Car travel times

[Tortoise]

I'm not sure where to put this, but it relates to accessing bushwalks.

In the past, I've found whereis.com to be pretty useful in estimating travel times. Lately, though, it has grossly underestimated times, in Tassie, at least. Looking at one route today, their estimate requires an average of 100 km/hr, and includes plenty of winding mountain roads. Does anybody know a more accurate website? TIA

[MrWalker]

What's wrong with Google maps?
I just asked Whereis and Google to get me from Launceston to Scottsdale and they both suggested going via the Sidling, but Whereis was getting me there in 50min, compared with 58min for Google. I think about an hour is right for that trip, and generally Google or Apple maps can take us to any remote destination by a reasonable route, and the time is usually very close to correct, if we don't have random stops along the way.

However, Apple maps has occasionally been sent us along roads blocked by boom gates, so we don't totally rely on it.

[Biggles]

Where is a directory service, not a mapping utility.

Everybody would be using Google Maps. I can't see Whereis being anywhere near as useful (or feature-rich) as Google Maps, even with the caveat that sometimes GM gets is wrong. GM also estimates travel times with a good hit of accuracy, be you walking, cycling, tram, train or car, as it receives input from current traffic and road conditins.

Google Maps allows you to save a map (with your marked route) offline to your phone/computer.

[Warin]

From OSM data, Launceston to Scottsdale

https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=-41 ... =Omniscale

By car - 46 minutes, 63.3 km, so average 82.5 kph, ... savable by gpx track

By fast road bicycle 3 h 25 min, 66.3 km, 19 kph

Does not have real time traffic information.

[johnw]

+1 for google maps Tortoise. I've used it on my phone with rental cars in WA a couple of times over the past 18 months and was generally pretty reliable.
I've been a member of Choice (Aust. Consumers Assoc.) for a thousand years and I know they've done comparative tests between various car GPS devices and mapping apps.
The free google maps always came out well ahead of the paid services. It's far better than the proprietary garbage in my Subaru Forester (which recently cost me $160 to update ).

[Son of a Beach]

Google Maps and Apple Maps are both usually good and accurate. Both can lead you astray from time to time. Both have the ability to download areas for offline use, if you require that.

[Biggles]

From OSM data

https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=-41 ... =Omniscale

By car - 46 minutes, 63.3 km, so average 82.5 kph, ... savable by gpx track

By fast road bicycle 3 h 25 min, 66.3 km, 19 kph

Dose not have real time traffic information.

Interesting presentation. Fine enough by car indeed. But that is a very hilly route and I would expect many cyclists (save for conditioned roadies) to be travelling much slower than 19km/h e.g. the climb to Mount Arthur T/o!

[Warin]

From OSM data

https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=-41 ... =Omniscale

By car - 46 minutes, 63.3 km, so average 82.5 kph, ... savable by gpx track

By fast road bicycle 3 h 25 min, 66.3 km, 19 kph

Dose not have real time traffic information.

Interesting presentation. Fine enough by car indeed. But that is a very hilly route and I would expect many cyclists (save for conditioned roadies) to be travelling much slower than 19km/h e.g. the climb to Mount Arthur T/o!

Cough .. My average speed on my old MTB was 21 kph ... both on east and west coasts of Tasmania... I was younger then.

[Biggles]

From OSM data

https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=-41 ... =Omniscale

By car - 46 minutes, 63.3 km, so average 82.5 kph, ... savable by gpx track

By fast road bicycle 3 h 25 min, 66.3 km, 19 kph

Dose not have real time traffic information.

Interesting presentation. Fine enough by car indeed. But that is a very hilly route and I would expect many cyclists (save for conditioned roadies) to be travelling much slower than 19km/h e.g. the climb to Mount Arthur T/o!

Cough .. My average speed on my old MTB was 21 kph ... both on east and west coasts of Tasmania... I was younger then.

We were all younger then! Yes, thems were the good ol' days when we had muscle in the legs and fire in the belly. Things changed. Wouldn't do the route by bicycle (over to St Helens, down the coast and limp into Hobart) again (completed 1997 and 2000) as my peak had diminished. Oh, and a car was more comfy!

[Tortoise]

Thanks, folks. This is a good illustration of my... umm... severely limited capacity to make use of available technology. One day, with help, I might be able to make more use of Google Maps. (Believe it or not, I didn't even think of that. ) I don't have the brain space at the moment, other than to compare some options while I'm on my laptop at home. But that's all I need at the moment.

[EGM]

I do quite alot of road trips and if you drive normally, aka roughly on the speed limit, then google maps is accurate to the minute. Waze is the best for predicting future traffic but not so relevant in Tassie.

Google maps only fails slightly on dirt roads because it has less data, usually predicts you'll be travelling 60 ish, even when 80-100 is more realistic.

[headwerkn]

Google Maps is 'good' because it also takes into consideration live data from other Google Maps users moving through roadworks and other 'obstructions' for better travel time predictions.

This is pretty vital in places like Tassie where our highways seem to be in a perpetual state of roadworks For the past couple of years the Midlands Hwy has been around 30 mins longer to travel (sometimes better, sometimes worse).

All bets are off when on gravel back roads though. Speed depends on your car's clearance/all-wheel-driveness, road conditions, the time of day/night (>60kph is way risky as far as critters are concerned) and how sensitive your partner's stomach is to any motion whatsoever...

[Warin]

Google Maps is 'good' because it also takes into consideration live data from other Google Maps users moving through roadworks and other 'obstructions' for better travel time predictions.

If you are planing a trip next week, next month that live data is less usefull.

In any event, best to treat any computer generated data as a indication that could be very wrong. The confidence can improve when different data/models are compared, best data is from local humans... hence the value of this website.

[headwerkn]

If you are planing a trip next week, next month that live data is less usefull.

True, though based on the speed of progress our local road contractors have been managing...

In any event, best to treat any computer generated data as a indication that could be very wrong. The confidence can improve when different data/models are compared, best data is from local humans... hence the value of this website.

Google (and Apple) Maps draws in data from current and recent users travelling the actual routes to help adjust for current delays. Basically they crowd source that data from their own users. I believe in some (mostly built up areas) they can also draw on local traffic management data points/sensors to help account for average vehicle speeds etc. But don't quote me on that.

But yes, best to run the route before you reverse out your driveway.

[EGM]

If you are planing a trip next week, next month that live data is less usefull.

In any event, best to treat any computer generated data as a indication that could be very wrong. The confidence can improve when different data/models are compared, best data is from local humans... hence the value of this website.[/quote]

I have so far never had it be significantly wrong, other than when there had been a crash or some other incident. And it doesn't just work for current traffic. If you use Waze and enter the time you want to arrive on a particular day of will reasonably accurately tell you your required departure time.


All good points on the gravel road driving, but that was really my point in that it struggles to predict when the conditions are so variable. I have also occasionally had it be incorrect on the road surface so best to check on satellite image mode.