I have been using Kurviger for a year, and one thing is particularly annoying - it is unable to provide non-insane time estimates for planned routes. They are always absurdly exaggerated.
For example, if I plan a twisty route, with about 15 waypoints, ~160km length, asphalt only, Kurviger estimates it at 7h45m, while in reality it takes about 1h50m. It also does not correct itself on route, and on waypoint 10, it still estimates 1/3rd of the estimated time, i.e +2 hours.
This happens practically for ALL routes above 50km (I don’t to shorter routes, so can’t comment), no matter how complex, or whether there is an off-pavement section, or not.
For comparison, Google Maps exaggerates the route time by about 10-30% (because bike is faster than a car), while Calimoto is eerily bang-on most of the time.
So I see this as the main weakness of Kurviger. Is there an explanation for this? Is work being done to fix this?
Thanks for providing these samples. I can see that significant parts of the route are on very small roads with no tagged speed limits and on residential roads. For these we assume lower speeds by default.
We are looking at options to further improve our ETA calculation in the future. That said, we try to set our ETA to be realistic yet, on the slower side, so if you like to go fast, Kurviger ETAs might not be accurate for you in general.
I understand conservative ETA estimates (like Google Maps), but 5,5h on a 1,8h (150km) or 9,3h on a 2,5h (211km) route is not conservative. It is just a bug.
Is the only reason for those estimates are small roads with no tagged speed limits? I find it questionable, because for this to account for those estimates, the default speed would have to be assumed ~5-25km/h.
Additionally, have a look at this route which is only on larger roads, with speed limit between 50 and 120km/h: https://kurv.gr/v8LZg
The estimate is 4h15m, yet the route is at most 2h30m when going the speed limit. Which makes me thing there’s something else going on.
But if this really is because of low defaults, I suggest you default to 50km/h as average speeds at those roads. I think it will provide far better ETAs.
Calimoto somehow manages to do that very accurately. I suspect the app/account “learns” the pace of the rider and adjust the ETAs based on previous riding. Perhaps you could implement that in Kurviger?
Apart from the ETAs and the dark mode, I find Kurviger a superior choice.
Hi Lockheed,
I think is very difficult to calculate the ETA.
In the moment I am in South of France.
Me and my wife with camping gear. I need much more time on these small and curvy streets as calculate.
The French Bikers without any luggage, they are much faster. I think they are much earlier than calculate.
Yes, this forum We come to check for issues here very often
Also you don’t need to @-mention a certain person, the whole team can read these threads and may react to them
Getting back to the original question: it’s nice that you are so eager to help, you can actually do a lot by just correctly tagging these roads you’ve been riding. The map material that Kurviger uses - OpenStreetMap - is like Wikipedia, anybody can edit it. I would love it if you can make some edits. Please don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions
I would love to make edits, but that’s not all there is to do.
If what boldtrn said is the case, then the problem is the default speed assumed by Kurviger when the road has no designation. It is much too low, which makes ETAs in Kurviger worse than non-existing.
And as an IT project manager, I have to say that if you treat this forum as bugtracker, then let the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy upon us all…
You can assume that we have an internal system - but as most companies we can’t allow public access to this, I am sure as an IT project manager you can understand .
@Patrick not sure what your “good” refers to, but if that’s ETAs, then it’s not “good”, they are not even “bad”. It would take a lot of improvements to make them “bad”.
I am making edits to OpenStreetMaps, but that’s ABSOLUTELY NOT the solution here. There’s way too much small, tiny roads to edit to do to make it possible and hence make any significant difference that would make up for the faulty ETA algorithm in Kurviger.
The most important thing BY FAR is to set better default speed when no speed is given, or - if that’s not the cause - fix the underlying reason for those maliciously mocking ETAs. As a paying customer I’d expect the app/devs not to prank me and tell me repeatedly:
“It’s all as intended, don’t worry about it. Maybe we may stop pranking paying customers at some point in the undetermined future, but that’s certainly not a priority since we don’t recognise the basic nav functionality being worse than completely useless due to being comically misleading as an critical issue.”
EDIT: since you closed the topic, here’s my response to your last post:
What is inappropriate is the responses I’ve been getting when reporting a critical flaw in your app.
The wording in the first response, can be paraphrased in what I wrote in my last post, especially in the light of further responses. You clearly consider your current ETAs “good enough” for the time being, which is an insult to your paid users when your ETAs are 2-5 times what they are in any of your competing apps.
Hi Lockheed,
please consider this a warning to not escalate your wording further. I understand your cursive text is a hypothetical, it is still used to encite the conversation. The language you’re using is wholly inappropriate for the responses you have been getting in this thread. The literal first response included the phrase
We come to check for issues here very often