# Different driving times from mapquest/google/mappoint(Bing)?



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

Here's something interesting - I mapped out driving directions from home to a US address using Google, Mapquest and MapPoint (a.k.a. Bing). 

Google and Mapquest gave me 9 hrs 47 minutes and a distance of 882.5 kms.
Mappoint (Bing) gave me 8 hrs 30 minutes for the same 882.5 kms.
The routes were identical in all three cases - I checked.

Out of these Mappoint is the one I actually rely on because it is the most accurate in my experience. Luckily, even after Microsoft took it over and renamed it to Big Maps, it has not lost its quality.

The main reason I use MapPoint is because they still use NavTeq as their map providers - who are the same providers used by Garmin. My Garmin has always been very dependable and has never gotten me lost, and has always been pretty accurate with arrival time projections, so I am inclined to believe Mappoint's 8.5 hours rather than the other two's 9.75 hours.

Navteq are the most accurate and current providers for North America and TeleAtlas are most accurate for Europe.

TomTom uses TeleAtlas.

I used to rely on Google, but in 2008 or thereabouts they switched from NavTeq to TeleAtlas and I actually noticed errors and omissions in directions thereafter, so I switched to MapPoint (which was still independent then).

Google has recently stopped using TeleAtlas and have started to rely on their own Street Cars' output and crowd-sourced corrections, which still does not inspire too much trust from me.

Does anyone know who provides maps for Mapquest? I know that in addition to licensing maps from some provider they also use Openmaps, but I would like to know who their licensed providers are.

Has anyone here tried this experiment to see if they too get different results?

Cheers


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Time difference may be based on traffic algorithms. Google frequently over estimates driving times compared to the same route on my TomTom GPS.


----------



## Daniel911 (Mar 13, 2003)

tilt said:


> ...Google and Mapquest gave me 9 hrs 47 minutes and a distance of 882.5 kms.
> Mappoint (Bing) gave me 8 hrs 30 minutes for the same 882.5 kms.
> The routes were identical in all three cases - I checked....


Maybe something as simple as the assumed average speed used in the calculation?

9h47mins works out to 90.5 km/h (or 55 mph -- "double nickels") whereas the 8hrs30mins estimate works out to roughly 104 km/h (or 64.5 mph).

Figuring slowdowns and bottlenecks -- and the fact that the estimates are for an *average constant speed*, it seems VERY likely that the faster time quoted by Bing would result in a slew of speeding tickets along the way... :lmao:

-Daniel


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

Daniel911 said:


> Maybe something as simple as the assumed average speed used in the calculation?
> 
> 9h47mins works out to 90.5 km/h (or 55 mph -- "double nickels") whereas the 8hrs30mins estimate works out to roughly 104 km/h (or 64.5 mph).
> 
> ...


I presumed that these mapping applications (including what's in GPSs) would know the speed limits on each of the roads or streets along the route and would calculate time based on always driving at the limit. I did not think that they would assume an average driving speed.

Am I giving these applications more credit than they deserve?

Cheers


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

Interesting find Tilt!

I decided to run my own comparison. Google maps was 5 hours longer then bing for my test! Google has refined their calculator since people used to try to get places in only the amount of time listed - i'm sure of it. I remember business colleagues reading that it takes 5 hours to get from here to there and leaving 5 hours before a big meeting..... OOPS! 

I still prefer the google maps interface. Bing took three tries to load and map quest didn't load at all.


----------



## Daniel911 (Mar 13, 2003)

tilt said:


> I presumed that these mapping applications (including what's in GPSs) would know the speed limits on each of the roads or streets along the route and would calculate time based on always driving at the limit. I did not think that they would assume an average driving speed.
> 
> Am I giving these applications more credit than they deserve?
> 
> Cheers


Probably...

To refine my answer:

The "fact that the estimates are for an average constant speed" is relative to MY speed calculations -- this being *based on the premise that the times AND distances quoted by the map services (mapquest/google/mappoint) are taken at face value and are indeed deemed accurate* for the basis of the test/theory.

If anything, injecting a corollary to the above that presumes *adjusted reduced speeds* (based on actual speed limits) -- all things else being equal in the proposed theory -- would in fact yield a *higher rate of speed* in other areas of the itinerary (relative to the calculated average speed) to yield the same result time-wise.

YMMV 

-Daniel


----------

