I am presently using Google Maps directions to assist those walking Caminos and I find that most pilgrims do not walk at the “standard rate” used by Google from A to B. I am wondering if anyone knows the basis of the speed used eg a 20 yo male?
5 Likes
Hi @Camo_Rama
I don’t know, but here are some thoughts:
Why don’t you just make the relevant tests in Google Maps to find out?
I doubt the speed depends on the sex and age of the user.
Google Maps could use their data from observing our walks to adjust the walking speed to the area and to the user. I don’t know if this is happening. But you could easily test this also.
Let us know how it goes.
Cheers
Morten
I agree with @MortenCopenhagen , that it really depends on the person. And, are you suggesting that Maps data is too slow, or too fast? For those that use Maps to get around, they COUNT on that data to be consistent. For instance, if I’m walking from a hotel in Las Vegas to a venue, and it says it’ll take 30 minutes, I EXPECT that I’ll get there in about 22 minutes (I’m a numbers guy). If a fast walker decides to add data to Las Vegas and wants to provide more accurate data to fit his/her needs, then a slower walker would be late using that data. Furthermore, the same is true for driving using Maps. I drive a LOT, in all settings and distances. When Maps tells me that it’ll be 45 minutes to get somewhere, I EXPECT to beat that time by at least a few minutes, but have an older, less aggressive friend that tells me that he never gets there in the time Maps tells him. Consistency across platform is probably more important, as it provides more predictability. - Steve
2 Likes
Thanks for those replies but I should better explain my question. I am talking about a 65 year old male walking 800 km across Spain at about 20 km per day and he records his daily progress (using Relive) and I then compare it to what Google Maps directions says is the “expected time” (with adjustments for up/down). My calcs say he started at 45% (across the Pyrenees) and by week 2 had settled into a 70% to 75% rate which he describes as “taking it easy and watching other pilgrims pass him by”. So he is asking me just WHO is this mythical Google Person that walks at 100%? The great irony is these speedsters who are on their 17th Camino (who knows why?) don’t have time to press START to record their daily trip
Who? Perhaps someone a little slower than me or my wife. I’m a 63 year old male, and walk much faster than most. Hence, I always beat Google’s prediction. My short and thin 62 year old wife is just as fast, and can keep up with me when walking on the flat, or even up gradual slopes. We don’t enjoy ‘walking’ or hiking with others, because we need to slow down to be with them…most of the time. So, with this response, I’m SURE there’s someone out there that walks at Google’s standard speed.
Have you calculated what Google’s speed is? If I had to estimate, I’d think US 3 Miles per hour. Earlier this year, I walked the perimeter of a 1 square mile section (each side is 1 mile), and it took me a little over 1 hour. Let’s say 70 minutes. That works out to 3.43mph, but I had to cross streets and wait for traffic lights. Without it, I’d estimate 3.75mph. You got me thinking now…thought I’d run some numbers on a trip I’ve made a few times already. Our local train station is 1.6 miles away, and Google says it’ll take 33 minutes to get there. That works out to 2.9 mph. (Remember, I guessed 3). I HAVE made this trip in just under 23 minutes, which is a really fast 4.17 mph, and felt it in my shins after the walk, but I needed to catch a train.
Checking my work…a conference I needed to walk to in January (in Las Vegas) is very close to 30 Google Minutes away. Assuming Google’s 3mph speed, that would be 1 1/2 miles away. If I walked my brisk 3.75mph speed, (but not my expedited 4.17 mph speed), it should take me (1.5/3.75)*60 = 24 minutes, which is about right. If Google says it’s going to take 30 minutes, I can get there in 25 minute or less.
Is this what you’re looking for? My estimate: 3 mph. - Steve
1 Like
Yes thanks for that and I agree it is probably a round figure in Imperial (ie not metric) as google seems to use Imperial eg in Google earth for flyover speed.
Harder question is the adjustment for going uphill and if the downhill adjustment is + or minus?? For example there is 14 minutes difference between forward/reverse in a 20 km walk with a 200m elevation, so there IS an adjustment but just how complex is the algorithm is anyone’s guess (I guess)
Thanks for pointing out that Google actually adjusts its time for elevation changes. I’ll have to run some numbers, or at least check the reverse trip from the train station example I provided in my response. Since we live 305ft (92m) above the city, the train station example was down hill.
OK, the numbers. Google maps on a desktop provides both distances and elevations, but, I found some discrepancies when reading the numbers. It appears that Google doesn’t add much time to the walking speed when heading downhill. I found a flat path down a city road that matches the distance to the train station, and it said that the flat walk would take 36 minutes, and 34 minutes walking downhill. For the time being, I’m going to assume that the time difference has to do with distance accuracy (see below).
When walking uphill though, Google says it’ll take 40 minutes. That’s an extra 6 minutes from walking downhill, or an extra 6 minutes to walk up that 305 feet. If just dividing the elevation gain by the extra time, and extrapolating to an hourly rate, it’s the equivalent of climbing 3050 feet/hour.
To help confirm Googles ascent rate, I chose an ‘exercise route’ not too far from our home, which Maps says is 1.5m. The elevation gain on this route is 505 feet (153m) and Maps said should take 34 minutes to descend, which is pretty close to the flat walking speed (kind of confirming the distance accuracy discrepancy I mentioned above, and clarifying below). BUT, ascending, Maps says it’ll take 43 minutes, 9 minutes longer. Applying the climb rate of 3050 ft/hour, it would take just less than 10 minutes (9:54) to climb that 505 feet, so with the accuracy errors included, and just using only these 2 examples, these numbers appear to be pretty good.
NOTE: If using a desktop, to calculate routes, at the very bottom of the route information, my map has the wording “Mostly Flat” with a pulldown to show more detailed elevation data. My examples intentionally didn’t have any humps in the route, which would add to the inaccuracies of the calculations.
Distance accuracy: Keep in mind that that the distances on maps used in this calculation only have 2 place accuracy, so it’s possible that a 1.6m walk could be 1.559m or 1.649m, so the error due to accuracy could be off by just a little over 2 minutes.
Hypothesis: Maps uses a 3mph (5kph) walk rate, and adds time for altitude gains using a rate of 3,000 ft/hour (909 meters per hour). Adding the 2 results should yield within 5% of Google’s calculations. It would take longer distances with a consistent grade to improve on these numbers.
Hope this helps. - Steve
Yes that is about what I am observing as I progress (on my laptop) along these Camino trails (and others) and many thanks for your work. So getting back to my example of the 65 yo male it would be nice IMHO if, having established his “normal walking rate” (as 70%), he could simply put a multiplier of 0.7 into his device so that the calculated arrival times etc were more attuned to his rate.
I should note that this is all happening at a forum which does not advocate the use of google tools (because they sell other inferior systems) but are sort of “coming over” with every instance where I show how google would have solved a particular issue. So the more improvements the more compelling google tools will become.
Hi @Camo_Rama if you’re using Maps for trails away from roads I would urge caution and make sure you check another source as well. This is not the area of expertise for Maps. Maps does not take terrain, surface conditions or weather into account when calculating trail walking times.
A classic example is the Nevada Falls trail in Yosemite. When you look at the walk time for that its just under three hours
I can tell you first hand that if you count on 3 hours for this trip you are grossly underestimating it. A lot of the trail is like this which is fine for an average person although slow going because its lumpy.
But some segments of the trail are more like this with a climb across a cliff and the final stage of this (just around the corner) is a near vertical set of wet stairs up the cliff face. That 20 metres forward was about 100 metres up and that alone took me an hour as I had to go at the pace of the other people.
I was fortunate because even though it looked like a quick trip, I expect to eat a light lunch then come back. My wilderness hiking skills told me that despite what Maps says, take energy bars and a lot of water. Even with 2 liters I ended up refilling from the waterfall itself.
I would always recommend that if you’re hiking that you find a local source of trail information. Use Maps for course planning but when it comes to working out what is needed and how long an actual hike will take back it up with other sources designed for hikers.
Paul
Well at least the track you give as an example IS active (quite apart from the surface matters) whereas I am talking about Camino tracks that follow roads but just as often take a shortcut along a side track (probably used for 1000 years by pilgrims).
My (self appointed) task has been to examine every yard of these tracks and use Road Fixer (some cases) but better still Content Partners to MAKE the whole lot active (thousands of miles) so Google Maps Directions can be used to NAVIGATATE.
Having the times better corrected to suit the individual is simply a “nice to have” feature but rather minor.
PS There was an announcement by Google about 2 years back about improving tracks on Google and that was my motivation so I guess that is why Content Partners has spent so much time investigating/activating my fixes.
1 Like
I believe it is based on the average human walking pace of 5.1km/h or 3 miles per hour. I find that I walk somewhat faster than Maps predicts and my partner walks somewhat slower @Camo_Rama it is meant as a guide and includes parameters such as the time of day and predicted levels of foot traffic and needing to cross roads with the delays that brings. It is unlikely to ever match your exact walking pace and should be treated as a guide.
Paul