Quote from
cgriell on 22.08.2025, 01:33
Now that V4 is quite ironed out (thanks, Guido, I almost lose the faith on you after the release of V4.0 š ), I found that the travel time in V4 (which, I guess, is provided by the map provider and not calculated by Scenic, although I may be wrong) has little sense on twisty roads and it may be off of may be one to two hours in 400 Km ride. So I prepared a spreadsheet that calculated the speed between WPT, using Scenic data : distance and time between WPTs to check was going on. (Being retired gives me a lot of time)
I discovered that on main roads, Ā calculated speed was correct, but in curvy roads time was calculated with speeds of Ā 30 Km/h or even less. In the current Scenic version it is better, but it is still too low (in 40-45 for slightly curvy roads that are usually ridden at 60-70 at a standard pace, and may be as much as 90 without breaking your neck. BTW I'm 78 y.o. and, as per today, still alive so...). Ā I understand that the map makers, or whoever calculates the time, should consider low speeds. but the speeds on these roads seem low even for cars
So, one thing leading to another, I boosted my Excel file, making possible to modify the calculated speed. The spreadsheet then recalculates then Ā travel time, and it shows passage hour for each WPT.
This is an example:
- Green background, Scenic Data
- Yellow background, Input data
- Salmon background, calculated data based in modified speed input
- Blue background, giving an offset, Ā WPT passage time
- Grey background rows, stopped time
If someone is interested, I'll send the file. Right now labels are in Catalan, I will translate them, of course
And, thinking on that, may be Scenic may have an option for travel time calculation : standard rider, scenery rider, focused rider, which will automatically modify the speed (when it is below a certain threshold, may be 50 Km/) by a certain percentage +/- 10%
In any case, I ignore if this problem is shared by other Scenic users, I suppose that depends on the routes they ride on
Now that V4 is quite ironed out (thanks, Guido, I almost lose the faith on you after the release of V4.0 š ), I found that the travel time in V4 (which, I guess, is provided by the map provider and not calculated by Scenic, although I may be wrong) has little sense on twisty roads and it may be off of may be one to two hours in 400 Km ride. So I prepared a spreadsheet that calculated the speed between WPT, using Scenic data : distance and time between WPTs to check was going on. (Being retired gives me a lot of time)
I discovered that on main roads, Ā calculated speed was correct, but in curvy roads time was calculated with speeds of Ā 30 Km/h or even less. In the current Scenic version it is better, but it is still too low (in 40-45 for slightly curvy roads that are usually ridden at 60-70 at a standard pace, and may be as much as 90 without breaking your neck. BTW I'm 78 y.o. and, as per today, still alive so...). Ā I understand that the map makers, or whoever calculates the time, should consider low speeds. but the speeds on these roads seem low even for cars
So, one thing leading to another, I boosted my Excel file, making possible to modify the calculated speed. The spreadsheet then recalculates then Ā travel time, and it shows passage hour for each WPT.
This is an example:
- Green background, Scenic Data
- Yellow background, Input data
- Salmon background, calculated data based in modified speed input
- Blue background, giving an offset, Ā WPT passage time
- Grey background rows, stopped time
If someone is interested, I'll send the file. Right now labels are in Catalan, I will translate them, of course
And, thinking on that, may be Scenic may have an option for travel time calculation : standard rider, scenery rider, focused rider, which will automatically modify the speed (when it is below a certain threshold, may be 50 Km/) by a certain percentage +/- 10%
In any case, I ignore if this problem is shared by other Scenic users, I suppose that depends on the routes they ride on
DRTBYK has reacted to this post.
