Talk:Lahemaa National Park

Walking speed

I am confused by the distance/time ratio of the hikes: 5.69 km in 1–1.5 hours, 14.13 km in 3–5 hours. This means an average walking speed of 3–5 km/h. While the lower might be realistic if you do not take breaks, the latter is fast walking for most people even without watching the landscape. I'd suggest rounding the distances, forgetting about the higher speed, and mentioning more time will be needed if you want to really look at anything.

Are the times just calculated based on distance or are they really based on a visit?

--LPfi (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is information based on my visit there 3 weeks ago. There are no hills, so I do not understand the confusion. Feel free to note that the longer time is more realistic in case of bird watching, taking our time and stuff. I am a fast hiker, I take picture, I enjoy being in the nature, I read the information, I am there to make the distance and am back or further on my way when finished with the hike. However, please keep the distances as accurate as they are – rounding to 1 decimal is ok. But if we have the exact distance, why rounding? Are we too uneducated to handle regular decimals? I am more happy about an exact distance instead of a rounded one that leaves the bitter taste of inaccuracy and unreliability. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps your style even fits more people than mine, and you are the one who has been there. But when time for the trip is told, I suppose I can walk at a quite quiet pace (3 km/h is realistic for me on a path without obstacles, if I want to watch the surroundings) and stop now and then to observe flora and fauna. If I want pictures I'd probably use at least half an hour on photography.

I know that DNT of Norway includes just time for quite fast walking, and that is OK if you know it, but here we have no standard, so I'd suppose times given are realistic all included, for an average visitor, whatever that means. Longer breaks vary greatly between people, so the need to reserve time for those (including my photography) should probably be mentioned separately.

For rounding: that is no big deal, but it is easier for me to grasp 5.7 than 5.69, and 14 than 14.13. Even the latter rounding is just 130 m, or 1 %. Its significance is drowned in everything else that varies; small variations in the surface and terrain affect the speed by several percent. The latter, 10 m, is so little I wonder how one would measure the length that exactly: not keeping to the centreline (or interpreting it differently!) will easily add many metres.

--LPfi (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)