Naismiths Rule explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Naismith’s Rule is used to give a rough guide for how long it will take to walk somewhere in the hills. The basics are that if you know how far you have to walk and the speed you’ll travel at, then you can work out how long it will take. Naismith’s also adds in the time it will take to walk up what are described as Easy Slopes. If you add these two times together, the distance and height gain, you’ll know how long it will take to get somewhere.
Naismiths original Rule is “an hour for every three miles on the map, with an additional hour for every 2,000 feet of ascent”. The modern version of that is 5km or approximately 3miles an hour plus 10 minutes for each 100m or 330ft rise. For shorter routes you can use 12 minutes per km and 1 minute for each 10m ascended.
But the question has to asked: Is Naismith's Rule accurate - No.
There are two main reasons for this lack of accuracy. The first reason is variability - this is because we’re all built differently - some people are taller/shorter, older/younger, faster/slower, etc. So you can’t assume that different people will walk over the same piece of ground at the same speed.
The second reason is not accurate is that it was never meant to be accurate. In 1892 Naismith called his idea a rule - this word has changed over the years and now we would call it a rule of thumb (which has absolutely nothing at all to do with beating your wife with a certain sized stick) Anyway, a rule of thumb is something which has been gained from experience and practice, rather than a calculation. So it’s sometimes correct but not always.
Also Naismith’s doesn’t take into account the type of terrain you’re walking over. Walking through deep snow, up a steep slope, changes in visibility, your fitness, the weight of your rucksack, etc. are just a few of the many things which will alter the time it takes to walk somewhere.
But one thing has to said, even though Naismith’s isn’t very accurate for most people, it is brilliant for one thing and this is that it’s very simple and it can be adjusted for your own situation in most locations and types of terrain. So instead of just guessing how long you’ll be walking for, Naismith’s provides a very simple way of roughly estimating the time you’ll be walking.
Over the years there have been many attempt to improve it - these are known as corrections.
Some of the corrections are obviously wrong - but don’t forget that Naismith’s is just a rule of thumb, which is basically just an estimate and so any changes to it will be equally inaccurate.
So let’s go over just a few of the corrections.
We’ll start with Tranter’s Correction - which (just my opinion) I think is based on a very wrong assumption. Tranter’s is based on how fit you are and the fact that people slow down at the end of the day as they get tired. It puts everyone into one of six numbered brackets 15, 20, 25, 30, 40 or 50. Using a calculation you can use those numbers to calculate your walking distance over a number of hours. The lower your bracket the slower you’ll walk.
The reason I think Tranters is wrong is that the bracket you’re put in to is based on how fast you walk 800m with an ascent of 300m. (my phone calculator tells me that’s a slope of 20.55 degrees - which is quite steep. But I would say that speed isn’t the same as stamina, which you need for a full day walking in the hills.
The Aitken correction changes the speed people walk on different terrain surfaces, as an example it lowers the walking speed from 5 to 4km per hour once you leave a path or track.
The Langmuir correction basically says that you speed up on easy downhill slopes - You still use Naismith’s but you deduct 10 minutes per 300m of descent for slopes between 5 and 12 degrees. It also says that you slow down on steeper uphill sections - so add 10 minutes to Naismith’s for each 300m descent for slopes greater than 12 degrees.
I would suggest that we all know how fit we are and if you’re a hill runner then 5km per hour for a whole day will be no problems. But for everyone else - I would suggest that you use Naismith’s as a minimum time to get somewhere.
So give it a try and see if it works for you. Don’t forget Naismith’s rule is 12 minutes per km and then add 10 minute for each 100m rise.
Love the practicality and the history mixed. Keep it up - it's a joy to watch!
Your wonderful videos are the perfect adjunct to that lovely maxim that says, happiness in life , lies in enjoying the views from paths that you never intented to take in the first place .
Just like your videos . Love 'em. Please keep them going . Thanks .
A geography lesson, combined with a history lesson and wife-beating (allegedly). A wonderful,informative video.
Thank you very much for your consistently helpful and interesting content.
In Switzerland, we use a similar rule: 15 minutes for 1 kilometer, 15 minutes for 100 meters uphill, and 15 minutes for 200 meters downhill. The rule is from the SAC (Schweizer Alpen-Club). Perhaps it is based on the same rule as in Britain.
We use this rule to plan a route approximately. The keyword is "approximately."
Well, it's based on the marching time for the infantry. Usually, we also add time for long and/or steep descent.
I like this one more. 10 min/km and 10 min/100 meters elevation sounds like only applicable for perfect conditions, like well-maintained and well-marked trail. And I personally don't like to estimate based on perfect conditions.
Very interesting. I will have to add in other "derating" factors, a term we use in electrical work. I could calculate for the distance, gain, and etc, but would have to add time for starting altitude. If the trailhead is at 8000' or 9000' (Rocky Mountains, in USA) to begin with the thin air slows most people down more. Then I have to add time for gawking at marvelous views and photographing wild flowers. Being almost 70 years young I don't stay married to final destinations any more. I go as far as I like and if I don't reach a target no big deal. I've enjoyed all of the distance I covered .
Nice. I forgot about altitude, and dawdling. Smiles over miles! ❤
Quickly arriving at the conclusion that this channel, whether you are a navigator or not, is the most entertaining channel on RUclips! Feeling very nostalgic for when I did the mountain leaders' course.
Never stop waffling my friend, it makes your videos all the more entertaining. 🙂
I've used Atkins correction for so long now that I interpret it as Naismiths rule. This video was a good reminder how things can get lost in translation over time.
The only advice I would offer is, rather than 10 minutes per 100m I just add 1 minute for each contour line crossed uphill as it makes for an easier calculation. That way you only count the contours and not calculate over 100m. So my formula is: Total time = (4km per hour + 1 minute for each contour crossed uphill). I did try minusing a minute for each contour crossed downhill for a while but it was never particularly accurate. I sometimes minus 30 seconds for downhill contours which is more accurate but is very specific to me I feel.
As a local lad to you, I look forward to bumping into you on t' hills one day maybe. 🙂
Yep - I use Atkins on all my courses and 1 min per 10m contour
This was delightful and informative. Thank you so much.
Thanks I might watch this again to take more in . Most of my SOTA hikes are roughly 16 minute per Km. I am 71 carrying 8kg of kit and ppe, now I can also add the time for altitude gain because as the country gets steeper i end up closer to 20 minutes per Km.
In Poland, all the mountain trail markings use 12 minutes per kilometre and 12 minutes per 100 metres, which is quite accurate for an average, healthy person. It doesn't work well for steep climbs and steep descents, where you have to slow down.
I always enjoy your RUclips videos, thanks for another informative and interesting video.
I just came across the following post in a technology forum. I found it very interesting and relevant to the topics you usually cover, so I'm sharing it with you. It might inspire a new episode for your channel that discusses the issue raised in the post.
From a MacRumors thread on iPhone hiking trails maps, written by user "ChrisA":
I was hiking in Yosemite, about 2 or 3 days from the trailhead. There is zero cell service there, even at the trailhead I was by myself. The trail mostly followed a river. Then I meet these two girls (OK I'm an old guy so everyone only 40 looks young, they were likely in their 20s so clearly "born in the digital age")
One of them shows me her iPhone which has a map and a blinking "you are here" dot. And she asks me "Where are we?" Clearly, she knew the blinking dot was the location and that she was standing on a trail but she meant, is it a hard or easy walk to a place to camp, will the canyon open up and get wider, and how long of a walk is that? All this was clearly on her map but all she was seeing was a useless-to-her "you are here".
Think about it, if you can't read a topo map, the "you are here" dot is as useless as if you drew an "X" on the ground and I told you "You are standing on an "X". You are always "here" no matter where you go and the GPS will always uselessly tell you that you are standing in the place you are standing. Seriously all she saw was a screen filled with usless wiggly lines and a flashing dot. She could also see the direction she needs to walk.
I think this is a problem with people who depend on these electronic gadgets, You don't need "turn by turn" directions when the plan is to walk for two days on the same trail.
Because of these electronic maps, there are now maybe as many people like this with zero map-reading skills. Maybe this is an opportunity for Apple or someone else to apply AI to topo map reading. You could ask the AI "when will we come to the next good place to stop for lunch and a rest with a flat space by the water? The system then makes a custom graphic.
(let's not talk about what happens if you are 20 miles from the road and you drop your phone in the water and can't read maps and don't own a compass.)
Great video. Thanks.
I have always used the maxim “ average marching speed of 3 miles per hour” as my basic guide.
Has worked for me.
What about if you are climbing at 1 in 3? 3 mph is bollocks
I have not heard of this!
Very useful!
On the corridor route; going up Scafell Pike the other day, my son said we had 4km left to walk.
I thought east!!!!
It was fascinating to find out that this was wishful thinking.
This will be useful in winter!
Great video, usual. Great channel. Warm greetings from Oregon, USA. We recently had the opportunity to do a lot of walking in southwestern England (Wiltshire), and it rekindled my love of walking.
I will try to use Naismith's rule on future walks in the Pacific Northwest, but I will be missing the public footpaths, sheep poop and all.
Fortunately in Sud Tirol northern Italy wher i regularly go wandering, all destinations are marked with a time guidance, very convenient.
I love to hike, but even if I didn’t, I’d enjoy these videos!
Another brilliant video. I learned a new estimation tool AND a bit about hospitable knights of old. You are an amazing teacher of navigation and history. Well done.
Very instructive, great channel. When I’m walking on Dartmoor or similar terrain I know on average I walk at 2.5 miles an hour, including short breaks for navigation, food, etc. I use that rule of thumb and then use Naismith if I’m in any different kind of Terrain, conditions, etc. seems to work.
I hike in the same forest all the time because it's what I have access to. I have almost NO idea how far anything is, I only measure time. Some trails are brutal, 1, maybe 2 miles an hour. If something takes 90 minutes to get to, it's either several miles or REALLY tough terrain 😂.
Naismith is a good starting position, over time with practice it is quite simple to work out your own formula; 4kph + 5min for every 100m, that's me! (Groups never more than 3kph, all that chatting!)
This is golden, it should be compulsory. Especially for those who keep the rescue groups so busy 🙂
For people who keep the rescue groups busy these number should be multiplied by 2-3 at least, honestly. 10 min/km and 10min/100 meters is quite an optimistic estimation even for a fit man. I think it only really works for well-maintained well-marked trails. Searching for a trail (navigating barely visible one) takes significant time. Hiking overgrown trails takes significant time, etc.
There are many factors that make this estimation optimistic (overly optimistic, I would say).
I kept waiting for you to "walk the walk" so we could see how close your guesstimate was.
Excellent explanation. Enjoyed the history lesson as well.
I often go hillwalking by myself and use Naismith's rule (albeit with a rate of 4km/hour) every time to let someone know when to expect me back, it's yet to do me wrong. My partner in particular really appreciates it, as her dad is a fellrunner and horrendous at estimating how long he'll be out!
Great explanation of the rule. Otherwise Hospitalers are the Knights of Malta. They have not much to do with the Teutonic knights. Those were located in Hungary , Baltics and Poland after the Crusades.
As you say, the Teutonic Knights were a different order and the titles quoted were from the Teutonic order. Still, the origin of the name Spitlers Edge is very interesting.
I’m ready for the book with all the information from the videos including the asides, corrections, and variations herein. Plus it would be a way to pay you for the instruction. I’d really love to go to Dartmoor and wherever you are holding classes, that’s a very long way from here. If you ever schedule a class day in Texas or Nee Mexico I’m all in!
Thanks for a very informative video, a waffle, and a refresher in 4th grade arithmatic .. Cheers 🙂
I like the subtle audio edit😉
I don’t think I’ll ever get the hang of editing.
Very interesting lesson. I usually do not concern myself with how much time it takes me to do a woods walk. Because I usually stop often to forage or examine foliage. Another great video, thank you.
Excellent as always! Thank you 😊👍🏻👍🏻😎
In Austria (also in Germany, Switzerland) there is a similar calculation:
We calculate in the alps (not for pathless terrain, climbing or worst weather conditions):
4.5 km / hour
300 m ascent / hour
500 m descent / hour
Calculate both values and add half of the smaller value to the other value:
So if you walk 4.5 km and ascend 900 m (in Austria the Alps are a bit higher 😁) you have:
900 m / 300 m => 3 hours
4.5 km => 1 hour => half value: 1/2 hour
3 hour + 1/2 hour => 3 1/2 hours walking (without breaks) to go up the mountain
walking back / downhill:
900 m / 500 m => < 2 hours
4.5 km => 1 hour => half value: 1/2 hour
2 hours + 1/2 hour => 2 1/2 hours for the return / descent (without breaks)
Summary: 6 hours walking (without a break).
With a break at a hut, you add another hour (minimum - for the good beer in Austria 😅🍻) and one or two short breaks during the hike => 7 1/2 - 8 hours and a beautiful day in the alps walking on a not very high mountain.
Interesting, look forward to trying this formula in the Alps later this year 👍
Never lonely. Always have your shadow (or know where it is) - even in the worst of English weather.
Why didn't you walk it so we could see how close to 30.5 minutes you'd get?
Another very interesting video. Thank you
Great informative video thanks for the info.
I have done a fair amount of trekking in Nepal using a Suunto sports watch (old models) showing the ascent speed in meters per minute. Normal figure on ascending trails has been 8m/minute. This has always given a fairly accurate estimate of ETA to the next village on the top of the hill or ridgeline. No need to (try to) estimate the distance, just check the altitude difference from start to goal. 8m/minute agrees quite well with the 12 minutes per 100m altitude gain mentioned already.
Another matter is the sad fact that 100 years ago people were fitter on average and hiked faster. Now keeping 5km/h speed on trails with a medium sized pack is not possible for most people. In the past 25 km/day was considered average for long hikes, now many can manage only 16 or so.
20 years ago, that formula was decently accurate.
Today it is 2mph plus...
And that only works for the first 2-4 hours, depending on elevation change...
Cheers from Norway. 🇳🇴
Brilliant rule. Brilliant video 👍
Fantastic video. Thanks for sharing. 👍706
The most chilled channel on RUclips. Good stuff.
I have a question, when did we start using metric for distance in the UK. It seems to be getting used more and more.
As I understand it, we still use the imperial measurement to work out our distance traveled etc.
In the UK (I don’t know about other countries) it was 1969 that OS started to issue public maps at 1:10,000 & 1:50,000 (metric) and these were to replace the 1:10,560 (imperial) old style maps.
The name spittels can certainly coming from the German language. An old word for a Hospital (now Krankenhaus) was Spittal. In these modern times the people rarely speak from a Spittal. But u I think the most of the German will still understand it, certainly the Germans who are a little bit older. I also knew the word but don’t use it. (I am a Dutch speaking Belgian, but come over 60 years in Germany).
The Naismiths Rule was unknown to me, but I knew there was something like that.
For my walking’s (I am short to the 70) I count ± 3,5 Km/hour included some short pauses for drinking, viewing around and take some pictures, for not so difficult terrain. For a lunchbreak I count + 20 min. I have no idee what to count for mountain up. My condition is certainly not the same as Naismith had. I planned a walk up a hill, distance 1,6 Km and 150 up. I see some parts of the trip with 20 to 32% up. I am looking for help “Can I do this with my condition and age? Maybe the best and safest will be don’t do it. I will ask local people of a walking community for advice.
My first thought was that "spitler" was someone's surname. There do seem to be such folks. However, Wikipedia provides the following etymology for "spitle"
From Middle English spitel, an aphetic form, from Medieval Latin hospitāle.
Remember those Brits like to drop their haitches. And I never heard of Naismith's rule. As stated, it can only apply to fairly well maintained trails. To use it in other terrain, the constants would need to be re-calibrated to account for brush and other difficulties like stream crossings, boggy ground, loose gravel and the like.
brilliant waffle - keep it up.....we love it!
Am I missing something? One of the first pictures says 10km walk @ 1.23 km per hour would take 12.3 hours? That's totally wrong, it's 10 divided by 1.23, which is just over 8 hours.
Yeah I know. I got that wrong. Sorry
I wonder what Naismiths rule would be regarding the Big Cypress section of the Florida Trail?
Great video, terrific waffle, and superior instruction as always!
Cheers
Swiss signs are so accurate that it is painful. 😁 Here in New England there are many factors included: age, backpack weight, trail/terrain condition (e;g; rocks ), weather, hikers' physical condition, season, and more. JMNSHO
Yeah this works with experience you can add terrain weather pack weight
Never knew what this was called but use it all the time, it does work just adjust to suit yourself
Great video. Thanks
Can you help me out on the math at the beginning of the clip? If you need to walk 10km and you are walking at a pace of 1.23km/h it should take 8.13 hours not 12.3 hours.
I'm confused by the equation that shows up 20 seconds into the video that indicates that walking 10km at a rate of 1.23kph should take 12.3 hours. It seems to me you multiplied 10km x 1.23 kph, where you should have divided 10km/1.23 kph to get 8.13 hours. Calculating backwards, 8.13 hours x 1.23 kph = 9.9999 km = 10 km.
Does Naismith's guide take into consideration whether you're bearing a load or unencumbered?
I actually don’t know. I imagine that, as Naismith was a mountaineer he and his friends would have all been used to carrying a heavy rucksack.
I liked the RAF rule for walking with kit, but I can’t remember it any more…?
10 mins for 100 m is pretty minimal. For me about 300 m per hour is the climbing rate. I am slow... :) But 600 m per hour is flying!
If I bring my camera, do I add 5 min/Km or 6? ;-)
If some app is monitoring my progress I’m going to be outlier data. My goal is never the destination, but rather interesting photographs. It may take me an hour to go 400 meters. Oh, that’s a bagel sandwich 😊
Interesting 🧇
Water, food, shelter... it's all heavy. Plus u need time to set up camp and dinner. Better to do less miles per day and pace urself so u can enjoy your hike and complete your journey.
Very good😊
Apostrophe missing in the video title :)
I feel your pain 😢. Google can't (with apostrophe) index non alphanumeric digits. Hence, Naismiths instead of Naismith's.
20 minutes per mile +
30 minutes 1,000 feet acsent .
Weather Conditions , terrain and your condition is a big factor.
I use 12-15mins per km plus 1 min for every contour line crossed
thanks
0:25 Your math is wrong: 10 kilometers with 1.23 kilometers per hour is 10/1.23 = 8.13 hours instead of 10 * 1.23 = 12.3 hours. Your calculation implies you take longer to walk a certain distance if you walk faster.
I know. The graphic is wrong
"Men in fair condition on an easy expedition..." Three miles per hour plus an hour for each 2,000 feet of rise..? Right. After you get your trail legs and while walking a well maintained trail. Not even the Appalachian Trail is always well maintained, so good luck with that. A mile of rough trail, or rock scrambles, can seem like climbing 2,000 feet in itself, and take over an hour to accomplish.
Other factors:
1. Pack weight
2. Altitude
3. Sight-seeing
4. Photography
5. Lunch breaks
It's a real wonder how folks can do twenty miles in a day. They must be driven by their goals. If you're first starting out, follow one other simple rule: "Be kind to yourself." You'll get used to it.
The Ouachitas here in Arkansas aren't tall. So you come from someplace like the Rockies, pick out a 5-6 mile circuit or out-and-back, starting at say 600', with a 1420' so-called "peak" you can bag about halfway through, and tell yourself it's a slice of absolute wedding cake. Then it proceeds to beat the piss out of you, because it's not like, mostly up 800' and then mostly down 800'. It's up and down and up and down and up ad nauseam, and steep and rocky as hell. It's like climbing the same little mountain three or four times in a row. I'm a bit old and out of shape and just did this to myself last week, but even if I were fit, I'd want to dig Naismith up and make him walk that trail while telling me about his rule. 😆
You don't estimate based off the the total elevation gain from points A to B. You count all the rises (as demonstrated in the video around the 4min mark). A 1km hike up one 100m hill is same as a 1km hike over two separate 50m hills, or a 1km hike over four 25m hills.
_The Maltese Falcon_
Naismiths Rule accounting for Tea and Waffle.
Prepare to watch the Sunset.
Cheers!
My silva developed a bubble bought new one had bubble first day silva says its normal when did it become normal old one never had bubble till 12 years old.
It's NOT normal. It’s a manufacturing fault. Get them to send you a new one.
Excellent work, thanks. Can't wait for you to have waffles for your lunch.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Waffle while you waffle.
I use the timings proposed in Peter Cliff's book, 'Mountain Navigation'. Forget variations and adding complexity. It strips the timing process to a bare minimum. Steep uphill ground is divided into 10m vertical units and other ground (flat and gentle slopes) into 100m horizontal units. Most downhill ground can be treated as flat until very steep. Each unit is covered in typically around one to one and half minutes depending upon the conditions of the day. So, if there is a 8km approach along a glen followed by a steady 600m ascent then that is 80 units plus 60 units equals 140 units. Each unit being 1min 15s, add a quarter to 140 and get 175 minutes or 2h55. At the start of the day, time a section to give you the unit value that you may require later.
How is that simple? You lost me towards the end of your explanation.
👍
If ur doing 20 + miles in a day ur not stopping much for pictures, lunch or rest. Only for toilet. Remember in the old days cameras were big and heavy non of us brought them hiking. Not practical.
That’s a brisk pace.
Ok I’ll bite on the rule of thumb comment.
Cool information. But now we need to know about "rule of thumb". Waffle on!
There's a video on it already...
English = German