Just finished reading a book about the effect of climate change in the Arctic Circle , mostly it discusses the way of life in that area.
(Empire of Ice by Gretel Ehrlich)
One of the many interesting points that came up is the fact that the Inuit measure distance in time not miles, so B is six hours away from A not 10 or 20 miles...
That reminded me we, in the Italian Alps, did exactly the same.
I still don't know now what distances we covered, I just know how long it takes to get there...
By the way if you want a quick insight into why when you lose a language (Inuktitut in this case) you also lose a culture, this is a good book to read.
Franco

In effect I have always dealt with trail distances this way - accurate mileage measurements being hard to come by, I read the map and estimate miles and translate to hours depending on whether it is on trail or off, how much elevation gain or loss, etc. I don't ever know the real mileage, but I'm usually accurate in terms of how long it will take me to get from one place to another.

The Sherpa people in Nepal are the same way. In general, they have no vehicles with meters, so they don't know what a mile is. If you ask them how many miles it is to the next village, they respond with something like "It's a full day of walk."

Of course, that leaves the Westerners kind of puzzled, because we don't know if that means ten miles or twenty miles.

--B.G.--

My brother is a Neurologist and did basic research in pharmacology. For some South American native peoples the basic unit of time is the Cocada-the duration of effect of a Cocoa leaf with relations to altitude, distance and loads.Like a Starbucks minute these days I'd guess.

Edited by Meander on 05/05/2012 19:52:15 MDT.

Time, always time.
Compare a walk along a flat road with a walk through big mountains or through heavy scrub. Distance means nothing.

Via Alpina stage to Meilar Hut (Austria): you climb 3,000 m that day.
Beggary Bumps in SW Tasmania: you cover 2 km in a full hard day.

Cheers

In the Austrian Alps, I too was surprised to find that the yellow trail signs gave distances in terms of hours, and not in distance.

Sort of took me aback at first because the signs abbreviated "hour" with an 'h'. The German abbreviation should use an 's'. I guess that's another case of the global power and reach of english.

Like probably many before me, I at first was bothered by time-as-distance, but if you spend a bit of time hiking in the area you learn to calibrate their time estimates to your own pace.

Is the fact that I still think it's a gonzo approach some aspect of cultural lensing, the fact that I was educated as an engineer or ... am I just objectively right? :-)

I wonder if perhaps time-as-distance developed in areas and at times where accurate distance measurements weren't feasible? And it persists due to inertia and tradition.
Indeed, there might be a sort of cultural preference at work in places too.

All part of the fun and adventure of travel.

Hi Brian

Hum ... we normally see 'stadt' in Germany and Austria, but I will keep an eye out.

But referring back to my examples - I suggest the distance value is purely cosmetic. After all, who cares whether it is 2 km or 20 km? What I want to know is whether I can get there before dark: how many hours will it take me.

YMMV (Your Minutes May Vary)

Cheers
Edited for spelling

Edited by rcaffin on 05/08/2012 02:15:44 MDT.

Although I regularly GIVE time estimates, I'll take the mileage on the maps and signs, please. My time estimate/actual may be a lot different than what some schmo puts on a sign, and I definitely use signage for orienteering purposes.

In southern California, the freeway system is a monster during rush hour peak times.

Example: how far is Disneyland from LAX?
Typical answer is: right now it's at least a couple of hours, but after dinner probably 45 mins.

Back on the hiking trails, there is a popular book author, that posts trip reports in his hyper mileage speed, but his average readers are always getting stuck on the trail in the dark. Elevation miles are more demanding than flat trail miles. While he often brags that a summit only took 3 hrs, his typical readers get screwed with misleading info.

Also, for myself, in the early morning, I spend extra time getting ready, and taking sunrise photos and slow moving, whereas in the afternoon haze, I just want to hurry up and get done for the day. So my uphill in the morning is about 1.5 mph, and my downhill in the evening is about 3.5 mph.

I would suggest decyphering a topo map to get an idea of your personal speed for altitude gain, mileage, terrain difficulty such as boulder climbing or weather (ice vs dry dirt), correct gear for terrain (ice axe and crampons vs trail runners), pack weight.

This looks like an algebra challenge for forecasting duration under the above conditions.

Edited by RogerDodger on 05/06/2012 10:46:12 MDT.

"Hum ... we normally see 'stad' in Germany and Austria, but I will keep an eye out."

As in the ancient greek stadion? Seems like that would be equivalent to giving distances in furlongs here ...
Perhaps different context in the sign and it was stadt rather than stad??

Anyway, short of trying to figure out how to upload one of my pictures to this site, here's an example of what I saw in Austria:
http://www.bozeman-magpie.com/article_images/embedded/images/HUT1.jpg

On trail if I'm asking someone how far it is, or telling someone, I use distance. There have been many times when someone will tell me a spot is an hour and a half away and I show up there in 35 minutes. Some people might take all day to do 7 miles on moderate trail, while others do it in only a few hours. Driving on the other hand I always use time.

I would much prefer to be told/see miles not hours. I know what my speed is for given terrain/conditions, I certainly don't know what someone else's is- how would like you to run into Joe Grant and tell you it's just a couple of hours to the trailhead! :)

Agree with miles instead of time. The distance is a constant, the time it takes to get there will differ based upon many factors. Let me decide how long it will take me to get from A->B.

Ryan

Always read off the map in Meters and equate it to time using Nazmiths rule.

In New Zealand the common practice is to use time as the measure of distance between two points, and most signs will indicate time. DOC (Department of Conservation) Government organistation responsible for looking after National Parks etc. have more recently been putting distances on signs along with times, which gives you a good idea of what to expect of the track ahead (it is quite common to see the km equal the hours, and you know you are in for for a tough workout).

One reason would be that tracks and routes historically(outside the really popular track such as the "Great Walks") have never been measured accurately, and prior to GPS quite difficult to get a reasonable distance measure. And as Roger pointed out, most people just want to know if there is enough time to get to the next destination or not, or just how long is the suffering going to continue.

One thing with stated times in New Zealand to be aware of is if the track is close to a roadend and is suitable for family groups then walking time of a medium fitness party would be less than stated by a quarter to a third. Standard tramping tracks have times quoted that medium fitness parties would normally match. In more remote regions with minimal routes or straight wilderness, quoted times would match those of a fit experienced party but also would be somewhat variable due to conditions such as snow, mud, rain, wind, and most likely reason route finding.

Beating quoted times is considered a mildly entertaining diversion to the serious nature of tramping, and a method of getting one up on someone. ;-)

As a kid /teenager we did mostly day outings.
Usually we started at 5-6 AM and arrived at destination around 11-12AM.
A couple of walks needed a 4/4:30am start.
For those I estimate the distance to be about 12km each way. Were we fast or slow ?
Franco

I have an observation from reading the posts on the thread:

Most people want to know how much time from point A to B for food, break, shelter setup.

However when asking a stranger or reading a sign, a time question is misleading.

It's accurate to find out the distance from a person, a sign or map, but also gathering info on the terrain conditions, then calculate your own time estimate based on what you know about your own endurance and speed (distance per hour)

Edited by RogerDodger on 05/08/2012 09:53:36 MDT.

A mix of both...

In pre-trip planning I look at the mileage and I know that I hike at 2 miles per hour, with breaks, very consistently. Thus I can look at the day and use that to know either:
- How long we'll be hiking to cover a specified part of the trail OR
- How far we can go given a fixed (i.e. daylight) amount of time

When on the trail and we meet someone going the other direction and they ask a question like: "How far to the next water?" I'm much more likely to answer with "about an hour" than "two miles." If they questioned my response I'd translate it, but time seems to make the most sense when answering questions like that.

"A mix of both..."

Strictly dependent on terrain, off trail or on trail, weather, how much I'm carrying, usually a combination of the two. That said, off trail in unfamiliar country has to be a time guesstimate, at best. All bets off then.

Kevin
Here is the problem...
Your consistent 2 miles per hour may not work in a different area so you could end up a few hour short of the next water source or reasonable/legal place to camp.
Above I asked the question if 12km in 8 hours is fast or slow...
(that is less than 1 mile per hour)
Now I will explain why it took me so long to do it...
Take this walk.


Starting point the village at the top on the right. (1100m/3600')
Down to the village below (1000m/3280') collect the rest of the gang (well 1 or two) .
Down to (about 800m/2625' ) then to the right and then up to the peak on the right at the other side of the valley (2750m/9022')
The last peak left to right . It appears to be the lowest but it is higher that the others.
Lunch at the top (weather permitting) an hour or so of rest and then down. (about 4 hours to come down)
And that is how it took us all that time...
Now my cousin could do that about twice as fast bu he was an Olympic level athlete, unfortunately I am not...
So shall we mark that trip 15 miles or 12 hours plus ?
Franco

15 miles.

Ryan

15 miles

Mike

12 hours plus

Well, if someone asks me, there really isn't a right answer. I've found that with many people, if you tell them how far someplace is in real distances, they actually have no idea how far it actually is. Most people think a quarter mile is a whole mile. If you tell someone some place is a mile away to them it's really more like 2 or 3 miles because they just have no concept and think everything is way farther than it really is. So I try to tell them as accurately as I can the distance to some place but I will also tell them how long it might take, trying to do my best to guess how long it might take them compared to me (I'm not the fastest hiker in the world, but I'm faster than some guy with 50lbs on his back and a couple of kids.)

Miles are fact. Time is way too relevant.

Though I do see the usefulness of incorporating an average time.

My experience matches Piper's. If I tell people distances, they don't seem to have any sense of what that means. I wonder if a lot of people are wondering for a qualitative answer ("not far") or hoping for some unrealistically optimistic answer ("just around the corner").

I watch my watch a lot for many reasons, but it also allows me to give my version, "It took me 40 minutes." If there's a huge discrepancy between my fitness and their's, I might forego my time and estimate their's, especially if I've noted their pace as they approach me "at your pace, about 2 hours from here." That seems most useful if they are debating snacking, water, or just trying to pace themselves.

I giverelative answers, 'I left there about a half hour ago", 'real close', 'good ways to go', 'bout half way there', 'maybe 40 minutes after you hit the pass', 'your going to cross the stream twice, and then it's 20 minutes uphill after that.

Everything scaled to what I perceive to be average vs my speed on the trail. '

I carry extra map print outs, with mile markers highlighted, I often return home with only my laminated map, having given away my extras for people asking for info. Its just paper doesnt weigh much.

The original post is Time OR Distance. Why not both?

I say something like its 2 more miles uphill, but at altitude it might take an hour for each mile. The downhill will be faster.

I always tend to underestimate how many miles something has been. When I tell my friends how many miles something is, they always ask "Is it 2 miles, or is it 2 Justin miles?" And usually its more like 4 miles. On the other hand, sometimes they seem to have no concept of distance and think we have gone 4 or 5 miles when it's only been 1 or 2.

If asked, I give both. However, speed is a very individual thing. Mine is slightly faster than that of our Oregon slugs, so if someone gives me a time estimate I automatically double it. I would rather give the distance when asked and maybe mention the major obstacles that will cause a slower pace. Or I might say "Two hours for me, but I'm a pretty slow hiker." That way they can't blame me if it takes them only an hour!

Time is far too variable a thing to suggest for a stranger. Neither of us knows how fast the other walks, or how often they need a break. Distance never changes.

My opinion is: I'll tell you it's X miles to destination Y. A major part of wilderness activities is being able to estimate distance (as well as gauge hours of daylight left by the sun).
It's not my fault if you can't gauge for yourself if you can make it before dark or not.

Edit: Maybe I was a bit flippant- I'm not at all opposed to telling someone 'It's about 4 miles to the pass, probably need more than an hour unless you're fast.' But I still feel that 'an hour from here' leaves far too much assumption.

Edited by COHiker on 06/03/2012 13:30:51 MDT.

In 1998 I was in a bar near Green Valley, Az. I was planning a trip to Organ Pipe National Monument and was asking some of the locals for directions and other information. An 'old timer' in the bar recommended that after my hike I travel down to Rocky Point (Puerto Penasco), Mexico for some relaxation and great food. When I asked him how far Rocky Point was from Green Valley, he hesitated, then answered, "About 6 beers."

Where I often hike I measure my trips in time between water sources. Of course time is dependent upon terrain and weather. Sometimes I may only hike 6 hours so I can tank up on water and leave in the morning with a full load of H20, for a longish trip to the next water source.

Nick- what were you doing in a bar?

















:)

I think Miles is almost useless without elevation gain or loss. Its easy to do 4 miles an hour on flat terrain. You can do it without thinking. But add in a 10% grade and I have to work hard maintain 3. Steapen up the grade more and it makes more sense to give distances in terms of elevation. For example going up scree slopes elevation is a far better measure as I can probably hike 300m an hour at an easy pace regardless of the slope of the scree.

The key when communicating information is to provide lots of data. Distance, Time, Elevation, and fitness level being the key factors.

+1 to Greg.

While considering your audience.

data communication is useful when it is converted to information.

now I'm talking like that psycho babble PSY101 & COM101 classes I aced in college.

Stephen mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it is a pretty good tool.

a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naismith's_Rule">HERE

My daughter plays travel softball. So every weekend in summer we are gone somewhere. When we speak of how far it is to XYZ city where they will be playing, we speak in terms of "hours". 5 hrs, 8 hrs, 10.5 hrs, 15 hrs, etc. NEVER does anyone say "its 547 miles" The distance is irrelevant, and speed is about same, 60-65mph avg including stops, for most people.

When we plan hiking trip distances, I think and talk in terms of "days" on the trail. 3day, 4 day, 5 day, etc. Mainly because the food and fuel we carry is oriented around days, not miles. However, you have to know what kind of mileage you expect to make to plan that. When you travel point to point, that day may be 8 hrs, or may be 12 hrs, depending, but if you want to stay on schedule, you have to keep moving till you get there.

There has been an interesting article recently about how times along hiking tracks have been determined by DOC (the government department responsible for conserving the New Zealand's National Parks, forest parks reserves etc. amongst other things).

The most interesting fact to come out of the article was the range of approaches used by different regions, and the lack of a common nationwide standard. Another point of note is the lack of taking into account the range of fitnesses and experience that a group of people would when using a particular track.

Approaches range from simply finding out what time other people have walked the track in, having someone walk the track, to using rules like Naismith's and applying weightings based on track type and terrain and the "typical user". All methods have their pro's and con's as you would appreciate.

One personal observation is DOC track signs are now starting to show both distance and time so you can at least get an overview of what to expect. For example from my trip in the previous weekend, one sign on a good track up a ridge with 600m elevation gain showed distance of 1.8km and time of 2hrs, which was spot on for my 9 years old daughter. The reverse trip down was signposted at 1:15, again worked out about right. Another signpost in the Atiwhakatu valley (the one that inspired the information request that led to the article) showed 2hrs for 2.5km along a flat smooth walkway beside a stream, which my daughter and I (me trailing somewhat as I promised chocolate to the first person to the end of the track) completed in 30 mins.

Links:
http://www.wildernessmag.co.nz/view/page/articles/read/no-simple-rule-for-track-times/
http://www.windy.gen.nz/index.php/archives/725

+1 for Greg.

After years of endurance sports and racing, I'm always "on my watch," anally calculating, time, distance, pace, effort etc. Even in every day life chores. Just habit LOL.

But most important for me is my effort, or heart rate and level of exertion. Greg hinted at this with his notes on elevation and trail conditions.

For me, the key to distance running has been to just keep (steadily) putting more behind me than I have in front of me. For long distance events on the road, ie marathon, my mantra has always been "you take care of your pace, the miles will take care of themselves." For off-road trail running, I just subsitute "effort" for "pace." Bottomline, force of habit, I do this for hiking and backpacking as well. I can really drive other people nuts at times!

So when people I meet on the trail ask me how far away somthing is or how long it will take, if it's more than just around the corner, I usually ask them something about their pace, ie where they started from or at what time. This helps me offer any advice in terms of what they are doing.

I never consider distance. It is irrelevant in NZ terrain. Time is everything, and if someone asks me how far I've come, I will tell them how long it too ME to get from point A to point B. But I also give any other info I have, like "that was the time taking a high flood route, you may be able to do it quicker if you just ford the river", or "we slowed down at the pass due to white-out conditions, but if the pass clears it may not take that long". Both the size of the group and fitness of the slowest person will also have big impacts on time. If I'm hiking by myself with a light pack, and pass a larger group with young or overweight people with heavy packs, I will take this into consideration too. I especially err on the conservative side if the people asking have no camping gear and are reliant on making it to the next hut before dark. Since I always carry camping gear, I can afford to take more risks with my time estimates.

I have trekked in both Tanzania and Nepal. I can tell you how many days, hours and what elevations I did.....but I can't tell you the distance. It was not in the guiding companies material ...I never found it on anyone's website. I never saw it in the trekking book of the area I bought. I would ask the differnt guides and they would tell me in one of three mentioned measurements....and more likely it was one of the time based ones.

I could go to google earth and extrapolate the number...but at this point I don't care mostly.....except when someone asks me. They always look at me strangely when I give them a time and elevation figure instead of miles. ESP...when they ask for mile and my answer is...'I don't know'