this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
174 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
86512 readers
3452 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Walking speed is very subjective though. Realistically, hikers never agree on time it takes, and a lot of it comes down more to experience with your speed. In my case, I'm actually probably stronger than many people going uphill.. But, downhill, my feet start to hurt and I get slow quickly.
Gravity walking is the missing link, lift your foot and let gravity pull it down. You'll be going down almost running and it takes barely any energy.
It's best in places without other humans, as you're basically a locomotive and it takes time to slow down
I suspect that Google doesn't account for anything. If I had to guess, I'd say it assumes a certain pace as the normal walking pace, and leaves it at that. Elevation, traffic lights, fatigue, and any other factors that might affect it be damned. So its time estimations for a hiking route are going to be a lot worse than its regular walking estimations. And all that's before you account for, as you say, individual differences.
And best of all, it's based on an American average