3 ms·
> In general, shortest would be fastest for walking Traffic lights, crime-addled regions, embassies (I wouldn't dare jog towards a guarded embassy carrying a b
by Deestan 14y ago
> In general, shortest would be fastest for walking
Traffic lights, crime-addled regions, embassies (I wouldn't dare jog towards a guarded embassy carrying a backpack), loose gravel paths. All these will slow down walking considerably.
Or outside the city: Marshes, mountains, thick forests, muddy hill slopes.
- delinka 14y agoSo put the adjective "walkable" in front. The question is the same. These things are unwalkable and therefore not able to be part of any route. Same with your car: the places without roads are undrivable and therefore not available for routing. But with a car, the speeds are so much greater than bipedal motion, shortest vs. fastest is a viable question. When the routing system avoids obstacles, it's mostly going give you the shortest and fastest route. brador makes a good point about grade; with enough grade on the shortest route, it might not be the fastest.
- Deestan 14y agoNo, these are all walkable.
- hnriot 14y agoI can't believe people are actually debating this. Did you really expect a check box 'jogging with backpack' mode? It's a quick and dirty calculation that google is making about routing. Im pretty sure the google walking routes wont take you through marshes or thick forests.