"Estimated travel time": Make values for cross country skiing more realistic

Georg D shared this idea 1 year ago
Completed

The "Estimated travel time" (see http://docs.locusmap.eu/doku.php?id=manual:user_guide:tracks:planning&s[]=route#estimated_travel_time) is very helpful for most movement types except for cross country skiing: Even in "fast" setting it estimates twice the real time despite we are doing classic style (not the faster skating), include the short breaks in the track time, and when we are at medium intensity without being well trained (neither technique nor fitness). I am aware that speeds strongly vary depending on style (classic vs skating) and track type (groomed or not) and piste elevation profile (flat or hilly) and weather conditions (e.g. icy pistes slow you down), hence I guess 3 speeds make more sense then 2.

My observations - feel free to refine by adding your observations :-)

  • 5km/h horizontal speed is quite low, usually we're going 6,3km/h to 8,8km/h (without breaks), mostly around 7.2km/h - I assume this to be good value for "medium" speed, i.e. classic style on groomed piste
  • roughly 1000m/h downhill is OK for "medium" speed (I can't tell more exactly because I have no idea how to find that value from Locus track statistics page)
  • nearly 500m/h uphill is OK for "medium" speed

Cheers, Georg

Comments (7)

photo
2

Instead of Locus using "hard coded" values for making the estimate of travel time, I suggest the values could be specified by the user (stored in track recording profile?), or maybe better yet, be self tuning based on past tracks where available, so no values need be entered at all.

photo
1

I like that idea, especially to base computation on own track recordings - then, I would not need to sit down an manually compute average times out of my tracks, which I experienced especially difficult for vertical meters because I found no tool showing useful statistics for that. As the conditions & speeds may vary strongly, e.g. easy hiking versus SAC grade 4, it would be required to base them on a selection of tracks, e.g. a type "hiking based on track folder xyz".

Anyway, we'll still need realistic default values for new users without individual preferences / own recorded tracks, to make computations helpful "out of the box".

photo
photo
1

Thanks for useful information Georg,

so what about such improvement

photo
1

Hi Menion, thank you for quick reply :) I'd prefer to base computation not only to on my individual speed, but on a broader base. Sadly, with my search terms, I did not find any "rules of thumb" in the WWW for distance & vertical meters per hour for xc skiing, only for ski touring, snow shoeing etc.

The 3 XC skiing types names seem fine. For classic (slow) I'd suggest 5,5km/h, 300Vm/h up and 600Vm/h down as that shall be more realistic when the piste is not groomed or a slow person is on a groomed track. For classic (fast), I see 650Vm/h as more realistic for an enthusiast who's not a (semi-)professional; the other values are IMHO fine. As I do not xc skating, I can't tell much except my feeling - they might do 1400Vm/h down due to their steel edges; the other values seem OK.

As written above, everyone is invited to add their experience :)

Cheers, Georg

photo
2

Thanks, improved ;).

photo
photo
1

Hello,

I think that creating standard profiles can be usefull only for "standard" activities like bike or running on streets but into the wild the terrain makes the difference. Also the physical preparation of each one is a value that can change a lot the travel time.

There are a lot of activities without profile and I think it is not possible to cover all.

What about trail running?

The best solution for me is something where to put data of speed in plain km/h - positive gain m/h - negative gain m/h so each one can fill the data according to terrain and ability.

photo
1

Good day Lorenzo,

I believe that current values are close to some "average value" of most of users, so I consider this idea as implemented. You may discover your own estimates compare to computed values by Locus. I expect that most of users will be able to find out that they are usually about 10% faster then Locus compute. It's a lot easier then estimate positive/negative speed parameters.

Anyway feel free to create a request if not already exists, for a user-based customization of this feature.