underestimation of time required on hiking routes with significant altitude changes

[matkoniecz]

ETA seems to ignore fact that 1km with 400m altitude change will take much longer than 1km without altitude change.

[matkoniecz]

I have example that it is happening not only just for me

His companion would eventually turn back, but Buckingham, an avid hiker, pushed on — planning a circular route using the Maps.me app on his phone.

He planned to descend by dark, but the hike took longer than he expected, because he says the app didn't take into account the steepness of the terrain.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/michael-buckingham-vancouver-hiker-rescued-north-shore-crown-mountain-1.4857646

[SK53]

I'm not at all sure the statement is justified. I have just checked: Pen-y-Pass to Snowdon on the Pyg track is estimated at 2h 10 min for 5.3 km and 700 m ascent. This accords fairly closely to the widely used British rule of thumb Naismith's rule. If I can work out how to add screen shots I will. I may also remark that Graphhopper produces a much more extreme estimate even though it has altitude data.

[matkoniecz]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=49.2433%2C20.0337%3B49.2286%2C20.0471 gives 1:28 (reports 464 m up, 16 m down)

The same route has 1:08 in Maps.me (reports 480 m elevation change)

Proper hiking map gives prediction of 2:20.

Naismith's rule gives 1:20 h, so maps.me is worse than even simplest possible linear estimation of time (that completely ignores that steepness is also important, not only total ascent)

Posted signs give 2:00 (photo from http://wcieniugor.pl/3338/ )

[matkoniecz]

But I agree that "extreme" is disputable.