn’t seem logical.

The portals idea has been suggested and given you can enter from two different worlds would be good to be able to exit to a different one to, go in to the portal in watopia and come out in France.

Yep it would be nice after colectingvall road badges to mix things up a bit more.

This could likely be circumvented, then, by combining it with the other suggestion floating around to combine all of the smaller worlds into one world. I mean, even Paris and France could be combine into one. And then possibly add Innsbruck and Bologna (for a ‘mainland Europe’ world). Then combine London, Yorkshire, and Scotland (for a GB world), and Richmond and NY for a North America world. (I’m not really sure if/where Crit City fits into this.) Then make all 5 of these new worlds available all the time, and none would be ‘too big’ to load and run properly.


absolutely - i wasn’t necessarily saying what i wanted, more how i understand it to be.

I don’t really see the problem with keeping them as they are but loading them all together - loading Innsbruck, Paris and Bologna or similar at the same time would probably be less strenuous than loading just Watopia or Makuri.

Then you should be able to telport between them all (possibly?)

This is where my intersection/roundabout idea comes in. As long as the roads leading to a particular place are long enough, the required world could be loaded in while the other one is offloaded.

This one was done for the Climb Portal, but I’ve done one in the past for “worlds”.


Honestly though, I’d settle for a small loading blip the same way we have when moving to a different event world. I don’t see why it would necessarily have to result in a new activity, either.

me too - i often join an event just to change worlds when i get bored part way through a ride to kind of just do this!
I think it does it because it has to unload the first world then loads the new one so it ends the ride and then starts a new one.
Whether this needs to happen is the important question i guess.

To me the concern of whether it’s one activity or split into two, if that is one reason this isn’t being considered, would be another instance of a good idea being held up by Strava concerns.

If you’re on a training plan, and you need to ride X km on a given day, you and your coach should be able to figure it out if you have a 1/2X ride and a second 1/2X ride. So if it’s just about people wanting Strava to show ‘one big route’…I am entirely unsympathetic to that concern. If people really need a ride of a certain length showing up in their feed for some reason, they could simply not use this feature. If they don’t care, they could use the feature.

There is literally no downside, even if it would split rides up, because the current functionality would be unaffected.

It does seem like not doing a thing that some people might want to do because some other people might not want to do it.

I don’t think it is just a strava thing. some people just like to see 100km in one go or whatever - i can see that it is nice to see big numbers in one place - but not a reason not to do this.

But holding a few bits of data in memory or not closing a file is trivial. It’s not like the entire memory space has to be refreshed just because you unload/free up some parts of it.

I’m not defending it or saying it should be done that way.

1 Like

Sure, I misread “I think it does it because” as “I think it does (need to) because”.

1 Like

Sure, I guess I should scare-quote ‘Strava’ to mean ‘Stravaeseque’ concerns :slight_smile: Being able to see a big number by one ride instead of two smaller numbers by two rides is the concern (or ‘concern’, perhaps), regardless of what activity tracking platform it happens on :slight_smile:

given the choice i’d definitely prefer one ride of 100km than one of 37km and another of 23km shortly after but it 100% shouldn’t be a reason not to do this.

1 Like

Agreed on all fronts. Logging it as one ride would be preferable but not necessary.

How indieVelo implemented this feature…