Talk:Naismith's rule

Running Rule?

I've often tried to back out a Naismith's rule for 'running' - ie a two term expression with a term for distance and one for height of ascent. I think you have to be quite careful what class of terrain you apply it to though - my own attempts have been for rolling/hilly road runs, or easy (class C in FRA terms) fell races. The distance term is clearly your ground-adjusted flat run-rate, and I'd expect the height term would be not more than twice the walking rate, (and would tend to even less with increasing age, :-(). But clearly, many (Ben Nevis standard) runners can manage much better. Any views? (I note there are several published papers on say the Bob Graham Round and Skye ridge, but nothing really on the intermediate sort of run of say 30 minutes to 2 hours out, with mean gradients of order 30 to 100ft per mile (but locally say 1 in 8 to 1 in 3). Linuxlad 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(PS - how about (for fit but untalented V55s say) 8 minutes a mile and a minute for every 100 feet.)?

Metric?

If this was originally developed by a Scotsman, I severely doubt it was originally done in metric. If can someone can prove me wrong, that'd be cool. R'son-W 18:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed originally in Imperial measurements. It was published in the Scottish Mountaineering Club Journal I think, and should be fairly easy to source one way or another. -- Blisco 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is quoted here as "Allow one hour for every three miles forward, and half an hour for every 1,000 feet of ascent." Alansplodge (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Naismith's Rule → Naismith's rule – Case correction per WP:CAPS and MOS:CAPS and cited sources. Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support; proposal seems reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NotMiserable (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yosemite?

It seems a bit Americentric to say "This rule applies only to hikes rated Class 1 on the Yosemite Decimal System" in the article's lead. Naismith's rule is used in the UK where this system is unknown and Naismith was Scottish I believe. Perhaps this information could be included elsewhere in the article? Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naismith's rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/papers/98-7/Modelling
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101003155107/http://www.wildwalks.com/bushcraft/technical-stuff/naismith-s-rule-estimate-walking-time.html to http://www.wildwalks.com/bushcraft/technical-stuff/naismith-s-rule-estimate-walking-time.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Who in the world is Scarf?

The article is going along nicely and then all of a sudden it starts talking about someone named "Scarf". We are only ever told his last name, not even his first, or why in the world we'd even care about what he thinks (whoever he is.) Who is Scarf and why should he even be mentioned in an article about a rule developed by a guy name Naismith? Especially to such a degree that he warrants a decently-sized subsection within the article just about his own ideas on the topic? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 05:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Mukkakukaku, I have tracked him down and added his details to the article. His paper is reproduced in several places on the web, but how notable his work is is outside the UK hard to determine. I did my mountain leadership training a couple of decades ago, so although I'm familiar with Tranter and Langmuir, I've never heard of Scarf. Sounds a bit complex for easy use on the hills to me though. I propose that we move him down so as to have coequal status with Tranter, Aitkin and Langmuir. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Talbot's Rule

Any references available for this? 51.9.83.96 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)