[Technical] Naismith's Rule and Excel
C L Imber
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.
What I have so far it this:
Column A
User enters 6-digit grid reference.
Column B
User enters height in metres.
Column C - i > 1
=SQRT((MOD(A[i],1000)-MOD(A[i+1],1000))^2+(INT(A[i]/1000)-INT(A[i+1]/1000))^2)/10
Splits the 6 digit GR into easting and northing.
Calculates the length of the leg in Km using Pythagoras.
Column D - i > 1
=D[i]+C[i+1]
Keeps a running total of distance by adding the current leg to the
previous total.
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.
Column F - i > 1
=F[i]+E[i+1]
Keeps a running total of all legs.
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.
Gordon
>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
Geoff Briggs
> 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
>
> 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
C L Imber
<geoff....@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>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.
Geoff Briggs
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
C L Imber
<geoff....@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
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
C L Imber
wrote:
>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.
Roger Chapman
from RSD <RSDonNO...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:21:52 +0100, C L Imber
> <cliff...@nospam.tumble.net> wrote:
snip
> >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
> >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.
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
> >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.
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.
> 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.
FWIW I have never noticed that gradient made much (if any) difference to
timing using Naismith Rule.
> 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.
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.
> 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 and for anything less there is actually an
increase and while Naismiths Rule was never intended to provide times
for individual legs the net result is that on downhill legs you will, on
average, walk faster than on horizontal legs.
> 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.
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.
snip
--
Roger Chapman
Alan Dicey
<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."
Paul Saunders
> 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.
> 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.
> Using different values also means it is no longer
> Naismiths Rule.
Definitely true.
> If you have a preferred set of figures be brave and
> name it after yourself, it might just catch on,
I agree.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> and for anything less there is
> actually an increase
True. But on serious hills there's more decrease than increase IMO.
> 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
Paul Saunders
> I have always though that:
>
> i) it is a rule of thumb, an estimate
Yes.
> 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.
> iii) Mr. Naismith didn't use this for when he was carrying a heavy
> pack
Now that's a thought.
> 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!
> v) it assumes consistent easy going underfoot
Does it? That would make even more sense.
> 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.
> 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.
AndyP
> 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.
C L Imber
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[Snip]
>> 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.
>> Using different values also means it is no longer
>> Naismiths Rule.
>
>Definitely true.
>
>> 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]
>> 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]
>> 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.
>>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>> 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.
C L Imber
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]
> 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
Paul Saunders
>> 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.
C L Imber
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>C L Imber wrote:
>
>>> 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
Adrian Tupper
@zetnet.co.uk:
> 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
Adrian Tupper
> 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
Adrian Tupper
news:4gvil0pid7hpqp2gv...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:30:25 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
> <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>C L Imber wrote:
>>
>>>> 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
Can be slower.
> Moor - 3.5 Kph
Faster I would say.
> Heather - 3 Kph
Yes. But it's tiring so longer stretches will be relatively slower.
> Wet rock - 1.5 Kph
Usually too little to worry about.
> Dry rock - 3 Kph
Depends how loose it is.
> Path - 4 Kph
At least.
> Track - 4.5 Kph
Yes.
> Woodland - 3.5 Kph
In the absence of a path? Slower surely.
> Road - 5 Kph
Yes.
> Field - 4 Kph
Yes.
> Snow - 2.5 Kph
See heather.
> Deep snow - 1 Kph
Or 0 kph as the case may be ;-)
> Ice - 2 Kph
Usually too little to worry about.
(How do you locate this on the map?)
--
Adrian
Adrian Tupper
> 0 Cell format - custom [0°]
How long did that take you to enter, as a matter of interest?
--
Adrian
Tim Jackson
> I always use Tupper's rule now. It works only on the flat or on hillsides
So it fails when... er... um... ?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
roger
from Adrian Tupper <adrian...@totalise.co.uk> contains these words:
> > 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?
That surely depends on the Munro. The formula worked on Ben Nevis (my
first Munro) long before I devised it. Up and down in 3 and a half
hours. (10 miles, 4000 feet of ascent?)
--
Roger Chapman
Paul Saunders
> That surely depends on the Munro. The formula worked on Ben Nevis (my
> first Munro) long before I devised it. Up and down in 3 and a half
> hours. (10 miles, 4000 feet of ascent?)
It's taken me that long just to climb Tryfan.
C L Imber
<adrian...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
The grid references I got by scrolling my mouse over the OS
"Get-a-map" online 1:25000 map. I pulled the height information from
the same map and copied in the location detail.
For the GR only its probably 5 mins. For the GR, height and location
detail about 15 mins. The time for the speeds is minimal as a blank
cell copies information from the cell above.
However, the time taken was mixed up with the time taken to work out
and put in the spreadsheet formulae. Overall it's taken about 4 hours
over 2 days.
Now the spreadsheet is set up, plotting a 1 day 30 leg route shouldn't
take more than a few minutes.
It's certainly far quicker than filling in a route card using pencil
and compass.
Michael Hobby
"C L Imber" <cliff...@nospam.tumble.net> wrote in message
news:2jojl0lgsvmeds9sn...@4ax.com...
envelope/fag packet/chocolate wrapper. I've been doing that for forty years.
It's a tried and tested method. Never fails.
C L Imber
<michae...@caeceirch.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Now the spreadsheet is set up, plotting a 1 day 30 leg route shouldn't
>> take more than a few minutes.
>>
>> It's certainly far quicker than filling in a route card using pencil
>> and compass.
>All very enthralling! What's wrong with working it out on the back of an
>envelope/fag packet/chocolate wrapper. I've been doing that for forty years.
>It's a tried and tested method. Never fails.
I've already stated that the biggest benefit for me is recreational
Excel programming and problem solving.
Over the last three days I gained a lot of understanding of how the
National Grid works and the mathematical relationship between the
National Grid and angles.
Besides, I don't smoke and would not be inclined to do calculations on
the back of a fag packet. However, I drew a diagram to convince
myself that The Cobbler's summit is visible from the top of Skiddaw on
the back of an envelope, so I don't rule out that method of
calculation in the future.
Adrian Tupper
news:MPG.1bc3e4008...@news.freeserve.net:
> Adrian Tupper wrote on 28 Sep 2004 20:46:55 GMT....
>
>> I always use Tupper's rule now. It works only on the flat or on
>> hillsides
>
> So it fails when... er... um... ?
>
Undulating terrain, like ldps usually are.
--
Adrian
Adrian Tupper
@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:
> roger wrote:
>
>> That surely depends on the Munro. The formula worked on Ben Nevis (my
>> first Munro) long before I devised it. Up and down in 3 and a half
>> hours. (10 miles, 4000 feet of ascent?)
>
> It's taken me that long just to climb Tryfan.
You must have been using the wrong formula ;-)
--
Adrian
Adrian Tupper
spam.zetnet.co.uk:
Yes, I was not adding the horizontal distance. (Tupper's rule doesn't!).
250m takes 40 mins to climb, 20 mins to descend. In other words 1 hour per
250m round trip. That's still over 4 hours for Ben Nevis. However that is
one mountain I would expect to beat the formula owing to the "quality" of
the path.
--
Adrian
Adrian Tupper
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:04:49 +0100, "Michael Hobby"
> <michae...@caeceirch.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Now the spreadsheet is set up, plotting a 1 day 30 leg route
>>> shouldn't take more than a few minutes.
>>>
>>> It's certainly far quicker than filling in a route card using pencil
>>> and compass.
>>All very enthralling! What's wrong with working it out on the back of
>>an envelope/fag packet/chocolate wrapper. I've been doing that for
>>forty years. It's a tried and tested method. Never fails.
>
> I've already stated that the biggest benefit for me is recreational
> Excel programming and problem solving.
>
> Over the last three days I gained a lot of understanding of how the
> National Grid works and the mathematical relationship between the
> National Grid and angles.
I know what you mean. I devised a formula to find the distance between
two grid refs (incl the two-letter prefix) in Excel which I used to
do my hill lists.
>
> Besides, I don't smoke and would not be inclined to do calculations on
> the back of a fag packet. However, I drew a diagram to convince
> myself that The Cobbler's summit is visible from the top of Skiddaw on
> the back of an envelope, so I don't rule out that method of
> calculation in the future.
>
But do you have a method of finding *all* summits visible from the top
of Skiddaw?
--
Adrian
Tim Jackson
Ah, on the flat AND on hillsides. As opposed to on the flat OR on
hillsides. I missed the subtle distinction. :-)
Adrian Tupper
> Adrian Tupper wrote on 29 Sep 2004 20:37:25 GMT....
>> Tim Jackson <ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1bc3e4008...@news.freeserve.net:
>>
>> > Adrian Tupper wrote on 28 Sep 2004 20:46:55 GMT....
>> >
>> >> I always use Tupper's rule now. It works only on the flat or on
>> >> hillsides
>> >
>> > So it fails when... er... um... ?
>> >
>>
>> Undulating terrain, like ldps usually are.
>
> Ah, on the flat AND on hillsides. As opposed to on the flat OR on
> hillsides. I missed the subtle distinction. :-)
>
It's all geared around what I call L-shaped walks. That is, walking
up a hill to the summit and returning, probably with a fairly flat
walk-in (or walk-out) between car and foot of hill.
It works well with successive hills as long as they're not far apart.
I haven't tested it on a flat hillside yet ;-)
--
Adrian
C L Imber
<adrian...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
Given any summit, I can calculate if it would be possible to see it
from Siddaw if all the land between the two summits is at sea level,
so using look-up tables it would be possible to find all summits
visible. However, many summits (almost certainly including The
Cobbler) would be obscured by land above sea level, and to calculate
that would require a very large database of land height.
So the answer is theoretically yes, but practically no.
Paul Saunders
>> How about these for starters?
>>
>> Bog - 2.5 Kph
>
> Can be slower.
Can be much slower, especially that tussocky bog. At times your speed
can drop to virtually zero.
>> Moor - 3.5 Kph
>
> Faster I would say.
Moor? Surely there are different types? It seems to vary from
surprisingly smooth grass to horrendous tussock grass. Mostly it's
somewhere in between, roughish grass that slows you down a little, and
lots of little obstacles like rocks and boggy bits that cause you to
zig-zag through the terrain rather than walk in a straight line (which
means that you travel toward your destination slower than your walking
speed would imply). When it's good it can be very very good, but when
it's bad, it can be really really bad. No way of telling where the
worst tussock grass is by looking at a map though.
>> Heather - 3 Kph
>
> Yes. But it's tiring so longer stretches will be relatively slower.
Now we're getting into the realms of effort rather than time.
>> Wet rock - 1.5 Kph
>
> Usually too little to worry about.
Depends where you're walking. Try climbing Tryfan when it's wet.
>> Dry rock - 3 Kph
>
> Depends how loose it is.
>
>> Path - 4 Kph
>
> At least.
>
>> Track - 4.5 Kph
>
> Yes.
I'd knock half a km off each of those, but that's just me, I've got
short legs!
>> Woodland - 3.5 Kph
>
> In the absence of a path? Slower surely.
I've walked in a forest in England somewhere where the trees were so far
apart it didn't feel like a proper forest. There was no impediment to
movement. Now my idea of a proper forest is those dense plantations
that are so common in Wales. At times I've been reduced to crawling on
the ground to get underneath the branches. Once in deep snow I
completely failed to get throught the trees, shovel loads of snow fell
on me as I tried to force my way through, and the snow was too deep to
crawl. May as well have been a brick wall. I gave up and turned back.
>> Snow - 2.5 Kph
Highly variable.
>> Ice - 2 Kph
With or without spiked boots? Hardly any speed at all without.
> Usually too little to worry about.
> (How do you locate this on the map?)
How do you locate snow? Tussock grass? Or even bogs?
Incidentally, speed across bogs can be pretty quick in winter when they
freeze up.
Adrian Tupper
@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
>> Yes. But it's tiring so longer stretches will be relatively slower.
>
> Now we're getting into the realms of effort rather than time.
True, but lifting legs over heather and snow brings on the fatigue
very quickly IME.
//
>
>>> Ice - 2 Kph
>
> With or without spiked boots? Hardly any speed at all without.
>
>> Usually too little to worry about.
>> (How do you locate this on the map?)
>
> How do you locate snow? Tussock grass? Or even bogs?
Bogs can usually be guessed at.
>
> Incidentally, speed across bogs can be pretty quick in winter when
they
> freeze up.
Oh yes, I realised this many many years ago when I whizzed over Kinder
one January.
--
Adrian
Paul Saunders
>> How do you locate snow? Tussock grass? Or even bogs?
>
> Bogs can usually be guessed at.
To an extent. But there are some very wet bits that aren't shown as
bogs on the map.
Chris Malcolm
>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.
One of the unexpected benefits I found of carrying a GPSR was how
helpful it is at answering question 3. It will tell you how long it
will take you get to your destination if you continue moving at the
sorts of speed you've recently been moving at. It's particularly handy
when travelling to meet a train departure time, when being a few
minutes early is fine, and a few minutes late is a disaster.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Adrian Tupper
@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Adrian Tupper wrote:
>
>>> How do you locate snow? Tussock grass? Or even bogs?
>>
>> Bogs can usually be guessed at.
>
> To an extent. But there are some very wet bits that aren't shown as
> bogs on the map.
But surely as an experienced walker you can kind of sense where they
would be, given the local topography and drainage as shown on the
map?
Oh, I forgot, you are a GPS user ;-)
--
Adrian
Paul Saunders
>>> Bogs can usually be guessed at.
>>
>> To an extent. But there are some very wet bits that aren't shown as
>> bogs on the map.
>
> But surely as an experienced walker you can kind of sense where they
> would be, given the local topography and drainage as shown on the
> map?
As I said, to an extent. Sometimes bogs appear in the most unexpected
places and sometimes bits you expect to be boggy are dry.
One reason for this is the underlying geology, boggy peaty ground can
suddenly change to pleasant dry grass as you cross from old red
sandstone to limestone. Hard to predict if you don't know the geology,
and they don't show that on OS maps.
> Oh, I forgot, you are a GPS user ;-)
What's that got to do with where the bogs are? You're not suggesting
that I blindy follow arrows are you? GPS gives me the freedom *not* to
have to follow the arrow. I wander where I please and follow the best
lines on the ground, chosen by eye. The GPS arrow tells me where I am
relative to a significant point, not which way to go to get there.
Adrian Tupper
@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:
Actually I was trolling you ;-)
--
Adrian