Normal Walking Speed?
Steve
any research or study about "normal wlking speed" of human being, and any
academic materials can be found on net?
Thanks!
Adrian Tupper
"Steve" <johnn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5v286$j9...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet.
In euros this is about 5 Km/h + 1/2 hour per 300m. But this equation works
best over long distances
and varying terrains.
So on the flat we assume 5Km/h is the normal speed.
If at the same you are climbing 100m per Km flat (1:10 slope) then it would
take 12mins (for the 1Km) + 10mins (for the 100m)
= 22mins to walk each 1Km - equivalent to around 3 Km/h.
Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the flat.
HTH.
--
Adrian
Paul Saunders
> The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet.
Only there's a catch. That walking speed is only "normal" if you are very
fit. Naismith, who worked out the formula, was an extremely fit walker.
Most people can't keep up with him.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Steve
Is there any publications or study regarding Naysmith's Rule?
Mike Clark
<URL:mailto:pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> "Adrian Tupper" <adrian...@totalise.co.uk> wrote
>
> > The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000
> > feet.
>
> Only there's a catch. That walking speed is only "normal" if you are very
> fit. Naismith, who worked out the formula, was an extremely fit walker.
> Most people can't keep up with him.
>
> Paul
Yes I find that I tend to get a better result by substituting 4km an hour.
In these days where many people collect GPS tracklogs it ought to be easy
to collect a large sample of data for analysis according to distance and
altitude.
Mike Clark, <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"
Steve
pennineway
Internet, but I know not wher. You should be able to locate it though.
David Gibbins
-------------
Accessibility as an important wilderness indicator:
Modelling Naismith's Rule
Steffen Fritz and Steve Carver
School of Geography
University of Leeds
Fax: 0113 233 3308
E-mail: s.ca...@geog.leeds.ac.uk
W.W. Naismith was a founder of the Scottish Mountaineering Club and a
formidable walker and his rule is still used to obtain a rough estimate of
the time required for a given expedition (Aitken, 1977; Langmuir, 1984). It
is thought that the rule gives a reasonable minimum time, but due to the
fact that Naismith was an optimist it is proposed by Wilderness Tech Tips
(1998) to take the Naismith value and add 50 %. Additional time can be added
according to rests, extra carried weight, poor weather and rough underfoot
conditions. The basic rule of Naismith states that a walker can maintain a
speed of 5 km/h on level ground, but 1 hour needs to be added for every 600m
of ascent. Several refinements to Naismith's Rule have been made and another
rule, the so called Backpacker's Rule, has been defined (Wilderness Tech
Tips, 1998). Aitken (1977) makes refinements according to ground conditions.
This assumes that 5 km/h can be maintained on paths tracks and roads, while
this is reduced to 4 km/h on all other grounds. Langmuir (1984) makes
following further refinements:
Naismith's Rule: 5 km/h plus 1 hour per 600m ascent; minus 10 minutes per
300 m descent for slopes between 5 and 12 degrees; plus 10 minutes per 300m
descent for slopes greater than 12 degrees.
Kennedy (1998) states that the rule is applicable to reasonably fit
hillwalkers negotiating typical terrain under typical weather conditions.
Furthermore he mentions the following factors as having a significant effect
on route times:
Terrain and conditions Underfoot
It has to be noticed that only on a good footpath can Naismith's speed of 5
km/h be readily maintained and that on a densely vegetated trackless
terrain, hag-ridden ground, or boulder fields a 'time penalty' must to be
added. Additionally, Naismith's climbing rate (600m per hour) is unlikely to
be achieved whilst rock scrambling. Furthermore, winter conditions can
change the walking time remarkably. For example, a cover of soft and drifted
snow or snow with a breakable crust can make walking conditions extremely
difficult.
Weather
Wind is the most important meteorological factor. Kennedy (1998, p.3)
remarks "a strong headwind can more than halve walking speed, a strong
crosswind on a exposed ridge can also impede process, by forcing frequent
stops to avoid getting blown off!" and "coincidental hail, sleet or snow can
add to the trauma - particularly if effective eye protection is not
available".
Descent
Naismith's formula makes no special allowance for downhill sections, and
only the map distance covered is taken into account at the standard walking
pace. The reason why during steep descents a delay occurs is mainly due to
the need to take shorter steps, or to reduce the slope angle and extend path
length by zig-zagging. Due to the fact the descent affects walking time, the
refinements made my Langmuir in 1984 are taken into account and his rule
used to model time distances in the current analysis (see section 3.3).
Fitness and load carried
Another factor which obviously contributes to the walking time into an area
is the fitness of the hillwalker. Kennedy (1998, p.4) mentions Tranter's
correction to take an individual's fitness into account: "An allowance can
be made for this factor by use of Tranter's correction. This is in the form
of a table, where the basic Naismith estimate for a route is modified by a
factor which is dependent on individual fitness level; this in turn can be
determined by recording the time taken to climb a set height (300m) over a
set distance (800m) at normal walking space. Whereas Naismith's Rule assumes
a steady rate, Tranter's correction takes into account the effects of
fatigue, such that a reduced mean work rate is assumed for the more
demanding excursions."
In a study by Kennedy (1998) the ascent time for peaks in two areas were
chosen to investigate the reliability of Naismith's Rule; the Lake District
'Wainwrights' and the Munros in the Scottish Highlands. In this study the
original Naismith's Rule was applied without Tranter's correction and with
no additional allowance made for scrambling routes or steeply descending
pitches.
Figure 2 <nai1.gif>
Figure 2 shows that Naismith's Rule is a good predictor for walking time in
the Lake District hills within a percentage of 25 percent. On another
terrain walking distances may differ significantly. This is the case in the
Scottish Munros. Differences occur due to the amount of scrambling required
on these routes and the more serious nature of winter routes (most of the
points below the lower 25% line are scrambling or winter routes).
Furthermore, when walking long distances, a 'fatigue factor' is revealed.
This is shown in figure 3.
"Steve" <johnn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5v286$j9...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
Bob Mannix
> Thank you Paul for your valuable comment.
Well, it was quite valuable. Anyone writing a route plan and employing
Naismith's rule should then modify it for stops and the fitness of the
walkers, otherwise they're not doing the job properly. Failure to do so
might (in extreme cases) result in a party being listed as overdue when they
are bumbling along quite happily.
Rules are, as always, for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the
wise.
If you wish to know more, a simple Google search for "Naismith's rule" will
give you plenty to read.
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
W. D. Grey
>Only there's a catch. That walking speed is only "normal" if you are very
>fit. Naismith, who worked out the formula, was an extremely fit walker.
>Most people can't keep up with him.
normal people.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
Michael West
> The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet.
That means 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet *of ascent*.
Not everyone would know that, so it's important to state it.
--
Mike W
Roger Chapman
from "Adrian Tupper" <adrian...@totalise.co.uk> contains these words:
> "Steve" <johnn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b5v286$j9...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> >Dear all, I'm doing paper on human behaviour. Does anybody know if
> >there is
> >any research or study about "normal wlking speed" of human being, and any
> > academic materials can be found on net?
There is no such thing as a normal pace, even for an individual. Pace
will vary depending on the amount of effort the walker is prepared to
exert and will be slower the longer the walk provided the walker is
doing his (or her) best.
> The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet.
> In euros this is about 5 Km/h + 1/2 hour per 300m. But this equation works
> best over long distances
> and varying terrains.
Naysmiths Rule, as originally devised, was intended as a rough and ready
indication of the time required for a full days walk (including all
stops) over Scottish hills. It tends to overstate the case on anything
shorter unless the going is very tough or the walker in question is
dawdling. :-)
On shorter brisk walks I used to find 4 mph and 3000 feet of ascent per
hour (which I have immodestly called Chapmans Rule) a more useful
yardstick but these days it is a bit of a struggle off road. However I
can still manage that quite comfortably road walking. Now I hate road
walking but coincidentally I did have the chance to put the formula to
the test earlier this week when I dropped my car off for its annual
service and MOT and walked home, mostly on tarmac.
7.4 miles and approximately 900 feet of ascent in 1 hour 59 minutes
(stopped at neighbours for a cup of coffee)
7.5 miles and approximately 850 feet of ascent in 2hours and 5 minutes
for the return next day.
> So on the flat we assume 5Km/h is the normal speed.
> If at the same you are climbing 100m per Km flat (1:10 slope) then it would
> take 12mins (for the 1Km) + 10mins (for the 100m)
> = 22mins to walk each 1Km - equivalent to around 3 Km/h.
> Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the flat.
It averages out but relatively gentle gradients will give an increase in
speed while really steep slopes do curtail speed particularly as
convention takes only the horizontal component into consideration.
--
Roger
Looking North over the Aire Valley (and Marley Gasworks) to Rombolds Moor
Top Posters killfiled on sight
gaza
300 m descent for slopes between 5 and 12 degrees; plus 10 minutes per 300m
descent for slopes greater than 12 degrees.
Gaza's Rule:
For Wait-A-While, allow 1.5 hours for 1K
For flooded creeks allow 1 KPH
For dislocated shoulder in rough terrain allow 5 hours for 3K
On the home stretch heading towards a pub allow 6 KPH.
Leigh Preece
news:XVM6szDy...@graigroad.demon.co.uk:
> Quite so, there is a normal speed for fit people, and a normal speed
> for normal people.
...then there is a speed for walkers with sons who ask "how much further
dad", "can we stop for lunch now!" or "why is mum so far behind?".
Add this to the young daughter who insists on walking over every
'interesting' incline at the side of paths, wanting to look at every
flower/tree/stone and saying "please can I read the map?" - only to realise
she's looking at last weeks route upside-down.
Be doing this all over again on Mother's day somewhere in Derbyshire.
Leigh....
Andrew S
does anyone have the true naismiths rule ie true reference to what Mr or Mrs
Naismith stated?
The reason I ask is that i was always taught " 5km/h flat open ground, +1
hour per 500m of ascent + 1 hour per 1000m of descent...." in general. i
think this came from a victorian (Australia) bushwalking publication years
ago....
(not that i disagree with Gaza)
It would be nice to find the true origins of these rules-of-thumb.
Andrew S
"gaza" <lazy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:b5vusu$enj1$1...@ID-137617.news.dfncis.de...
Paul Saunders
> Add this to the young daughter who insists on walking over every
> 'interesting' incline at the side of paths, wanting to look at every
> flower/tree/stone
Hey, that sounds like me! :-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Paul Saunders
> Yes I find that I tend to get a better result by substituting 4km an hour.
I've always found that 1.5 miles an hour works well for me, including all
stops.
> In these days where many people collect GPS tracklogs it ought to be easy
> to collect a large sample of data for analysis according to distance and
> altitude.
Yes, I really should analyse mine more closely, I've got over three years
worth now.
On one that I studied I noted that 4kph was my normal "strolling" speed, on
a good flat path with no stops. My GPS usually reports average speeds of
between 3kph to 3.5kph for a walk, only taking time spent moving into
account. However, it only registers movement above 1.6kph or so, so doesn't
take very slow movement into account, such as when ascending very steep
slopes or crossing very rough ground. These would definitely bring my
average down.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Paul Saunders
> If you wish to know more, a simple Google search for "Naismith's rule"
will
> give you plenty to read.
And check for "corrections" too, such as Tranter's Corrections.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Sir Nigel Puke-Fuui
A very interesting discussion....
One thing I have noticed is that my "normal walking speed" is a fixed
quantity. I go out almost every day, walking the undulating dirt roads
near my home. I almost always have my GPS with me. Over the long
term it reports my normal walking speed at 5.1 kph. I can maintain this
for several hours at a time. But if I go out with a group of fitter people
and they insist on going at 5.3 kph, I suddenly get very buggered very
fast. As well, if a "senior" party wants to go at 4.8 kph, then again I
become prematurely tired. Going too fast and going too slow are both
stressful. Anyone else notice this?
>
>
thesnowbaron
May be that's why I prefer to walk alone.
Frank
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,
"Sir Nigel Puke-Fuui" <wan...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
message news:1103_1048814954@Loud_Belch...
:
: A very interesting discussion....
: >
: >
:
:
thesnowbaron
Many years ago when I still lived in the old country I saw a
table compiled for military purposes. On it it stated that
at sea level without any significant luggage the expected
walking speed was 6 km/h. It also had listed speeds for
different altitudes, descending and ascending, weight of
luggage, rate of climb etc. but I cannot remember these.
Frank
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Steve" <johnn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5v286$j9...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
: Dear all, I'm doing paper on human behaviour. Does
:
:
Roger Chapman
from "gaza" <lazy...@ozemail.com.au> contains these words:
> Naismith's Rule: 5 km/h plus 1 hour per 600m ascent; minus 10 minutes per
> 300 m descent for slopes between 5 and 12 degrees; plus 10 minutes per 300m
> descent for slopes greater than 12 degrees.
No it isn't. Naismith was dead long before Metric mumbo jumbo replaced
Imperial units in the UK but, much more importantly, the quasi accurate
additions in the above rule were not devised by Naismith and add only to
the complexity of the calculation, not the overall accuracy.
I posted a note about the origin of Naismiths Rule not so long ago. I
can't now remember the detail but it was little more than a throw away
line in an article in an early SMC Journal (1890ish). Something to the
effect that he had discovered a rule that worked surprisingly well to
predict the *overall* time for a full day out in the Scottish hills.
That rule was of course an hour for every 3 miles for the horizontal
distance plus half an hour for every 1000 feet of ascent.
Mark(desalinate for e-mail)Forsyth
>
>A very interesting discussion....
Indeed.
>
[deletia]
>for several hours at a time. But if I go out with a group of fitter people
>and they insist on going at 5.3 kph, I suddenly get very buggered very
>fast. As well, if a "senior" party wants to go at 4.8 kph, then again I
>become prematurely tired. Going too fast and going too slow are both
>stressful. Anyone else notice this?
Years ago, around the Oz. Audax cycling club ( long distance cycling with a set
time to complete the ride - see http://www.lesrm.org/English/Regulations/brevetsRM.htm
Article 10 for distances and time ) there was a lot of discussion as to
whether it's better to slow down from your normal pace to stay with a group
that's travelling a bit slower than you normally would or whether it was
better ( easier ? ) to speed up to stay with a group that's moving a bit
faster than your normal pace. The general concensus was that staying up with
a FASTER moving group was much better. The longer the ride the more pronounced
the effects were. The speed differences were pretty trivial - in the order
of a few km's / hour with normal riding speed being in the order of 25 - 30kph.
For me if I'm out walking the opposite is true. It's MUCH better to slow
down a bit. Speeding up, even just a tiny bit, leaves me gasping in no time
flat. Walking at my normal pace gets me to the morning tea stop at around
lunh-time. I'm pretty damn slow but I'm VERY thorough...:-)
--
Ooroo
Mark F...
Another Optus Cable Traffic Monitor.
http://www.members.optushome.com.au/forsythm/traff/
Today is Boomtime, the 14th day of Discord in the YOLD 3169
Paul Saunders
> >But if I go out with a group of fitter people
> >and they insist on going at 5.3 kph, I suddenly get very buggered very
> >fast. As well, if a "senior" party wants to go at 4.8 kph, then again I
> >become prematurely tired. Going too fast and going too slow are both
> >stressful. Anyone else notice this?
Walking slighty faster? Yes. Walking slightly slower? No.
> Years ago, around the Oz. Audax cycling club ( long distance cycling with
a set
> time to complete the ride - see
http://www.lesrm.org/English/Regulations/brevetsRM.htm
> Article 10 for distances and time ) there was a lot of discussion as to
> whether it's better to slow down from your normal pace to stay with a
group
> that's travelling a bit slower than you normally would or whether it was
> better ( easier ? ) to speed up to stay with a group that's moving a bit
> faster than your normal pace. The general concensus was that staying up
with
> a FASTER moving group was much better.
But this is cycling, not walking.
> For me if I'm out walking the opposite is true. It's MUCH better to slow
> down a bit. Speeding up, even just a tiny bit, leaves me gasping in no
time
> flat.
Yes, this is my feeling too. I saw a TV programme about a team race (in the
Lake District I think) some time back in which they conducted scientific
experiments on a team using treadmills, measuring oxygen & carbon dioxide
levels and so on. They concluded that it was best for the whole team to
walk at the pace of the slowest member, while faster members could
occasionally scout ahead to find the best routes.
The idea was to find the fastest pace that each member could walk without
having to stop for rests. If that pace was exceeded they'd have to stop for
rests frequently, and more time would be spent walking faster and resting
than walking slower and not resting. So the team as a whole would reach
their objective most quickly if they walked at the speed of the slowest
member and didn't stop for rests.
Being a slow walker myself (I suspect that the length of one's legs are a
big factor in determining comfortable walking pace) I find that if I'm
walking with people who try to push the pace, my attempts to keep up them
result in more frequent stops, which seem to annoy them even more than my
slow walking. They don't seem to realise that they'd get there faster if
they slowed down to my pace!
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Adrian Tupper
> Dear Adrian, thanks a lot!
> Is there any publications or study regarding Naysmith's Rule?
I'm sure there's lots of stuff on the Web. And lots of variations too.
I expect there'll be a few more answers to your questions in this thread so
I'll hang fire on that answer just now.
--
Adrian
Adrian Tupper
"Bob Mannix" <b1o2b3...@rl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b5vfih$10...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk...
> "Steve" <johnn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b5v65o$n4...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> > Thank you Paul for your valuable comment.
>
> Well, it was quite valuable. Anyone writing a route plan and employing
> Naismith's rule should then modify it for stops and the fitness of the
> walkers, otherwise they're not doing the job properly. Failure to do so
> might (in extreme cases) result in a party being listed as overdue when
they
> are bumbling along quite happily.
Yes. After two or more walks, one should be able to adjust the coefficients
to match ones own pace. This is how I came up with my formula of
"40 minutes to climb 250m on any normal hillside irrespective of the
horizontal distance"
It works every time. And flat walking is 2.5 to 5km/h depending on terrain.
Downhill
takes about half the time as uphill IME so that's 1hour per 250m of hill.
Ergo most Munros
take me 3 to 4 hours up and down when climbed singularly.
--
Adrian
Adrian Tupper
"Roger Chapman" <r.ch...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200303271...@zetnet.co.uk...
> Naysmiths Rule, as originally devised, was intended as a rough and ready
> indication of the time required for a full days walk (including all
> stops) over Scottish hills. It tends to overstate the case on anything
> shorter unless the going is very tough or the walker in question is
> dawdling. :-)
Well I don't count the stops so that's probably why it works for me. The
duration
of my stops depends more on my desires than on necessity as my walks tend
to be rather short.
--
Adrian
Adrian Tupper
"Michael West" <mbw...@spamblock.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:FmIga.1623$1b5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
This is exactly why I put in the line:
"Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the flat."
at the end of my post.
So there!
--
Adrian
Graham Benny
news:b61jjh$991$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
kph) for open country e.g. heather, tussocky grass, or for softish snow. The
half hour per 1000ft works OK in ascent (equates to 10m per minute) but I
also reckon on an additional 15 minutes per 1000ft (20m/min) on steep*
descents.
(* difficult to define but if you can't stride out downhill but need to work
out where to place your feet then it would qualify as 'steep'). I also allow
at least 5 minutes per hour for rests, looking at the views, navigation,
food stops, etc. (I do a lot of looking at views and talking to other
people - it is meant to be enjoyment after all). On really big days out, say
over 8 hours, the pace probably reduces to nearer 2 mph even on good tracks.
Graham
Paul Saunders
> I use 3 mph (~5 kph) for walking on decent tracks, reducing to 2.5 mph (4
> kph) for open country e.g. heather, tussocky grass, or for softish snow.
In my case it's more like 4kph on good tracks and 3kph on open ground.
> The half hour per 1000ft works OK in ascent (equates to 10m per minute)
Not with me, ascents slow me down far more, probably due to carrying too
much weight (and not just the weight of my gear!).
> I also allow
> at least 5 minutes per hour for rests, looking at the views, navigation,
> food stops, etc.
Only 5 minutes! I'm probably nearer the 20 minute mark, mainly due to
photography.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Adrian Tupper
"Graham Benny" <cnb...@ccsun.strath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b61lfa$3u1$1...@dennis.cc.strath.ac.uk...
> I use 3 mph (~5 kph) for walking on decent tracks, reducing to 2.5 mph (4
> kph) for open country e.g. heather, tussocky grass, or for softish snow.
The
> half hour per 1000ft works OK in ascent (equates to 10m per minute)
I use 250m in 40 minutes which is about 6m per minute. But I don't add on
any horizontal component.
--
Adrian
David
People walk at the same speed in good conditions regardless of load (to a
point) - although I think the 200 pound marine packs would blow my theory
out of the water.
"Adrian Tupper" <adrian...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b5v482$eio$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Steve" <johnn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b5v286$j9...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> > Dear all, I'm doing paper on human behaviour. Does anybody know if
there
> is
> > any research or study about "normal wlking speed" of human being, and
any
> > academic materials can be found on net?
>
> The standard equation is Naysmith's Rule: 3MPH + half hour per 1000 feet.
>
> In euros this is about 5 Km/h + 1/2 hour per 300m. But this equation
works
> best over long distances
> and varying terrains.
>
> So on the flat we assume 5Km/h is the normal speed.
> If at the same you are climbing 100m per Km flat (1:10 slope) then it
would
> take 12mins (for the 1Km) + 10mins (for the 100m)
> = 22mins to walk each 1Km - equivalent to around 3 Km/h.
>
> Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the flat.
>
> HTH.
>
> --
> Adrian
>
>
Trevor Dennis
>"Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote
>> In these days where many people collect GPS tracklogs it ought to be easy
>> to collect a large sample of data for analysis according to distance and
>> altitude.
>
>Yes, I really should analyse mine more closely, I've got over three years
>worth now.
Are there any apps that give point by point speed for a track log?
Looking at a .plt file in Notepad, shows that it should not be difficult
to do it in Excel. The problem would be relating the information to
where you are on a map.
--
Trevor Dennis
Remove s-p-a-m to email
Trevor Dennis
>Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the flat.
Unless you have dodgy knees. In fact, I should think most folk would
have difficulty maintaining 5KPH on a typical Snowdonia descent.
Paul Saunders
> Are there any apps that give point by point speed for a track log?
OziExplorer. Open the Track Control window and click on the Show Track List
button. All the data for each track point is shown, along with the
distance, speed and heading between each track point.
> Looking at a .plt file in Notepad, shows that it should not be difficult
> to do it in Excel. The problem would be relating the information to
> where you are on a map.
Not a problem, as you click on each track point in the track list a rifle
sight type cursor appears on the track to indicate where that track point
is, so you can easily relate the two. Looking at a recent Gower walk I can
see that my speed when climbing a sandy path was roughly 2.5kph. Faster
than I thought at the time, I hate walking through sand but climbing a hill
in the stuff is horrible.
Also Ozi can display a speed profile of your walk, plotted against either
distance or time. The trouble is that I stop to take photos so often that
even a gentle Gower stroll ends up looking like a Himalayan skyline. I
imagine a graph of a cycle ride would be a lot smoother, I'm less prone to
take frequent photos when cycling.
Yes, a cycle ride looks much better. I notice that I hit 40kph on one short
downhill section. I also notice that on a couple of training rides the
profile drops to zero a few times even though I know for a fact that I
didn't stop and kept my speed quite constant throughout. The track points
are detached too, so it looks like I probably lost lock a few times. Easy
to spot the spurious points, I definitely didn't go over 50kph at any time.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Paul Saunders
> >Going downhill is assumed to be the same as walking on the flat.
>
> Unless you have dodgy knees. In fact, I should think most folk would
> have difficulty maintaining 5KPH on a typical Snowdonia descent.
I'd have difficulty maintaining 5kph on a flat track... ;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
W. D. Grey
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Not with me, ascents slow me down far more, probably due to carrying too
>much weight (and not just the weight of my gear!).
Can't think what that excess avoirdupois could be!
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
W. D. Grey
<wan...@myrealbox.com> writes
>Going too fast and going too slow are both
>stressful. Anyone else notice this?
Ambling lazily following my wife around the shops is particularly
knackering.
W. D. Grey
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>So the team as a whole would reach
>their objective most quickly if they walked at the speed of the slowest
>member and didn't stop for rests.
Hm! I take it the team doesn't have any photographers on board :-)
Roger mentioned earlier that it is important to walk with a rhythm. I
totally agree on this point. Taking photographs definitely break the
rhythm of a walk, but one must consider ones priorities. Walk or snap
that is the question.
Atone time I used to road walk quite a bit and could easily maintain a
pace of 116 paces/min for distances up to about 3 - 4 miles. It would be
interesting to relate this to Mph or Kph.
My paces would be normal for a 5' 10" person.
Paul Saunders
> Roger mentioned earlier that it is important to walk with a rhythm. I
> totally agree on this point.
True, if walking is the point of the exercise. I'm not used to walking with
a rhythm though, I don't do it often enough. Non-rhythmic walking is normal
for me.
> Taking photographs definitely break the
> rhythm of a walk, but one must consider ones priorities.
> Walk or snap that is the question.
Indeed. I like to decide in advance whether I'm going out to take photos or
whether I'm going out for a walk (although I haven't done much of the latter
in recent years), and then equip accordingly. It mainly depends on weather
and scenery. For me, going for a walk is best done in bad light and/or not
very interesting scenery. Overcast days, rainy days and hazy sunshine are
ideal weathers for walking, as is walking in forestry.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
David Springthorpe
wrote:
>Roger mentioned earlier that it is important to walk with a rhythm.
Who could ask for anything more.....?
DS
Romano
Mike Harding wrote:
> A good Catholic girl?
Just one ??
Paul Saunders
> In trip planning I have always bargained on 4km/h in good conditions.
> People walk at the same speed in good conditions regardless of load
Definitely not in my case. Perhaps I can maintain the same speed on flat
terrain with a heavy load, but the moment the ground starts sloping upward
my speed drops exponentially. The heavier the pack the slower the ascent.
I find myself stopping for a breather quite frequently (I'm thinking of
carrying a full sack up a mountain here).
I've noticed that some people like to walk at the same pace uphill (not
carrying heavy sacks), but that just means they work harder and subsequently
have to stop for rests. I prefer to slow down proportionate to the slope,
to try to avoid having to stop too much, but this rarely happens when
walking with others.
> although I think the 200 pound marine packs would blow my theory
> out of the water.
Well I don't carry *quite* that much, but I do seem to carry a lot more than
most.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
David Springthorpe
>> A good Catholic girl?
>
>Just one ??
A bad one more fun.....?
DS
Trevor Dennis
>"Trevor Dennis" <tre...@tdennis36.s-p-a-m.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Are there any apps that give point by point speed for a track log?
>
>OziExplorer. Open the Track Control window and click on the Show Track List
>button. All the data for each track point is shown, along with the
>distance, speed and heading between each track point.
Well I never!! I don't know how long I've been using OziE, but my most
recent saved track log was from 1997! And I've always thought it a tads
nerdish recording track-logs, but that sort of information makes is very
interesting.
I did get a shock to see speeds up to 250mph over Cadair Idris on one
track-log, until I remembered I'd input the points manually. I was also
surprised at how quickly I walk - if only for the first mile or so. ;-)
>Also Ozi can display a speed profile of your walk, plotted against either
>distance or time. The trouble is that I stop to take photos so often that
>even a gentle Gower stroll ends up looking like a Himalayan skyline. I
>imagine a graph of a cycle ride would be a lot smoother, I'm less prone to
>take frequent photos when cycling.
You mean it can display a graph? How do you do that then? (I'll have a
look at the help file)
Stuart Baldwin
<Bi...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <1103_1048814954@Loud_Belch>, Sir Nigel Puke-Fuui
><wan...@myrealbox.com> writes
>>Going too fast and going too slow are both
>>stressful. Anyone else notice this?
>
>Ambling lazily following my wife around the shops is particularly
>knackering.
I also find that this sort of ambling aggravates my low-back pain,
which walking at my own pace, even with a pack, doesn't really do.
Neville Y
View > Track > Track Profile
Neville
"Trevor Dennis" <tre...@tdennis36.s-p-a-m.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PrcB6RAP...@tdennis36.fsnet.co.uk...
Adrian Tupper
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b65auh$qod$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "W. D. Grey" <Bi...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Roger mentioned earlier that it is important to walk with a rhythm. I
> > totally agree on this point.
>
> True, if walking is the point of the exercise. I'm not used to walking
with
> a rhythm though, I don't do it often enough. Non-rhythmic walking is
normal
> for me.
I often find I'm listening to songs in my head which match the walking
rhythm. Anyone
else get this?
No?
Just me then.
--
Adrian
Graham Benny
> "Graham Benny" <cnb...@ccsun.strath.ac.uk> wrote
>
> > I use 3 mph (~5 kph) for walking on decent tracks, reducing to 2.5 mph
(4
> > kph) for open country e.g. heather, tussocky grass, or for softish snow.
>
> In my case it's more like 4kph on good tracks and 3kph on open ground.
>
> > The half hour per 1000ft works OK in ascent (equates to 10m per minute)
>
> Not with me, ascents slow me down far more, probably due to carrying too
> much weight (and not just the weight of my gear!).
>
day. Unfortunately my body weight does not seem to respond similarly (last
year's "must lose half a stone" is now "must lose a stone"!)
> > I also allow
> > at least 5 minutes per hour for rests, looking at the views, navigation,
> > food stops, etc.
>
> Only 5 minutes! I'm probably nearer the 20 minute mark, mainly due to
> photography.
>
It probably averages out as a bit more than that, especially on a really
good day.
On Saturday we went round the Creag Meaghaidh Munros. I calculated a total
distance of 12 miles, ascent 4100 feet and steep descents of around 1600
feet. Total time was 7 hours dead compared with a calculated 7h2.5m! Breaks
down as 4h for 12 miles, 2h6m for ascent, 24m for steep descents and 32.5m
for stopping time. It was mostly on decent paths although there was some
heathery stuff on the first ascent, quite a few stony patches high up, some
soft snow on the final ascent to CM and some heather and wet grass on the
final descent. The weather probably helped as well as we got blasted by
heavy snow showers a couple of times so we tended not to hang about too much
and for about 50% of the time we were up high it was misty so no great
incentive to stop and look at views.
The formula only really works as a rule of thumb and you have to factor in
weather, general fitness, enthusiasm, terrain, ...
Graham
David
around that get stuck in my head for entire days!!!
"Adrian Tupper" <adrian...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b68q69$6fl$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Trevor Dennis
>In case you haven't found it.
>View > Track > Track Profile
Thanks Neville.
I must say these discoveries have reawakened my interest in both OziE
and GPS - neither of which have had a lot of use since the initial surge
that a new toy gives you. I demonstrated the function to a work mate
today, whom I'd loaned the GPS to to test a suspect speedometer on his
car. He was pretty impressed. I am thankful I didn't realise I could do
that when I still had my motorcycle.
Trevor Dennis
>I also find that this sort of ambling aggravates my low-back pain,
>which walking at my own pace, even with a pack, doesn't really do.
Yes. Isn't that strange. Something to do with standing still, which is
murder on a dodgy back? I get FAR less back trouble when humping a 40lb
pack about for days on end, than I do normally. Mind you - the pain from
aching shoulders etc. might just be disguising it.
Tim Jackson
> I often find I'm listening to songs in my head which match the walking
> rhythm. Anyone
> else get this?
Yes, but only sometimes. And then just a fragment of about one or two
bars of the same tune, over and over again. Always the same one, and I
don't even know what it is. But it's bloody annoying when I catch myself
doing it!
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
Adrian Tupper
"Tim Jackson" <ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.18f2980c5...@news.freeserve.net...
> Adrian Tupper wrote on Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:19:37 +0000 (UTC)....
> > I often find I'm listening to songs in my head which match the walking
> > rhythm. Anyone
> > else get this?
>
> Yes, but only sometimes. And then just a fragment of about one or two
> bars of the same tune, over and over again. Always the same one, and I
> don't even know what it is. But it's bloody annoying when I catch myself
> doing it!
This is exactly what I find too...
--
Adrian
Paul Saunders
> I often find I'm listening to songs in my head which match the walking
> rhythm. Anyone else get this?
Absolutely, although in my case I like to compose music in my head as a walk
along. I find the mountains very inspiring for that. I've composed some
great music in the hills, but all of it is lost forever... :-(
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
W. D. Grey
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Absolutely, although in my case I like to compose music in my head as a walk
>along. I find the mountains very inspiring for that. I've composed some
>great music in the hills, but all of it is lost forever... :-(
Beethoven's 9th slows me down a bit :-)
Tim Jackson
>
> Absolutely, although in my case I like to compose music in my head as a walk
> along. I find the mountains very inspiring for that. I've composed some
> great music in the hills, but all of it is lost forever... :-(
<mode = "Julie Andrews">
"The HILLS are alive... with the Sound of Music..."
</mode>
Adrian Tupper
"Tim Jackson" <ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid> wrote in message
> Paul Saunders wrote on Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:27:09 +0100....
> >
> > Absolutely, although in my case I like to compose music in my head as a
walk
> > along. I find the mountains very inspiring for that. I've composed
some
> > great music in the hills, but all of it is lost forever... :-(
>
> <mode = "Julie Andrews">
> "The HILLS are alive... with the Sound of Music..."
> </mode>
You b*****d. I'm going to be humming that all day now!
--
Adrian
David Springthorpe
<adrian...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>You b*****d. I'm going to be humming that all day now!
Still better than the themes from Gilligan's Island and The Brady Bunch.....
DS
Paul Saunders
> > I often find I'm listening to songs in my head which match the walking
> > rhythm. Anyone else get this?
"David" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I certainly do. Unfortunately it is often some of the most gastly songs
> around that get stuck in my head for entire days!!!
This often happens to me. I find that whatever I listened to in the last
day or so before leaving on a long camping trip tends to stick in my head,
so I find myself hearing bits of TV programmes, theme tunes and such,
advertisement catch phrases etc. (although I make a point of turning the
volume down on adverts).
For this reason, if I'm planning a few days away, I often spend the day
before listen to music that I like, precisely the sort of thing that I won't
mind hearing in my head when I'm out in the wilds, maybe some classical
music.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/