GPS - Actual distance walked........

The message <[email hidden]>
from [email hidden] (Flat Earth Society) contains these words:

Quoted message said:

After downloading a track from the GPS and importation it to Excel, is
it a safe assumption that actual distance walked is the GPS figure of
cumulative distance plus ascent/descent. Therefore just add the
difference in altitude of each track point to the cumulative distance
figure e.g.

Quoted message said:

Simplistic

Quoted message said:

Track No Distance (cumulative) Altitude Difference
1 230m 157m
2 460m 144m 13m
3 600m 167m 23m
4 800m 165m 2m
5 1,000m 157m 8m
46m

Quoted message said:

Grand Total = 1,000m plus sum of difference (46m) = 1,046m

Not the way to look at it. Slope will add a marginally small distance to
the actual distance walked but by convention we define walks in terms of
plan distance and height climbed. The extra distance is a function of
the slope which is effectively continuously variable and getting on
impossible to calculate accurately but taking the average slope in your
example of 46 in 1000 the extra distance (E&OE) is only 1 metre.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 123 summits
New - 94 (Marilyns 14, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 82)
Repeats - 29 (Marilyns 11, Sweats 21, Wainwrights 16, Outlying Fells 2)

Roger said:

the actual distance walked but by convention we define walks in terms of
plan distance and height climbed.

Which leads me on to something that I've wanted to know for a while: in
(for example) the OS walking books, or Country Walking, when they give a
walk as being "5 miles" is that "you will walk five miles" or "we've
measured this on a map and it's 5 miles on the flat"? Always wondered.

Paddy

--
paddy spencer
paddy underscore spencer at hotmail dot com

paddy spencer <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Roger said:

the actual distance walked but by convention we define walks in terms of
plan distance and height climbed.

Which leads me on to something that I've wanted to know for a while: in
(for example) the OS walking books, or Country Walking, when they give a
walk as being "5 miles" is that "you will walk five miles" or "we've
measured this on a map and it's 5 miles on the flat"? Always wondered.

This you find out by (sometimes) bitter experience. Country Walking
walks are usually fairly accurate, the ones we've done, but they are
contributed by different individuals, I think.

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys Something-or-other's
South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME for the walk. I always map a
walk out, and never completely trust route descriptions, again from
bitter experience.
--
Gordon Harris

Gordon Harris said:

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys Something-or-other's
South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME for the walk. I always map a
walk out, and never completely trust route descriptions, again from
bitter experience.

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys Something-or-other's
South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME for the walk. I always map a
walk out, and never completely trust route descriptions, again from
bitter experience.

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

Dont go to Switzerland - their paths are signed in hours..

Richard Webb

I noticed that Message-ID: <[email hidden]>
from Rooney contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys Something-or-other's
South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME for the walk. I always map a
walk out, and never completely trust route descriptions, again from
bitter experience.

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

There are major road works on the A500 through Stoke-on-Trent and
electronic signs have been installed to tell drivers the estimated time
to get to the motorway junction. :-)
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

The message <[email hidden]>
from Rooney <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys Something-or-other's
South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME for the walk. I always map a
walk out, and never completely trust route descriptions, again from
bitter experience.

Quoted message said:

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

You mean like those advisory speed limit signs for bends that are
becoming increasingly common. I always try and take such bends at twice
the recommended limit. I suppose on the walks I would be aiming at half
the posted time.

I have never been to The Alps but ISTR reading somewhere that routes to
Alpine huts are usually signposted in times that the mere mortals from
the UK can't possibly match.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 123 summits
New - 94 (Marilyns 14, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 82)
Repeats - 29 (Marilyns 11, Sweats 21, Wainwrights 16, Outlying Fells 2)

In article <[email hidden]>, RJ Webb

URL: said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys Something-or-other's
South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME for the walk. I always map a
walk out, and never completely trust route descriptions, again from
bitter experience.

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

Dont go to Switzerland - their paths are signed in hours..

Richard Webb

Yes and very sensible it is too. The problem with giving distances in km
is that it doesn't allow for the quality of the terrain, eg. gradient or
difficulties such as chain protected scramble. I've found the marking of
routes by time to be a very reliable indication. You quickly learn by
what percentage over or under time your own walking pace gives.

Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In article <[email hidden]>, Roger

URL: said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Rooney <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys
Something-or-other's South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME
for the walk. I always map a walk out, and never completely
trust route descriptions, again from bitter experience.

Quoted message said:

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

You mean like those advisory speed limit signs for bends that are
becoming increasingly common. I always try and take such bends at twice
the recommended limit.

By "always" am I to assume that you don't bother to adjust your speed
for road and weather conditions such as rain, wet leaves, snow, ice or
in fog? What if you were driving a mini-bus full of passengers versus a
sports car? Or don't you mean "always".

Quoted message said:

I suppose on the walks I would be aiming at half the posted time.

I have never been to The Alps but ISTR reading somewhere that routes to
Alpine huts are usually signposted in times that the mere mortals from
the UK can't possibly match.

In general the official signs posted on walking routes to huts in
countries such as Switzerland are readily achievable by a moderately fit
individual. Some of the times given in guide books tend to assume that
you are very fit and acclimatised and certainly make no allowance for
stopping to admire the views or to take photographs.

Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Roger said:

You mean like those advisory speed limit signs for bends that are
becoming increasingly common. I always try and take such bends at twice
the recommended limit. I suppose on the walks I would be aiming at half
the posted time.

A mate of mine from Oz said he found it hard driving here at first
because of the lack of advisory speed signs on bends. When I went
there he gave me a piece of advice in reading them. The lower the
speed the more you should take notice of it. With a modern car 50 and
40 signs should be seen as a challenge to see if you can take them at
20 more. 30 and below signs should be seen as a warning, when it gets
down to 10 you know it is a *very* sharp bend!
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

The message <[email hidden]>
from Mike Clark <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys
> Something-or-other's South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME
> for the walk. I always map a walk out, and never completely
> trust route descriptions, again from bitter experience.

Quoted message said:

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

You mean like those advisory speed limit signs for bends that are
becoming increasingly common. I always try and take such bends at twice
the recommended limit.

Quoted message said:

By "always" am I to assume that you don't bother to adjust your speed
for road and weather conditions such as rain, wet leaves, snow, ice or
in fog? What if you were driving a mini-bus full of passengers versus a
sports car? Or don't you mean "always".

No. Just assume it was a tongue-in-check remark approximating to reality
in certain circumstances. I don't actually drive by rote at all, I weigh
up every bend according to circumstances.

Curious tale from years ago. I was driving to work over the moors in
thick fog and travelling as fast as I thought prudent and in one of the
villages I picked up a tail. At every bend he would disappear back in
the murk but once round the bend he was back trying to drive up my
exhaust pipe. He must have known the road because he was backing off
before he could possibly see any bend coming but I didn't see the point
in slowing down for bends that I usually took (at the very least)
somewhat faster.

I don't think I have ever driven a mini-bus but at least a couple of the
sports cars (100/4, Spridget) were a good deal less competent than my
current set of wheels and, come to think of it, marginally less
competent than the SWB 2A LR that I ran for a time.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 123 summits
New - 94 (Marilyns 14, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 82)
Repeats - 29 (Marilyns 11, Sweats 21, Wainwrights 16, Outlying Fells 2)

(RJ Webb) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys Something-or-other's
South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME for the walk. I always map a
walk out, and never completely trust route descriptions, again from
bitter experience.

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

Dont go to Switzerland - their paths are signed in hours..

Richard Webb

After I'd posted, I remambered that there are time-signs in the Tyrol.
We didn't really use them though - just went where we wanted to go
regardless of how long it might take, using the map and the fact that
there were several of those high farm places that serve food -
forgotten what they are called now, and limitless water.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

Mike Clark said:

By "always" am I to assume that you don't bother to adjust your speed
for road and weather conditions such as rain, wet leaves, snow, ice or
in fog?

Aha! - I see - these road signs are computerised and attached to weather
stations are they?

Geo

Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Gordon Harris said:

The most irritating walk book I have is Gladys Something-or-other's
South Pennines, which quotes only the TIME for the walk. I always map a
walk out, and never completely trust route descriptions, again from
bitter experience.

That's a pita. Imagine if road signs were done in times instead of
distances...

Hadn't thought of it that way. :-)
--
Gordon Harris

Roger <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

You mean like those advisory speed limit signs for bends that are
becoming increasingly common. I always try and take such bends at twice
the recommended limit.

Don't try that in Spain, at least not on Ibiza, I found that the
recommended speeds were pretty close to the limit. :-0
--
Gordon Harris

In a recent message <[email hidden]>,
Roger <[email hidden]> wrote.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Curious tale from years ago. I was driving to work over the moors in
thick fog and travelling as fast as I thought prudent and in one of the
villages I picked up a tail. At every bend he would disappear back in
the murk but once round the bend he was back trying to drive up my
exhaust pipe. He must have known the road because he was backing off
before he could possibly see any bend coming but I didn't see the point
in slowing down for bends that I usually took (at the very least)
somewhat faster.

[...]

It sounds as if he thought you knew the road and was content to sit
behind you and let you do the work. We don't get fogs round here like we
used to, but years ago when I used to drive a motor-bike, on back roads
I always used to have a queue of cars behind me in fog. I used to slow
down and wave them on, but they wouldn't overtake. I used to *stop* and
wave them on, but they used to stop as well and wait for me to get going
again <g>.

Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton
Caversham, Reading, England
<[email hidden]>

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:06:05 +0000, Geoff Berrow <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

There are major road works on the A500 through Stoke-on-Trent and
electronic signs have been installed to tell drivers the estimated time
to get to the motorway junction. :-)

I take it that one is measured in days....

Richard Webb

Flat Earth Society said:

After downloading a track from the GPS and importation it to Excel, is
it a safe assumption that actual distance walked is the GPS figure of
cumulative distance plus ascent/descent.

No.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

paddy spencer said:

Quoted message said:

the actual distance walked but by convention we define walks in
terms of plan distance and height climbed.

Which leads me on to something that I've wanted to know for a while:
in (for example) the OS walking books, or Country Walking, when they
give a walk as being "5 miles" is that "you will walk five miles" or
"we've measured this on a map and it's 5 miles on the flat"? Always
wondered.

5 miles on the flat is 5 miles, no matter whether it's flat or not.
Even if you climb Everest in between, it's still only 5 miles. Distance
is two dimensional.

Many have wondered about the extra distance caused by ascent. The sad
fact is that unless you're climbing something ridiculously steep, the
extra distance caused by ascent is so small as not to be worth worrying
about.

For example, a typical walk in the Brecon Beacons adds only 1% of
distance to the total. I'm thinking of the Mynydd Du escarpment.
According to Anquet the flat length (2D distance) is 10.90 ,miles, the
"hidden length" (3D distance) is only 11.01 miles, even though there's
over 1000m of ascent in that walk.

So basically, a 10 mile walk in the hills only adds 1/10th of a mile of
distance. Negligible. In a steeper area like Snowdonia it would add a
tiny bit more, perhaps 2%. Not worth worrying about. Far less than you
might expect.

But what about all that extra effort, you ask? Well the ascent
certainly adds extra effort, but not much distance. A simple conversion
of Waddel's effort calculations indicates that 100m of ascent is roughly
equal to 1km of distance, so the previous example scores 17.5 points in
distance and 10.1 points in ascent, giving an effort total (kilometre
distance equivalent) of 27.6 points for the whole walk.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk