Suggested walking times?

[puredingo]

A recent trip report got me thinking about the signs NPWS display at popular track heads suggesting walking times.

Do people find these estimations about right for you or are they a little bit ambitious? I always find them mostly conservative and I don't fall under any sort of tiger walker category.

Any experiences?

[johnk1]

Very conservative I reckon. I'm no tiger walker either.

[johnk1]

Sorry.

Six Foot Track is a prime example.

[cajun]

definitely conservative in the main. I have never taken longer, and I am not quick.

[GPSGuided]

I have found variability. But largely conservative. Maybe I just had slow walk days on the others.

[tom_brennan]

I've noticed that the easier the walk, the more conservative the time estimate.

[Lophophaps]

I rarely look at the signs - don't need them. A related aspect is if the times are one way or return, and if this is clear. It seems that there is no uniformity and often a lack of clarity. Perhaps there should be an Australian Standard.

[johnw]

Generally find them conservative. I'm quick over easier terrain but somewhat slower on the more difficult stuff. Even then they're usually conservative.
I take note of the posted times on tracks that I haven't visited before, mostly ignore the others because I know they are wrong (for me).

I've noticed that the easier the walk, the more conservative the time estimate.

+1, sometimes to a point of being ridiculous.

[MrWalker]

I've noticed that the easier the walk, the more conservative the time estimate.

This actually makes a lot of sense. The time allows for the slowest group likely to use that track
If the walk is about 15 min then there will be people using it who rarely go for a walk anywhere and they may have small children with them. So I would estimate my time as 5 mins.
If the time shown is 6 hrs then only hardy types will attempt it and the slowest of those will take 6 hrs. So I would expect to take 4-5 hrs.
You can do your own calculations like this, knowing that the time is for the slowest 20% who are likely to go that way, not the average time for an average randomly selected person.

[stry]

I have found that with the passage of time, these estimates have moved from being conservative to reasonably accurate, and now, increasingly, optimistic.

Obviously the methodology used to determine the times has changed

[Moondog55]

I have found that with the passage of time, these estimates have moved from being conservative to reasonably accurate, and now, increasingly, optimistic.

Obviously the methodology used to determine the times has changed

This is true, I have always thought that the conservative times were accurate for family groups

[GPSGuided]

Obviously the methodology used to determine the times has changed

Anyone know how these are determined? Numerically or by subjective experience?

[jrg]

I've always found Australia's times very conservative, though the longer ones are closer than those, say, in tourist areas.
I've found the estimates given by DOC in New Zealand to be a lot closer to your own times.

[GPSGuided]

An obvious question here is, what's the range of pace amongst forum members? I'd expect there'll be a range but probably skewed to the speedier end of the spectrum when compared to general public. But not sure.

[ribuck]

An obvious question here is, what's the range of pace amongst forum members?

On a fire trail, I do 7km/hr with a day pack, or 6km/hr with an overnight pack. But I try to avoid fire trails. On a maintained walking track, 5km/hr. Off-track, say 3km/hr for easy terrain (or rock-hopping) and 1km/hr for solid scrub.

300m per hour of vertical ascent or descent (with a pack). Interestingly, "ascent/descent rate while ascending/descending" is one of the statistics that OruxMaps gives me.

[lee737]

I wish they would forget the times, and just mark the signs with the distance, ie in km (or any other objective measurement of distance...) - I bought some little NPWS booklets about walking trails in the Blue Mountains recently, and every one is just marked with times, not distances.....

[north-north-west]

I wish they would forget the times, and just mark the signs with the distance, ie in km (or any other objective measurement of distance...) - I bought some little NPWS booklets about walking trails in the Blue Mountains recently, and every one is just marked with times, not distances.....

I like to have both - and accurate measurements of the distance, not just straight-line map distance, which (especially in Tassie) is about as useful as a paper tent.

[ange]

I find them conservative. With that said though they have their place particularly in high tourist areas to gauge distance and time for people who don't normally walk; or those who find themselves at a track head from a picnic area.

[Hallu]

It is most of the time conservative. The only place in Australia where I've found it to be on the nose or even too optimistic is in remote parts of Tasmania, like the South West. Go into Freycinet or near the Three Capes and it's conservative, but in the SW you better not substract 25/30 % to the signed time.

As for countries, it varies greatly as well. France, Italy or Spain are usually a bit conservative but not by much, probably 15% something like that. If you hike in Canada or the US it can be VERY conservative, like 50% off even on what they call "difficult" walks which only require a bit of scrambling.

[lee737]

I wish they would forget the times, and just mark the signs with the distance, ie in km (or any other objective measurement of distance...) - I bought some little NPWS booklets about walking trails in the Blue Mountains recently, and every one is just marked with times, not distances.....

I like to have both - and accurate measurements of the distance, not just straight-line map distance, which (especially in Tassie) is about as useful as a paper tent.

Just the distance along the track would be good (then just put suggested times in brackets for the tourists!).... direct line distance, I agree, is fairly pointless.... I usually try and have a GPS waypoint for our destination, so would have that figure in any case.....

[Lindsay]

I find the times conservative. NZ ones less so than in Australia. I make my plans based on a pace of 3kph. This factors in time for a rest or a stop to look at something interesting.