[Technical] Naismith's Rule and Excel

C L Imber <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I am sorry if this is too technical for people to follow

Muchly so. ;-)

I use Tracklogs, it is quicker than entering the NGRs and gives you a
Naismith time for a route which takes a couple of minutes to plot.
You can do it in a series of legs, of course.
--
Gordon

C L Imber said:

I am sorry if this is too technical for people to follow - likewise if
something similar has been discussed before.

I am trying to develop an Excel spreadsheet where I can enter a series
of 6 digit grid references and heights, and have the spreadsheet
calculate distances and times based on an adaptation of Naismith's
rule.

snip

Quoted message said:

Can anyone suggest any enhancements to this spreadsheet. I'm not
concerned with detail such as the appropriateness or otherwise of 3kph
- indeed, my spreadsheet simultaneously calculates times at all speeds
from 2kph to 5kph at 0.5kph intervals to cater for most fitness levels
and terrain types. I'm thinking of enhancements like adding time for
steep descents etc.

To be quite honest - I wouldn't bother writing one yourself from scratch, because there are already
manny versions out there to download and modify to your hearts content. The version I use will even
plot a route tracing and walking height gain/loss profile if you play with it; I haven't bothered
fully automating that bit yet...

The DofE website (www.theaward.org) has several versions, and I can email you mine if you are
interested in dis-assembling it.

Geoff

Geoff Briggs said:

The DofE website (www.theaward.org) has several versions, and I can email you mine if you are
interested in dis-assembling it.

Looking at the DofE website has given me several ideas for enhancing
my own spreadsheet.

1. Automatically calculate bearing
2. Put in a user column for rest breaks

My version has a couple of advantages:

1. The GR can be entered as one 6 digit number, not 2 x 3 digit
numbers.
2. The user only enters a spot height, the spreadsheet automatically
calculates a time for height gain/loss. However, this means that for
accuracy the route legs must include all high and low points.

I can see one major bug in my system:

The crossing of the 000/999 100km boundary.

C L Imber said:

Geoff Briggs said:

The DofE website (www.theaward.org) has several versions, and I can email you mine if you are
interested in dis-assembling it.

Looking at the DofE website has given me several ideas for enhancing
my own spreadsheet.

1. Automatically calculate bearing
2. Put in a user column for rest breaks

My version has a couple of advantages:

1. The GR can be entered as one 6 digit number, not 2 x 3 digit
numbers.
2. The user only enters a spot height, the spreadsheet automatically
calculates a time for height gain/loss. However, this means that for
accuracy the route legs must include all high and low points.

I can see one major bug in my system:

The crossing of the 000/999 100km boundary.

The versions I've got use a single 6 figure reference, and I have two forms; one where you enter
spot heights, the other where you enter height gained and lost. It also copes with the 000/999
boundary. If you give me a valid email address, I will send them as a 24k zip file; just unhide the
hidden columns and wrip it apart at your leisure!

Geoff

Geoff Briggs said:

C L Imber said:

Geoff Briggs said:

The DofE website (www.theaward.org) has several versions, and I can email you mine if you are
interested in dis-assembling it.

Looking at the DofE website has given me several ideas for enhancing
my own spreadsheet.

1. Automatically calculate bearing
2. Put in a user column for rest breaks

My version has a couple of advantages:

1. The GR can be entered as one 6 digit number, not 2 x 3 digit
numbers.
2. The user only enters a spot height, the spreadsheet automatically
calculates a time for height gain/loss. However, this means that for
accuracy the route legs must include all high and low points.

I can see one major bug in my system:

The crossing of the 000/999 100km boundary.

The versions I've got use a single 6 figure reference, and I have two forms; one where you enter
spot heights, the other where you enter height gained and lost. It also copes with the 000/999
boundary. If you give me a valid email address, I will send them as a 24k zip file; just unhide the
hidden columns and wrip it apart at your leisure!

Thank you very much for the offer. Part of the masochistic fun for me
is solving bugs and developing my own solutions.

I now have a 7 column spreadsheet, with no hidden data.

Column A - User entered 6 digit GR.
Column B - User entered spot height (meters)
Column C - Leg distance (meters)
Column D - Leg bearing (degrees)
Column E - Leg time (m:ss) [Note: Cell F1 is a user defined speed]
Column F - Running distance (Km)
Column G - Running time (h:mm)

Column D has the following formula:
=DEGREES(ATAN2(MOD(A[i],1000)-MOD(A[i+1],1000),INT(A[i]/1000)-INT(A[i+1]/1000)))+180
It is not very accurate for legs < 1000m

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:35:30 +0100, RSD <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hi

Your initial attempt does not seem to take into
account the gradient of the climb. In other words
you seem to be treating a 100m climb in the same
way, whether it occurs over a distance of 1km or
10km. I don't know if this is what is required but
I have adjusted things to take into account gradient.

I have calculated the gradient as ascent or descent
divided by distance travelled in the step (m/km).

I have changed the formula for a climb to add three
minutes per one-tenth of the gradient climbed.

I have also added coding to increase the time for a
steep descent.

For testing purposes I have defined "steep" as a
descent of more than 50m per km, and added three
minutes per one-tenth of the gradient.

Any of my guesstimates can easily be adjusted.

I reproduce below the "before and after" of an
imaginary trip (best viewed in fixed pitch font!)

Original

GR Ht(m) km dist updn grad t(leg) t(run)
105100 300
105105 0 0.50 0.50 -300 -600 0:10:00 0:10:00
105125 120 2.00 2.50 120 60 0:52:00 1:02:00
105130 140 0.50 2.50 20 40 0:12:00 1:14:00
105140 180 1.00 1.50 40 40 0:24:00 1:38:00
105150 320 1.00 2.00 140 140 0:34:00 2:12:00
105160 400 1.00 2.00 80 80 0:28:00 2:40:00
105170 600 1.00 2.00 200 200 0:40:00 3:20:00

Modified

GR Ht(m) km dist updn grad t(leg) t(run)
105100 300
105105 0 0.50 0.50 -300 -600 1:10:00 1:10:00
105125 120 2.00 2.50 120 60 0:46:00 1:56:00 <=Row 21
105130 140 0.50 2.50 20 40 0:14:00 2:10:00
105140 180 1.00 1.50 40 40 0:24:00 2:34:00
105150 320 1.00 2.00 140 140 0:34:00 3:08:00
105160 400 1.00 2.00 80 80 0:28:00 3:36:00
105170 600 1.00 2.00 200 200 0:40:00 4:16:00

GR - entered by user
Ht (m) - entered by user
km - Distance in km for this leg
dist - sum of km to date
updn - ascent/descent over leg
grad - gradient: updn/km
t(leg) - time for leg hh:mm:ss
t(run) - sum of t(leg) to date hh:mm:ss

formulae for line beginning GR = 105125 (cell A21)
C21 km :
=SQRT((MOD(A20,1000)-MOD(A21,1000))^2+(INT(A20/1000)-INT(A21/1000))^2)/10
D21 dist : =C20+C21
E21 updn : =B21-B20
F21 grad : =E21/C21
G21 t(leg) :
=(C21/3*60+IF(F21>0,F21/10,0)+IF(F21<-50,(-F21)/10,0))/24/60
H21 t(run) :=H20+G21

I like your graded ascent and steep descent ideas very much. Thank
you.

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:21:52 +0100, C L Imber
<[email hidden]> wrote:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am trying to develop an Excel spreadsheet where I can enter a series
of 6 digit grid references and heights, and have the spreadsheet
calculate distances and times based on an adaptation of Naismith's
rule.

snip

[quote="Quoted message"][quote="Quoted message"]Column E - i > 1
=(C[i+1]/3*60+IF((B[i+1]-B[i])>0,(B[i+1]-B[i])/10,0))/24/60
Calculates the time for the leg at 3kph over flat ground.
Uses a condition to decide if leg is uphill or downhill.
Adds 1 min per 10m if leg is uphill.
Adds nothing if leg is downhill.
Displays leg time in minutes and seconds.[/quote][/quote]

Naismiths Rule is a simple rule intended to give a rough idea of the
overall time for a days walk. Adding bells and whistles means it is no
longer Naismiths Rule and has the added disadvantage that the end result
is likely to be no more accurate than the original easy calculation.
Using different values also means it is no longer Naismiths Rule. If you
have a preferred set of figures be brave and name it after yourself, it
might just catch on, although I have no evidence that anyone other than
myself has ever bothered with Chapmans Rule - a hour for every 4 miles
plus another for very 3000 feet of ascent. (NB Naismiths Rule was also
couched in similar terms rather that the loose and misleading so much
per hour).

Trantor came up with some modifications to cater for the effects of pack
loads (and IIRC fitness) but even he didn't try the imponderables of
difficulty of going, effect of hangover, wearing waterproofs, etc. At
the end of a day it is just a walk and you really need to know 2 things
- roughly how long it is going to take and (perhaps more importantly if
it is a tough walk) is it beyond you. Waddells formula for energy
expenditure has been discussed extensively in the past and is easily
worked out on a spreadsheet.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can anyone suggest any enhancements to this spreadsheet. I'm not
concerned with detail such as the appropriateness or otherwise of 3kph
- indeed, my spreadsheet simultaneously calculates times at all speeds
from 2kph to 5kph at 0.5kph intervals to cater for most fitness levels
and terrain types. I'm thinking of enhancements like adding time for
steep descents etc.

Quoted message said:

Your initial attempt does not seem to take into
account the gradient of the climb. In other words
you seem to be treating a 100m climb in the same
way, whether it occurs over a distance of 1km or
10km. I don't know if this is what is required but
I have adjusted things to take into account gradient.

Quoted message said:

I have calculated the gradient as ascent or descent
divided by distance travelled in the step (m/km).

Quoted message said:

I have changed the formula for a climb to add three
minutes per one-tenth of the gradient climbed.

Quoted message said:

I have also added coding to increase the time for a
steep descent.

Quoted message said:

For testing purposes I have defined "steep" as a
descent of more than 50m per km, and added three
minutes per one-tenth of the gradient.

RSD wrote:

<great technical writings on Naismith and spreadsheets>

Um.

I have always though that:

i) it is a rule of thumb, an estimate
ii) it was devised by William Naismith to guess how fast *he* could
cover the ground
iii) Mr. Naismith didn't use this for when he was carrying a heavy pack
iv) there is no allowance for stops for food, photography, remembering
how to read the bloody GPS, remembering whether to add or subtract
variation, arguing about which way to go next or just gasping for breath
v) it assumes consistent easy going underfoot
vi) scrambling is right out.

It is *only* good for a first guess. I use it to estimate minimum times
for walk sections, then add chunks of time for known difficulties, stops
etc. Mileage is estimated off a map, by map measurer if I'm feeling
pedantic, and height gain by counting contours. Only height gained
matters, height loss is free.

Adding too many refinements leads you up the garden path to conclusions
such as:

"this section will take us twenty-eight minutes and thirty seconds"

forgetting that, for a given range of walkers, loads and weather you
should add:

"Plus or minus fifteen minutes."

Roger Chapman said:

Naismiths Rule is a simple rule intended to give a rough idea of the
overall time for a days walk.

This is very true. Well worth repeating.

Quoted message said:

Adding bells and whistles means it is no
longer Naismiths Rule and has the added disadvantage that the end
result is likely to be no more accurate than the original easy
calculation.

Also by definition true. I suspect that C L Imber's motivation may be
to help work out the times at which he would expect to reach various
points on a walk. Perhaps this may be useful, perhaps not.

Quoted message said:

Using different values also means it is no longer
Naismiths Rule.

Definitely true.

Quoted message said:

If you have a preferred set of figures be brave and
name it after yourself, it might just catch on,

I agree.

Quoted message said:

although I have no
evidence that anyone other than myself has ever bothered with
Chapmans Rule - a hour for every 4 miles plus another for very 3000
feet of ascent.

I can't say that I'd ever attempt to follow your rule Roger, but I
respect you for having one. Perhaps one might consider it a rule for
very fit walkers. You really shouldn't put yourself down in that
respect. Much as we often tend to poke fun at your pace in this
newsgroup, I for one would love to be able to cover ground as fast as
you do. You have my respect, whether you feel you deserve it or not.

Quoted message said:

Trantor came up with some modifications to cater for the effects of
pack loads (and IIRC fitness) but even he didn't try the
imponderables of difficulty of going, effect of hangover, wearing
waterproofs, etc.

I'd love to see someone try to do that! Factoring in the quantity of
beer drunk the night before, taking into account height, weight, sex
etc.

Quoted message said:

5kph sounds a lot but is only marginally over 3 mph while the fixed
element of 1 min per 10m ascent is marginally under 2000 feet per
hour. If you must use metric these are probably the closest to
Naismiths Rule that you can get but even that hardly caters for the
faster walker. Naismith gives equal time to 3 miles and 2000 feet of
ascent but energywise they are not such a perfect match and ISTM that
someone who is constrained by excessive lack of fitness to such a
pedestrian pace as 2kph doesn't have a hope of managing the 2000 feet
an hour side of the equation and quite possibly not much hope of
managing as much as 2000 feet of ascent in a single day.

Analysis of some of my GPS track logs suggests that a comfortable pace
for me on flattish terrain, albeit loaded down with camera gear, is
approximately 4kph.

As for 600m per hour, that's definitely out of my league. Speaking as
someone to whom unfitness is no stranger, my gut feeling is that ascent
capability drops off faster than distance capability. Walking quickly
on flat terrain isn't much harder when unfit, but ascending is. A fit
person can ascend far more easily than an unfit one IMO, relative to
flat walking speed. Perhaps extra flab due to being unfit is a factor
in this?

Quoted message said:

FWIW I have never noticed that gradient made much (if any) difference
to timing using Naismith Rule.

It will if the gradient is extreme, and probably to my/Waddel's energy
formula too.

Quoted message said:

That doesn't make sense to me. Gradient is dimensionless and the value
is the same whether the height gained is 10 feet or 10000.

That's a good point Roger. I noticed in the orginal formula the use of
the Pythagoras theorem. Does that mean that C L Imber is trying to
calculate true three dimensional distance rather than x,y distance? Not
only is this impossible without tracing the actual slope of the ground,
but unnecessary. The extra distance walked is tiny in comparison to the
"flat" distance, and in this case, Naismith's theory separates the flat
distance from the ascent anyway, so it shouldn't be used with the 3D
distance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have also added coding to increase the time for a
steep descent.

Why? The slope has to be particularly steep before there is
significant loss of horizontal speed

Well to be fair Roger, mountain walking often involves slopes which are
particularly steep, and I for one am often slowed down by particularly
steep slopes, such as at the southern end of Fan Hir, which took me a
frustrating and painstakingly long time to descend last time I did it.

Quoted message said:

and for anything less there is
actually an increase

True. But on serious hills there's more decrease than increase IMO.

Quoted message said:

That is a slope of 1 in 20, relatively gentle. I would reckon that on
good going the break even slope is probably somewhere around 1 in 4.

Quite possibly. That sounds like it's in the right ballpark. I
remember pushing a heavily laden bike up a 1 in 4 slope in Mid Wales and
it seemed to go on forever at a terminally slow speed, whilst coming
down the other side on another 1 in 4 incurred sheer terror! (probably
the fastest I've ever travelled on a bike) But walking, probably
wouldn't have been too bad.

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

Alan Dicey said:

I have always though that:

i) it is a rule of thumb, an estimate

Yes.

Quoted message said:

ii) it was devised by William Naismith to guess how fast *he* could
cover the ground

Indeed. And many walkers just aren't up to his standards.

Quoted message said:

iii) Mr. Naismith didn't use this for when he was carrying a heavy
pack

Now that's a thought.

Quoted message said:

iv) there is no allowance for stops for food, photography,
remembering how to read the bloody GPS, remembering whether to add or
subtract variation, arguing about which way to go next or just
gasping for breath

Ah! So that explains it!

Quoted message said:

v) it assumes consistent easy going underfoot

Does it? That would make even more sense.

Quoted message said:

vi) scrambling is right out.

Absolutely. When ascending Tryfan you can throw Naismith right out of
the window!

Only height gained matters, height loss is free.

Well not really. Some height loss is bloody hard going.

Quoted message said:

Adding too many refinements leads you up the garden path to
conclusions such as:

"this section will take us twenty-eight minutes and thirty seconds"

forgetting that, for a given range of walkers, loads and weather you
should add:

"Plus or minus fifteen minutes."

I think that puts it into it's proper perspective. The range of error
is greater than the level of precision you can achieve.

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

"Roger Chapman" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Naismiths Rule is a simple rule intended to give a rough idea of the
overall time for a days walk. Adding bells and whistles means it is no
longer Naismiths Rule and has the added disadvantage that the end result
is likely to be no more accurate than the original easy calculation.
Using different values also means it is no longer Naismiths Rule. If you
have a preferred set of figures be brave and name it after yourself, it
might just catch on, although I have no evidence that anyone other than
myself has ever bothered with Chapmans Rule - a hour for every 4 miles
plus another for very 3000 feet of ascent.

I have 3 rules depending on the type of walk I'm doing.

1. The Backpacking Rule which is "Walk as far as you like and it takes as
long as it takes".
2. The Walking With Girlfriend Rule which is "Start to find a route back
when told to and it takes as long as she wants it to"
3. The Meeting Someone at End of Walk Rule which is "Make wild guess as to
meeting time and run if it looks like you'll be late."

None of which involve any measuring or calculations.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:35:25 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Adding bells and whistles means it is no
longer Naismiths Rule and has the added disadvantage that the end
result is likely to be no more accurate than the original easy
calculation.

Also by definition true. I suspect that C L Imber's motivation may be
to help work out the times at which he would expect to reach various
points on a walk. Perhaps this may be useful, perhaps not.

Its a combination of route planning and using spreadsheet formulae for
recreation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Using different values also means it is no longer
Naismiths Rule.

Definitely true.

Quoted message said:

If you have a preferred set of figures be brave and
name it after yourself, it might just catch on,

I agree.

How about "Climber's Rule"?

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

5kph sounds a lot but is only marginally over 3 mph while the fixed
element of 1 min per 10m ascent is marginally under 2000 feet per
hour. If you must use metric these are probably the closest to
Naismiths Rule that you can get but even that hardly caters for the
faster walker. Naismith gives equal time to 3 miles and 2000 feet of
ascent but energywise they are not such a perfect match and ISTM that
someone who is constrained by excessive lack of fitness to such a
pedestrian pace as 2kph doesn't have a hope of managing the 2000 feet
an hour side of the equation and quite possibly not much hope of
managing as much as 2000 feet of ascent in a single day.

Analysis of some of my GPS track logs suggests that a comfortable pace
for me on flattish terrain, albeit loaded down with camera gear, is
approximately 4kph.

Terrain makes an enormous difference to me. A good path on the top of
the Black Mountain will see me plodding along at maybe 5kph. Open
moorland sees my pace slow to 3kph. Crossing a boulder field in wet
weather can be painfully slow. Thus my aim to put in a user defined
speed.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That doesn't make sense to me. Gradient is dimensionless and the value
is the same whether the height gained is 10 feet or 10000.

That's a good point Roger. I noticed in the orginal formula the use of
the Pythagoras theorem. Does that mean that C L Imber is trying to
calculate true three dimensional distance rather than x,y distance? Not
only is this impossible without tracing the actual slope of the ground,
but unnecessary. The extra distance walked is tiny in comparison to the
"flat" distance, and in this case, Naismith's theory separates the flat
distance from the ascent anyway, so it shouldn't be used with the 3D
distance.

The use of pythagoras was to calculate the distance using two grid
references. To factor in the extra distance of a slope would not
really be worth the bother on slopes less than 1:4, and even then
probably not worth the extra effort.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have also added coding to increase the time for a
steep descent.

Why? The slope has to be particularly steep before there is
significant loss of horizontal speed

Well to be fair Roger, mountain walking often involves slopes which are
particularly steep, and I for one am often slowed down by particularly
steep slopes, such as at the southern end of Fan Hir, which took me a
frustrating and painstakingly long time to descend last time I did it.

Quoted message said:

and for anything less there is
actually an increase

True. But on serious hills there's more decrease than increase IMO.

Agreed - very steep descents can take a painfully long time. I once
descended the slope from the end of Striding Edge to Red Tarn. 200m
descent over 200m. It took about 15 minutes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is a slope of 1 in 20, relatively gentle. I would reckon that on
good going the break even slope is probably somewhere around 1 in 4.

Quite possibly. That sounds like it's in the right ballpark. I
remember pushing a heavily laden bike up a 1 in 4 slope in Mid Wales and
it seemed to go on forever at a terminally slow speed, whilst coming
down the other side on another 1 in 4 incurred sheer terror! (probably
the fastest I've ever travelled on a bike) But walking, probably
wouldn't have been too bad.

1:4 is probably a good guide.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:35:30 +0100, RSD <[email hidden]> wrote:

This message is best viewed in a fixed pitch font with line length set to 120 or more characters.
Apologies in advance to those this may upset.

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

GR Ht(m) km dist updn grad t(leg) t(run)
105100 300
105105 0 0.50 0.50 -300 -600 1:10:00 1:10:00
105125 120 2.00 2.50 120 60 0:46:00 1:56:00 <=Row 21
105130 140 0.50 2.50 20 40 0:14:00 2:10:00
105140 180 1.00 1.50 40 40 0:24:00 2:34:00
105150 320 1.00 2.00 140 140 0:34:00 3:08:00
105160 400 1.00 2.00 80 80 0:28:00 3:36:00
105170 600 1.00 2.00 200 200 0:40:00 4:16:00

I now have a spreadsheet I feel comfortable with - some formulae may need some tinkering.

Columns A to D are user defined.

Column A - Description of location.
Cell format - text

Column B - Grid reference.
Cell format - number no decimal places

Column C - Height of land at GR.
Cell format - custom [0"m"]

Column D - Speed for leg (dependent on terrain type).
Cell format - custom [0" Kph"]

Columns E to G are for individual legs (formulae are for row 5)

Column E - Bearing in degrees (approximate only)
=DEGREES(ATAN2(MOD(B4,1000)-MOD(B5,1000),INT(B4/1000)-INT(B5/1000)))+180
Cell format - custom [0°]

Column F - Leg distance in metres.
=SQRT((MOD(B4,1000)-MOD(B5,1000))^2+(INT(B4/1000)-INT(B5/1000))^2)*100
Cell format - custom [0"m"]

Column G - Leg time in minutes and seconds
=(F5/D5*60/1000+IF((C5-C4)>0,(C5-C4)/10,0))/1440
Cell format - custom [m:ss]

Columns H to K - Trip details

Column H - Trip distance in Kilometres
=H4+F5/1000
Cell format - custom [0 "Km"]

Column I - Trip time in hours and minutes
=I4+G5
Cell format - custom [h:mm]

Column J = ETA
=K4+G5
Cell format - custom [ddd hh:mm]

Column K - ETD - user modified for breaks
=J5 (unless modified)
Cell format - custom [ddd hh:mm]

Below is a small example from a 2 day route last weekend in the Brecon Beacons.

Location Grid R. Height Speed Bearing Dist. Time Dist. Time ETA ETD

Start 778245 270m 4kph 0m 0:00 0.0 Km 0:00 Sat 10:15*
Junction in lane 782248 310m 4kph 53° 500m 11:30 0.5 Km 0:11 Sat 10:26 Sat 10:26
Mynydd y Llan 790248 420m 4kph 90° 800m 23:00 1.3 Km 0:34 Sat 10:49 Sat 10:49
Mawnbwll 796247 400m 4kph 99° 608m 9:07 1.9 Km 0:43 Sat 10:58 Sat 10:58
Bryn Mawr 804247 460m 4kph 90° 800m 18:00 2.7 Km 1:01 Sat 11:16 Sat 11:16
Stone Circle 809242 440m 4kph 135° 707m 10:36 3.4 Km 1:12 Sat 11:27 Sat 11:27
Source of Usk 816236 550m 4kph 131° 922m 24:50 4.3 Km 1:37 Sat 11:52 Sat 11:52
Stone Circle 820231 600m 4kph 141° 640m 14:36 5.0 Km 1:51 Sat 12:06 Sat 12:06
Tro'r Fan Foel 820227 650m 3kph 180° 400m 13:00 5.4 Km 2:04 Sat 12:19 Sat 12:19
Fan Foel 820223 780m 3kph 180° 400m 21:00 5.8 Km 2:25 Sat 12:40 Sat 12:40
Fan Brycheiniog 825217 800m 3kph 140° 781m 17:37 6.6 Km 2:43 Sat 12:58 Sat 13:15*
Nentydd Blaen-Twrch 816217 600m 4kph 270° 900m 13:30 7.5 Km 2:56 Sat 13:28 Sat 13:28
Picws Du 811218 750m 4kph 281° 510m 22:39 8.0 Km 3:19 Sat 13:51 Sat 13:51
Cefn Twrch 808214 700m 4kph 217° 500m 7:30 8.5 Km 3:26 Sat 13:58 Sat 13:58
Corner of ridge 800213 660m 4kph 263° 806m 12:06 9.3 Km 3:39 Sat 14:10 Sat 14:10
Stream junction 788216 500m 4kph 284° 1237m 18:33 10.5 Km 3:57 Sat 14:29 Sat 14:29
Top of flat hill 784214 560m 4kph 243° 447m 12:42 11.0 Km 4:10 Sat 14:42 Sat 15:00*
Carreg Yr Ogof 777214 585m 3kph 270° 700m 16:30 11.7 Km 4:26 Sat 15:16 Sat 15:16
Path over col 777210 565m 3kph 180° 400m 8:00 12.1 Km 4:34 Sat 15:24 Sat 15:24
Garreg Las 777203 635m 3kph 180° 700m 21:00 12.8 Km 4:55 Sat 15:45 Sat 15:45
Start of line of rock 772191 590m 3kph 203° 1300m 26:00 14.1 Km 5:21 Sat 16:11 Sat 16:11
Shake hole 770183 510m 3kph 194° 825m 16:30 14.9 Km 5:38 Sat 16:28 Sat 16:28
Embankment feature 768182 500m 3kph 243° 224m 4:28 15.1 Km 5:42 Sat 16:32 Sat 16:32
Blaenllynfell 765183 500m 3kph 288° 316m 6:19 15.4 Km 5:49 Sat 16:38 Sat 16:38
Pwll Swnd 760184 580m 3kph 281° 510m 18:12 15.9 Km 6:07 Sat 16:56 Sat 16:56
Foel Fraith 756182 600m 3kph 243° 447m 10:57 16.4 Km 6:18 Sat 17:07 Sat 17:07
Head of stream 748182 490m 3kph 270° 800m 16:00 17.2 Km 6:34 Sat 17:23 Sun 09:15*
Garreg Llyd 740179 620m 3kph 249° 854m 30:05 18.0 Km 7:04 Sun 09:45 Sun 09:45
Kink in road 729182 480m 3kph 285° 1140m 22:48 19.2 Km 7:27 Sun 10:07 Sun 10:07
Carn Pen-y-clogau 717186 520m 3kph 288° 1265m 29:18 20.4 Km 7:56 Sun 10:37 Sun 11:00*
Low point between hills 705179 470m 3kph 240° 1389m 27:47 21.8 Km 8:24 Sun 11:27 Sun 11:27
Cairn 693173 480m 3kph 243° 1342m 27:50 23.2 Km 8:52 Sun 11:55 Sun 11:55
Tair Carn Isaf 683167 460m 3kph 239° 1166m 23:19 24.3 Km 9:15 Sun 12:18 Sun 12:45*
Crossroads 667163 290m 3kph 256° 1649m 32:59 26.0 Km 9:48 Sun 13:17 Sun 13:17
Road junction 659170 170m 3kph 311° 1063m 21:16 27.0 Km 10:09 Sun 13:39 Sun 13:39
Road junction 651164 160m 3kph 233° 1000m 20:00 28.0 Km 10:29 Sun 13:59 Sun 13:59
End of lane 650162 170m 3kph 207° 224m 5:28 28.3 Km 10:35 Sun 14:04 Sun 14:04
End 652162 180m 3kph 90° 200m 5:00 28.5 Km 10:40 Sun 14:09

C L Imber said:

Quoted message said:

Analysis of some of my GPS track logs suggests that a comfortable
pace for me on flattish terrain, albeit loaded down with camera
gear, is approximately 4kph.

Terrain makes an enormous difference to me. A good path on the top of
the Black Mountain will see me plodding along at maybe 5kph. Open
moorland sees my pace slow to 3kph. Crossing a boulder field in wet
weather can be painfully slow. Thus my aim to put in a user defined
speed.

How about user defined speeds for different terrain types? Then for
each leg you could enter the appropriate terrain.

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

Paul Saunders said:

C L Imber said:

Quoted message said:

Analysis of some of my GPS track logs suggests that a comfortable
pace for me on flattish terrain, albeit loaded down with camera
gear, is approximately 4kph.

Terrain makes an enormous difference to me. A good path on the top of
the Black Mountain will see me plodding along at maybe 5kph. Open
moorland sees my pace slow to 3kph. Crossing a boulder field in wet
weather can be painfully slow. Thus my aim to put in a user defined
speed.

How about user defined speeds for different terrain types? Then for
each leg you could enter the appropriate terrain.

I've never used look-up tables in Excel, but I am sure I could learn.
What terrain types do you recommend?

How about these for starters?

Bog - 2.5 Kph
Moor - 3.5 Kph
Heather - 3 Kph
Wet rock - 1.5 Kph
Dry rock - 3 Kph
Path - 4 Kph
Track - 4.5 Kph
Woodland - 3.5 Kph
Road - 5 Kph
Field - 4 Kph
Snow - 2.5 Kph
Deep snow - 1 Kph
Ice - 2 Kph

Roger Chapman <[email hidden]> wrote in news:2004092722081268959
@zetnet.co.uk:

Quoted message said:

Naismiths Rule is a simple rule intended to give a rough idea of the
overall time for a days walk. Adding bells and whistles means it is no
longer Naismiths Rule and has the added disadvantage that the end result
is likely to be no more accurate than the original easy calculation.

I always use Tupper's rule now. It works only on the flat or on hillsides
and is something like "5 km/h on the flat and 40 mins per 250m uphill and
20 mins per 250m downhill". Surprisingly accurate and can be modified
for each person's ability.

Next to useless on a ldp however.

--
Adrian

Roger Chapman <[email hidden]> wrote in news:2004092722081268959
@zetnet.co.uk:

Quoted message said:

Chapmans Rule - a hour for every 4 miles
plus another for very 3000 feet of ascent.

That's a fast climbing rate. One hour (and a bit) for a Munro?

--
Adrian

C L Imber <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

C L Imber said:

> Analysis of some of my GPS track logs suggests that a comfortable
> pace for me on flattish terrain, albeit loaded down with camera
> gear, is approximately 4kph.

Terrain makes an enormous difference to me. A good path on the top

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the Black Mountain will see me plodding along at maybe 5kph. Open
moorland sees my pace slow to 3kph. Crossing a boulder field in wet
weather can be painfully slow. Thus my aim to put in a user defined
speed.

How about user defined speeds for different terrain types? Then for
each leg you could enter the appropriate terrain.

I've never used look-up tables in Excel, but I am sure I could learn.
What terrain types do you recommend?

How about these for starters?

Bog - 2.5 Kph

Can be slower.

Quoted message said:

Moor - 3.5 Kph

Faster I would say.

Quoted message said:

Heather - 3 Kph

Yes. But it's tiring so longer stretches will be relatively slower.

Quoted message said:

Wet rock - 1.5 Kph

Usually too little to worry about.

Quoted message said:

Dry rock - 3 Kph

Depends how loose it is.

Quoted message said:

Path - 4 Kph

At least.

Quoted message said:

Track - 4.5 Kph

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Woodland - 3.5 Kph

In the absence of a path? Slower surely.

Quoted message said:

Road - 5 Kph

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Field - 4 Kph

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Snow - 2.5 Kph

See heather.

Quoted message said:

Deep snow - 1 Kph

Or 0 kph as the case may be ;-)

Quoted message said:

Ice - 2 Kph

Usually too little to worry about.
(How do you locate this on the map?)

--
Adrian

C L Imber <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:35:30 +0100, RSD <[email hidden]>
wrote:

This message is best viewed in a fixed pitch font with line length set
to 120 or more characters. Apologies in advance to those this may
upset.

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

GR Ht(m) km dist updn grad t(leg) t(run)
105100 300
105105 0 0.50 0.50 -300 -600 1:10:00 1:10:00
105125 120 2.00 2.50 120 60 0:46:00 1:56:00 <=Row 21
105130 140 0.50 2.50 20 40 0:14:00 2:10:00
105140 180 1.00 1.50 40 40 0:24:00 2:34:00
105150 320 1.00 2.00 140 140 0:34:00 3:08:00
105160 400 1.00 2.00 80 80 0:28:00 3:36:00
105170 600 1.00 2.00 200 200 0:40:00 4:16:00

I now have a spreadsheet I feel comfortable with - some formulae may
need some tinkering.

Columns A to D are user defined.

Column A - Description of location.
Cell format - text

Column B - Grid reference.
Cell format - number no decimal places

Column C - Height of land at GR.
Cell format - custom [0"m"]

Column D - Speed for leg (dependent on terrain type).
Cell format - custom [0" Kph"]

Columns E to G are for individual legs (formulae are for row 5)

Column E - Bearing in degrees (approximate only)
=DEGREES(ATAN2(MOD(B4,1000)-MOD(B5,1000),INT(B4/1000)-INT(B5/1000)))+

18

Quoted message said:

0 Cell format - custom [0°]

Column F - Leg distance in metres.
=SQRT((MOD(B4,1000)-MOD(B5,1000))^2+(INT(B4/1000)-INT(B5/1000))^2)*100
Cell format - custom [0"m"]

Column G - Leg time in minutes and seconds
=(F5/D5*60/1000+IF((C5-C4)>0,(C5-C4)/10,0))/1440
Cell format - custom [m:ss]

Columns H to K - Trip details

Column H - Trip distance in Kilometres
=H4+F5/1000
Cell format - custom [0 "Km"]

Column I - Trip time in hours and minutes
=I4+G5
Cell format - custom [h:mm]

Column J = ETA
=K4+G5
Cell format - custom [ddd hh:mm]

Column K - ETD - user modified for breaks
=J5 (unless modified)
Cell format - custom [ddd hh:mm]

Below is a small example from a 2 day route last weekend in the Brecon
Beacons.

Location Grid R. Height Speed Bearing Dist.
Time Dist. Time ETA ETD

Start 778245 270m 4kph 0m 0:00
0.0 Km 0:00 Sat 10:15* Junction in lane 782248 310m
4kph 53° 500m 11:30 0.5 Km 0:11 Sat 10:26
Sat 10:26 Mynydd y Llan 790248 420m 4kph 90°
800m 23:00 1.3 Km 0:34 Sat 10:49 Sat 10:49
Mawnbwll 796247 400m 4kph 99° 608m 9:07
1.9 Km 0:43 Sat 10:58 Sat 10:58 Bryn Mawr
804247 460m 4kph 90° 800m 18:00 2.7 Km
1:01 Sat 11:16 Sat 11:16 Stone Circle 809242 440m
4kph 135° 707m 10:36 3.4 Km 1:12 Sat 11:27
Sat 11:27 Source of Usk 816236 550m 4kph 131°
922m 24:50 4.3 Km 1:37 Sat 11:52 Sat 11:52
Stone Circle 820231 600m 4kph 141° 640m
14:36 5.0 Km 1:51 Sat 12:06 Sat 12:06 Tro'r Fan Foel
820227 650m 3kph 180° 400m 13:00 5.4 Km
2:04 Sat 12:19 Sat 12:19 Fan Foel 820223 780m
3kph 180° 400m 21:00 5.8 Km 2:25 Sat 12:40
Sat 12:40 Fan Brycheiniog 825217 800m 3kph
140° 781m 17:37 6.6 Km 2:43 Sat 12:58 Sat
13:15* Nentydd Blaen-Twrch 816217 600m 4kph 270°
900m 13:30 7.5 Km 2:56 Sat 13:28 Sat 13:28 Picws
Du 811218 750m 4kph 281° 510m 22:39
8.0 Km 3:19 Sat 13:51 Sat 13:51 Cefn Twrch 808214
700m 4kph 217° 500m 7:30 8.5 Km 3:26
Sat 13:58 Sat 13:58 Corner of ridge 800213 660m
4kph 263° 806m 12:06 9.3 Km 3:39 Sat 14:10
Sat 14:10 Stream junction 788216 500m 4kph 284°
1237m 18:33 10.5 Km 3:57 Sat 14:29 Sat 14:29 Top
of flat hill 784214 560m 4kph 243° 447m 12:42
11.0 Km 4:10 Sat 14:42 Sat 15:00* Carreg Yr Ogof
777214 585m 3kph 270° 700m 16:30 11.7 Km
4:26 Sat 15:16 Sat 15:16 Path over col 777210
565m 3kph 180° 400m 8:00 12.1 Km 4:34 Sat
15:24 Sat 15:24 Garreg Las 777203 635m 3kph
180° 700m 21:00 12.8 Km 4:55 Sat 15:45 Sat
15:45 Start of line of rock 772191 590m 3kph 203°
1300m 26:00 14.1 Km 5:21 Sat 16:11 Sat 16:11 Shake
hole 770183 510m 3kph 194° 825m 16:30
14.9 Km 5:38 Sat 16:28 Sat 16:28 Embankment feature
768182 500m 3kph 243° 224m 4:28 15.1 Km
5:42 Sat 16:32 Sat 16:32 Blaenllynfell 765183
500m 3kph 288° 316m 6:19 15.4 Km 5:49 Sat
16:38 Sat 16:38 Pwll Swnd 760184 580m 3kph
281° 510m 18:12 15.9 Km 6:07 Sat 16:56 Sat
16:56 Foel Fraith 756182 600m 3kph 243° 447m
10:57 16.4 Km 6:18 Sat 17:07 Sat 17:07 Head of
stream 748182 490m 3kph 270° 800m 16:00
17.2 Km 6:34 Sat 17:23 Sun 09:15* Garreg Llyd
740179 620m 3kph 249° 854m 30:05 18.0 Km
7:04 Sun 09:45 Sun 09:45 Kink in road 729182 480m
3kph 285° 1140m 22:48 19.2 Km 7:27 Sun
10:07 Sun 10:07 Carn Pen-y-clogau 717186 520m 3kph
288° 1265m 29:18 20.4 Km 7:56 Sun 10:37 Sun
11:00* Low point between hills 705179 470m 3kph 240°
1389m 27:47 21.8 Km 8:24 Sun 11:27 Sun 11:27
Cairn 693173 480m 3kph 243° 1342m
27:50 23.2 Km 8:52 Sun 11:55 Sun 11:55 Tair Carn Isaf
683167 460m 3kph 239° 1166m 23:19 24.3
Km 9:15 Sun 12:18 Sun 12:45* Crossroads 667163
290m 3kph 256° 1649m 32:59 26.0 Km 9:48
Sun 13:17 Sun 13:17 Road junction 659170 170m
3kph 311° 1063m 21:16 27.0 Km 10:09 Sun 13:39
Sun 13:39 Road junction 651164 160m 3kph 233°
1000m 20:00 28.0 Km 10:29 Sun 13:59 Sun 13:59
End of lane 650162 170m 3kph 207° 224m
5:28 28.3 Km 10:35 Sun 14:04 Sun 14:04 End
652162 180m 3kph 90° 200m 5:00 28.5 Km
10:40 Sun 14:09

How long did that take you to enter, as a matter of interest?

--
Adrian