I heard they had trouble sourcing the paper they use for some reason.

Haha, it was challenging.

We did the first two loops of the Western Uplands trail this time. It's the first time I've gone backpacking in 15 years, and although we packed super light (<15lbs base pack) we ended up having longer days than expected.

This was the first trip where it legitimately seemed like we might not make it out on time, so we began rationing food. Luckily we made up a ton of distance on Sunday and got out yesterday night as planned.

We need to get into better shape (both me and Deki!)

Still, lots of good memories, and it was especially rewarding when we pushed hard and made the distance we needed to on Sunday =)

There isn't.

I don't think there should be any problems

iOS - It's just a matter of getting the website done for it. We've been a bit distracted for the last little while with getting the maps into stores and a bunch of other starting up type stuff, but we're finally back on track. So I'm hoping this will be ready sooner than later

Algonquin - It's probably ~25% done right now? It'll be 2-3 more months at least, unfortunately . Later than we hoped for, but it's going to be awesome :D

UpTheCreek wrote:

It doesn't take into account the number of portages, but I've considered adding that, as I did find is less accurate when I had many portages in a day.

Yea, that's one of the most important factors that's overlooked. In fact, that one in particular really bit me, and is what motivated me to come up with my own times.

I'd always screw myself over since my ambitions required my time estimates to be perfect ("If I planned everything right we'll arrive just before sunset"). But then I'd vastly underestimate portage loading/unloading times alongside other relevant factors like particularly strong currents, etc....

LoL @ EddyTurn @MartinG

That's extremely close to the baseline values used on the Unlostify maps. Basically, just a hair slower on portages, but the same on paddling. The biggest difference is that we add a bunch of customized speed penalties where appropriate based on per-route conditions.

The Jeff's Map math was slightly different (I don't remember it exactly) but that's because it was derived mathematically from a whole bunch of sample data. I had to relearn intro to statistics for that one haha!

But for all intents and purposes, I'd say that those numbers are basically backed up by the model I came up with.

Although (obviously) it's possible to beat those times, I was quite surprised with how little variation there is from those baseline values for people that travel faster than average.

All in all, I found the model I created (including all the special tweaks on a per route basis for actual conditions) to make predictions that were 95% accurate, 9 times out of 10 (as compared to the times I got from all the GPS data people contributed)

@ATVenture - Haha, yea, to my surprise we've gotten a few requests for that.

If we do a Mattawa R map though, it won't be part of the Algonquin map. That simply comes down to the fact that the travel patterns aren't linked. Joining the two maps under the Algonquin brand would be confusing, and would force us to link the development cycle, scale, etc of the Algonquin map to the Mattawa one and vice versa.

That said, the biggest reasons not to do a Mattawa map, as with many other maps, are manufacturing logistics and time.

Manufacturing Logistics: We need to order thousands of copies of a map at a time. We don't want to keep a given version of a map around for too long. If the math doesn't work out, that's a problem.
Time: We have more project ideas than time. Plus, every map we take on is a commitment to regular, future updates. Where does a given map fit in our list of priorities?

@Coureur des Biere/@AlgonquinLakes - Summerish. FYI we're thinking of doing some sort of display map, (similar purpose) but a different (we think better) form factor. But it's hard to speak to specifics this early on.

About 700m is eliminated (so it's reduced by about 2/3) :D