<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mind the hill &#8211; view our new incline data below each London route</title>
	<atom:link href="http://walkit.com/2010/01/mind-the-hill-view-our-new-incline-data-below-each-london-route/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://walkit.com/2010/01/mind-the-hill-view-our-new-incline-data-below-each-london-route/</link>
	<description>The urban walking route planner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 08:46:54 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chas M</title>
		<link>http://walkit.com/2010/01/mind-the-hill-view-our-new-incline-data-below-each-london-route/comment-page-1/#comment-494</link>
		<dc:creator>Chas M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:19:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.walkit.com/blog/?p=1031#comment-494</guid>
		<description>The hill profile graph using incline data is a very welcome addition. Thank you!  I can&#039;t help thinking, however, it would be even better if the y axis scale, which is currently fixed over the range 0 to 250m above sea level, was dynamic (or there was an option for the user to select a dynamic scale). I envisage the scale being a function of the variation in the altitude over the length of the path. For example, in the case of the route between Norbury and Herne Hill, where the maximum height  appears to be around 75m, perhaps a range from 0 to 150m for the y axis would give a better impression of the overall variation. Of course, I appreciate the advantage of a fixed scale is the ability to be able to more readily compare variation between routes, and that there may also be good reasons why the scale is set as it is (given the minimum 6kmrange on the x axis).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The hill profile graph using incline data is a very welcome addition. Thank you!  I can&#039;t help thinking, however, it would be even better if the y axis scale, which is currently fixed over the range 0 to 250m above sea level, was dynamic (or there was an option for the user to select a dynamic scale). I envisage the scale being a function of the variation in the altitude over the length of the path. For example, in the case of the route between Norbury and Herne Hill, where the maximum height  appears to be around 75m, perhaps a range from 0 to 150m for the y axis would give a better impression of the overall variation. Of course, I appreciate the advantage of a fixed scale is the ability to be able to more readily compare variation between routes, and that there may also be good reasons why the scale is set as it is (given the minimum 6kmrange on the x axis).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jamie</title>
		<link>http://walkit.com/2010/01/mind-the-hill-view-our-new-incline-data-below-each-london-route/comment-page-1/#comment-429</link>
		<dc:creator>jamie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.walkit.com/blog/?p=1031#comment-429</guid>
		<description>You raise a very good point.  Our stats are purely indicative, based on distance and the Defra conversion factors (see our FAQ).  We hope to refine these figures over time - but we might struggle to offer the level of sophistication you&#039;re after!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You raise a very good point.  Our stats are purely indicative, based on distance and the Defra conversion factors (see our <span class="caps">FAQ</span>).  We hope to refine these figures over time &#8211; but we might struggle to offer the level of sophistication you&#039;re after!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald Bruce</title>
		<link>http://walkit.com/2010/01/mind-the-hill-view-our-new-incline-data-below-each-london-route/comment-page-1/#comment-427</link>
		<dc:creator>Donald Bruce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.walkit.com/blog/?p=1031#comment-427</guid>
		<description>Do you take account of the hills when you calculate car journey CO2 emissions? Here in Edinburgh any journey from the north side of the city to the south has a big hill to go up, which will increase car CO2 emissions signficantly. 

Also do you take account of time spent waiting at traffic lights when calculating car and bus CO2 emissions? Going by car up our local main street (Dundas Street) to go up to the Royal Mile at George IV Bridge in the centre of Edinburgh you will go through 7 traffic lights in just over a mile. On average you will catch at least 4 of these on red, and could spend between half a minute and 2 minutes per light, depending on the junction. So that&#039;s perhaps 6 minutes belching out CO2 while stationary. During that time you might have gone another 2 miles of distance. I am not sure what the difference in emission between driving along the road and idling plus accelerating from stationary, but I would guess that a nominal one mile of distance might be more like two miles in emissions in this example. Presumably you could have an average emisson per traffic light factor to add to the emission per mile figure? Or do you do that already?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you take account of the hills when you calculate car journey <span class="caps">CO2 </span>emissions? Here in Edinburgh any journey from the north side of the city to the south has a big hill to go up, which will increase car <span class="caps">CO2 </span>emissions signficantly. </p>
<p>Also do you take account of time spent waiting at traffic lights when calculating car and bus <span class="caps">CO2 </span>emissions? Going by car up our local main street (Dundas Street) to go up to the Royal Mile at George IV Bridge in the centre of Edinburgh you will go through 7 traffic lights in just over a mile. On average you will catch at least 4 of these on red, and could spend between half a minute and 2 minutes per light, depending on the junction. So that&#039;s perhaps 6 minutes belching out <span class="caps">CO2 </span>while stationary. During that time you might have gone another 2 miles of distance. I am not sure what the difference in emission between driving along the road and idling plus accelerating from stationary, but I would guess that a nominal one mile of distance might be more like two miles in emissions in this example. Presumably you could have an average emisson per traffic light factor to add to the emission per mile figure? Or do you do that already?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://walkit.com/2010/01/mind-the-hill-view-our-new-incline-data-below-each-london-route/comment-page-1/#comment-407</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.walkit.com/blog/?p=1031#comment-407</guid>
		<description>Cool functionality - add for Bristol next please!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool functionality &#8211; add for Bristol next please!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon K</title>
		<link>http://walkit.com/2010/01/mind-the-hill-view-our-new-incline-data-below-each-london-route/comment-page-1/#comment-387</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.walkit.com/blog/?p=1031#comment-387</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a really nice bit of functionality! Probably less useful in London than in some of the more hilly cities and towns, but good anyway.

Incidentally, you mention people &quot;pushing a pram or using a wheelchair&quot;. Do you have the data available to include a &quot;step-free&quot; option on your routes?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#039;s a really nice bit of functionality! Probably less useful in London than in some of the more hilly cities and towns, but good anyway.</p>
<p>Incidentally, you mention people &#8220;pushing a pram or using a wheelchair&#8221;. Do you have the data available to include a &#8220;step-free&#8221; option on your routes?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

