Re: An idea

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't bother trying to estimate duration, it can be very
misleading. Given the huge difference in the pace of walkers, from the
long distance racers to the unfit plodders and photographers, specifying
a duration is virtually irrelevant IMO. You could pretty much pick a
number at random. Best to provide distance and ascent, and let people
estimate duration for themselves.

Paul

Very true... obviously what may take me 5 hours may take someone else
1 hour, or someone else 12 hours. However, duration estimations can
be useful in a relative sense. But only if the same person (or
software) is estimating the duration of each suggested walk. I've
used a site in the past that suggests duration of the listed walks,
and while the estimates are not accurate to my pace (I found I
completed them quite a bit quicker), once I 'corrected' the estimates
for my pace they were all quite accurate, as they were estimated by
the same person, and thus relative to each other.

But if different people are submitting walks (and consequently
duration estimates) you lose the relativity, and they truly become
pointless.

In general the original idea sounds good though.

Regards,

Michael S