Travel times in Treks

Hi Nick,
Thanks for the comment. When you suggest "in the app" do you mean in google maps? So you're suggesting that google may be incorrect?

ExplorOz treks is set to driving mode. However, after reading your reply I've changed it to cycling and noted that the travel time did not change. I saved the trek to see what might trigger a recalculation. I changed from cycling to walking to driving. I could not find any way to cause ExplorOz to actually recalculate the time even though the text message "recalculating route segments" appears on the screen. After closing the web browser and starting ExplorOz again I can now say that I can create a recalculate. By changing the selecting mode in trek navigation and choosing the new mode, then select the segment of the trek, swipe Left and selecting navigate icon brings up the "turn by turn calculated" window. When I select "accept" causes a recalculate and now the travel time by driving that segment is 5h39m.

So it appears that although "driving' had been selected at commencement of creating the trek, the mode for the selected segment may have defaulted to cycling to give a 10h35m travel time. It appears that the user can over-ride the mode for particular segment but it may be that the user must check each segment.

Thank you for promoting me to think outside the box.

I'm now in the quandary of deciding if the planned segment should be driven or not. If ExplorOz default is cycling then maybe some more research is required before I set off towing a van along that route.

Trevor you have been busy lol
another way might be to calculate the time it would take , maybe work out what the average speed might be & calculate the time from that . Either way it's still bit of conjecture i guess.
In explorers YouTube tutorials there is what I think is a reasonably in depth video on this that David has demonstrated .
Cheers

Hi Nick,
Thanks for more info. Do you mean the "Blogs" to locate the Utube tutorials? I've clicked one the underlined "explorers"in your reply but all I see is history info about early explorers. No links to tube.

I don't understand how I can work out any average speed when I don't know the state of the road/track. I don't understand why ExplorOz gives a default 10h35m travel time when driving is selected! Is there track that bad and that's why it takes so long. Changing the default mode only gives an updated time not any confidence in whether the road/track can be travelled by vehicle.

I have reached out to Information centres in that area to get firm factual info.

Trevor:

ExplorOz tutorials on YouTube

Working out the road conditions and the time its going to take is all very much guesswork in these type of location unlike a hwy .

I too thought that the traveller app times were quite conservative but 67 km an hour/average would not be slow on a outback track especially if Towing .

Trevor. I have been playing around with the navigation this afternoon .
After reading through what you said in your first reply I have been changing from driving and walking cycling now back to driving again I have now noticed that theres a average speed box in the term by turn calculator box which can be adjusted which I didn't notice before , as you change the average speed the speed on the track changes accordingly b4 accepting track .
The Edmund Gifford ck track section could be slow going for over 50 kilometers keeping the average speed down .

Did you get anything out of the link from the tutorial

Couldn't get any information on the Edmund Gifford Creek Road .

That section works out at approx. 25k/h.
The overall trip works out at 55k/h.
Each section will be faster or slower depending on road conditions.
If you look at your screenshot you can see that sections of similar distances have way different times.

Here I am again with yet another anomaly. The trek from Exmouth to Perth with the specific segment Carnarvon Rest Stop to Bush Bay Campground about 38km south of Carnarvon. The route is along the North West Coastal Highway (bitumen).

ExplorOz gives a distance of 285.4km and travel time of 3h28m with the mode of transport as DRIVING. Google maps gives 38km and 27min.

I'm using my MacBook pro and would like to hear if anyone can replicate this. Thanks in advance.



[Image cannot be loaded]

Trevor : I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly here & I haven't duplicated your route nor do I have an average speed calculator but 38 k's in 27 minutes would be around 140k an hour average speed I think

285 km in 3.5 hours would be approximately 80 ks hour average speed

Or are you questioning the distance ?

P.S , I don't think the app is suggesting it is 285k between Carnarvon S.T and Bush Camp
21ks ?@

Hi Nick,
Thanks for taking the time to consider this issue and offer suggestions.
38km divided by 27/60 = 84kph not 140. You've done 38 divided by 27/100.

So given that about 29km is highway driving (minus a short section exiting Carnarvon) and 9km is the dirt road from the highway turn-off to Bush Bay camp, the 84kph seems reasonable.

The distance calculated by ExplorOz of 285km is ridiculous to say the least. Forget the travel time as it's probably the result of the distance divided by a speed associated with that segment of the trek.

If you look at the next segment in the screenshot (Bush Bay Campground to Eagle Bluff) the distance is calculated as 26.6 km. Once again this is nowhere near correct. It's actually about 260km.

Overnight, Michelle has suggested that I clear content and all treks and try again. Seems strange that apparently it's only me that has found this issue. Maybe it's my latest IOS on the apple MacBook.

I'll update after starting again and I shall also try on my iPad.

You are reading the route information wrong.
When I look at your route from Carnarvon Rest Area to Bush Bay Campground, I see 21.6 Kms and 0. 19.21hrs .
Look at the information in the destination location not the starting location.

Yes as dick said & about an average speed of 67 I think if my math is right this time hahaha :))
I looked at the accumulative ks went from 922 to 943= 21 . ?

Hi again,
Ok, so you're saying that the distance from one place to the next is listed UNDER the destination? if so, then how does it display the distance of the last leg when the destination is the last line of the Navigation window?

To explain my point, a trek with only a start and destination lists the distance in a box between those places. if you then add a third place as a new destination then that new leg/segment distance is listed in the new box below the middle place and above the destination. It can't list the distance of the final leg/segment below the destination.

Screenshots attached to show example.

What I think dick is saying 285 k's is the previous leg and the 21 k's is from rest stop to bush bay .. by saying underneath .
If that makes sense.

But that doesn't explain why mine came up with 42 ks for same ...Carnarvon rest stop to bush bay campground @

Yes I get what has been mentioned but it can't be correct. The screenshot I posted shows Blowholes to Carnarvon and puts distance between those places. When a third place is entered, again the distance is between the places. It cannot be under as there can be no distance displayed for the trip to the last place as there is no room under that place name.

Jim : I didn't notice that before concentrating on the points of interest but that may account for the anomalies in the kilometers between points of interest including the 21 km between Carnarvon rest stop and bush bay camping , that is actually 42 kilometers and maybe also the 285 ks in question .
Cheers for pointing that out

Hi Jim,
Thanks for considering this issue.
Carnarvon is listed twice as it's a FW fill stop. Arrive Carnarvon, fill FW, drive to Quobba then return two Carnarvon to fill FW then proceed to Bush Bay. Simple.

Regardless of how many times the same waypoint appears it should calculate the distance between each stop independent of whether you've been there before of not, don't you think.

Michelle seems to think that the program is corrupted again. I've already cleared all content and all treks and downloaded onto the MacBook and now it appears that I need to do it again.

Thanks Trevor. Does that mean that the order that waypoints are made doesn’t matter ?
I had thought that the route just followed the waypoints in the order made.

Cheers
Jim