Enhancing Route Planning for Recreational Cyclists: A Comparative Analysis of Elevation Data Accuracy and Field Validation

Abstract

Accurate elevation information is essential for effective recreational cycling route planning, particularly in nonurban and forested terrains. This study evaluates the vertical accuracy of Türkiye’s national elevation model (General Directorate of Mapping [HGM] Küre), compared with the widely used Google Elevation Application Programming Interface (API), using the Türkiye Geoid 2003 -referenced Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) field measurements as ground-truth. A total of 83 elevation points were collected along a forested cycling route and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Bland–Altman plots, and Kruskal–Wallis tests to quantify elevation discrepancies across different topographic zones. The results reveal statistically significant differences in elevation accuracy between the models, with the HGM Küre and Google Elevation API showing elevated error and variability in vegetated and sloped areas. Of note, HGM Küre exhibited systematic overestimations; the Google Elevation API data demonstrated higher scatter. These findings underscore that elevation model performance is highly context-dependent, and unvalidated data sets can misrepresent terrain conditions crucial to cyclist safety and route efficiency. By highlighting the limitations of current digital elevation models and the potential of national models such as HGM Küre when calibrated with GNSS data, this study fills a notable gap in the literature. It provides practical guidance for transportation planners, suggesting a hybrid approach that integrates field-validated data for more accurate and context-aware route planning.

Keywords

elevation data accuracy recreational cycling routes terrain analysis transport planning sustainable transportation route planning field validation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Pucher

Buehler

Cycling Towards a More Sustainable Transport Future. Transport Reviews, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2017, pp. 689–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2017.1340234.

Broach

Dill

Gliebe

Where Do Cyclists Ride? A Route Choice Model Developed with Revealed Preference GPS Data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 10, 2012, pp. 1730–1740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.07.005.

Prato

C. G.

Halldórsdóttir

Nielsen

O. A.

Evaluation of Land-Use and Transport Network Effects on Cyclists’ Route Choices in the Copenhagen Region in Value-of-Distance Space. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 10, 2018, pp. 770–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1437236.

Furth

P. G.

Sadeghinasr

Miranda-Moreno

Slope Stress Criteria as a Complement to Traffic Stress Criteria, and Impact on High Comfort Bicycle Accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 112, 2023, p. 103708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103708.

Potere

Horizontal Positional Accuracy of Google Earth’s High-Resolution Imagery Archive. Sensors, Vol. 8, No. 12, 2008, pp. 7973–7981. https://doi.org/10.3390/s8127973.

Pulighe

Baiocchi

Lupia

Horizontal Accuracy Assessment of Very High Resolution Google Earth Images in the City of Rome, Italy. International Journal of Digital Earth, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2015, pp. 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2015.1031716.

Huang

Yang

Evaluation and Improvement of the Vertical Accuracy of the Global Open DEM Under Forest Environment. Geocarto International, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2025, pp: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2025.2453024.

Gökdaş

Ö.

Özlüdemir

M. T.

Effects of the Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) Network on the Accuracy, Precision, and Time to Fix Ambiguity (TTFA) Performance. Earth Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2022, pp. 131–138. https://doi.org/10.15446/esrj.v26n2.89819.

Balsa-Barreiro

Aplicación de Sistemas GNSS y SIG a Infraestructuras de Transporte:Estudio Sobre La Conducción Naturalista. PhD dissertation. University of Coruña, 2014.

10.

Diban

G. M. F.

Bezerra

B. S.

Chuerubim

M. L.

Comparative Evaluation of the Quality of Elevation Data Obtained with GNSS, Google Earth, and SRTM for Road Projects. Colloquium Exactarum, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5747/ce.2023.v15.e400.

11.

El-Ashmawy

K. L. A.

Investigation of the Accuracy of Google Earth Elevation Data. Artificial Satellites, Vol. 51, No. 3, 2016, pp. 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/arsa-2016-0008.

12.

Hamidi

Decomposing Cycling Potentials Employing the Motility Framework. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 91, 2021, p. 102984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102984.

13.

Hahn

A. G.

Gore

C. J.

The Effect of Altitude on Cycling Performance. Sports Medicine, Vol. 31, No. 7, 2001, pp. 533–557. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200131070-00008.

14.

Farah

Algarni

Positional Accuracy Assessment of GoogleEarth in Riyadh. Artificial Satellites, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2014, pp. 101–106. https://doi.org/10.2478/arsa-2014-0008.

15.

Goudarzi

M. A.

Landry

R. J.

Assessing Horizontal Positional Accuracy of Google Earth Imagery in the City of Montreal, Canada. Geodesy and Cartography, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2017, pp. 56–65. https://doi.org/10.3846/20296991.2017.1330767.

16.

Hussain

Shan

Object-Based Urban Land Cover Classification Using Rule Inheritance over Very High-Resolution Multisensor and Multitemporal Data. GIScience & Remote Sensing, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2015, pp. 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2015.1122923.

17.

Götschi

Garrard

Giles-Corti

. Cycling as a Part of Daily Life: A Review of Health Perspectives. Transport Reviews, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2015, pp. 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1057877.

18.

Guth

P. L.

Van Niekerk

Grohmann

C. H.

Muller

J.-P.

Hawker

Florinsky

I. V.

Gesch

, et al. Digital Elevation Models: Terminology and Definitions. Remote Sensing, Vol. 13, No. 18, 2021, p. 3581. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13183581.

19.

Kiliçoğlu

Direnç

Yildiz

Bölme

Aktuğ

Simav

Lenk

Regional Gravimetric Quasi-Geoid Model and Transformation Surface to National Height System for Turkey (THG-09). Studia Geophysica Et Geodaetica, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2011, pp. 557–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-010-9023-z.

20.

Richard

J. U.

Ogba

Analysis of Accuracy of Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) and Google Earth Digital Terrain Model (DTM) Data Using Geographic Information System Techniques. Journal of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, Vol. 2, 2016, pp. 52–61. https://doi.org/10.17265/2332-8223.

21.

Gökdaş

Ö.

Özlüdemir

M. T.

Current Situation of National and Local CORS Networks in Turkey, Standards and Their Integration. Journal of Geodesy and Geoinformation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2021, pp. 80–94. https://doi.org/10.9733/jgg.2022r0006.t.

22.

Ghuffar

DEM Generation from Multi Satellite PlanetScope Imagery. Remote Sensing, Vol. 10, No. 9, 2018, p. 1462. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10091462.

23.

Ahmed

Pirdavani

Wets

Janssens

Bicycle Infrastructure Design Principles in Urban Bikeability Indices: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2024, p. 2545. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062545.

24.

Piraux

Factors Influencing the Development of the Urban Cycling. A Case Study of Three European Cities: Brussels, Copenhagen and Vienna. Master thesis. UNICA Euromaster in Urban Studies 4Cities, 2010.

25.

Rietveld

Daniel

Determinants of Bicycle Use: Do Municipal Policies Matter?

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 38, No. 7, 2004, pp. 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.003.

26.

Parkin

Cycling Infrastructure. In Routledge Companion to Cycling ( Norcliffe

Brogan

Cox

Gao

Hadland

Hanlon

Jones

Oddy

Vivanco

, eds.), Routledge, London, 2022, pp. 219–228.

27.

Gallo

Marinelli

Sustainable Mobility: A Review of Possible Actions and Policies. Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 18, 2020, p. 7499. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187499.

28.

Gatersleben

Uzzell

Affective Appraisals of the Daily Commute: Comparing Perceptions of Drivers, Cyclists, Walkers, and Users of Public Transport. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2007, pp. 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506294032.

29.

Shen

Bao

Hermans

Applying an Alternative Approach for Assessing Sustainable Road Transport: A Benchmarking Analysis on EU Countries. Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 24, 2020, p. 10391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410391.

30.

Lienert

Monstadt

Truffer

Future Scenarios for a Sustainable Water Sector: A Case Study from Switzerland. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2005, pp. 436–442. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0514139.

31.

Arshad

Thaheem

M. J.

Bakhtawar

Shrestha

Evaluation of Road Infrastructure Projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability-Based Decision-Making Approach. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 7, 2021, p. 3743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073743.

32.

Saavedra

Muñuzuri

A. P.

Menendez

Balsa-Barreiro

Analysing Macroscopic Traffic Rhythms and City Size in Affluent Cities: Insights from a Global Panel Data of 25 Cities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 382, No. 2285, 2024, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2024.0102.

33.

Balsa-Barreiro

Menendez

How Cities Influence Social Behavior. In Digital Ethology: Human Behavior in Geospatial Context ( Paus

Kum

H.-C.

, eds.), The MIT Press eBooks, The MIT Press, London, 2024, pp. 139–158.

34.

Brazil

Environmental Inequality in the Neighborhood Networks of Urban Mobility in US Cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 119, No. 17, 2022. p. e2117776119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117776119.

35.

Pucher

Buehler

Bassett

D. R.

Dannenberg

A. L.

Walking and Cycling to Health: A Comparative Analysis of City, State, and International Data. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 100, No. 10, 2010, pp. 1986–1992. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2009.189324.

36.

Kaparias

Bell

M. G. H.

Miri

Chan

Mount

Analysing the Perceptions of Pedestrians and Drivers to Shared Space. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2012, pp. 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.02.001.

37.

Kärmeniemi

Lankila

Ikäheimo

Koivumaa-Honkanen

Korpelainen

The Built Environment as a Determinant of Physical Activity: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies and Natural Experiments. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2018, pp. 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kax043.

38.

Schwarz

Leroutier

De Nazelle

Quirion

Jean

The Untapped Health and Climate Potential of Cycling in France: A National Assessment from Individual Travel Data. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, Vol. 39, 2024, p. 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100874.

39.

Volker

J. M. B.

Handy

Economic Impacts on Local Businesses of Investments in Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure: A Review of the Evidence. Transport Reviews, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2021, pp. 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1912849.

40.

Pucher

Buehler

Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2008, pp. 495–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701806612.

41.

Damant-Sirois

Grimsrud

El-Geneidy

A. M.

What’s Your Type: A Multidimensional Cyclist Typology. Transportation, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2014, pp. 1153–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9523-8.

42.

Barnes

Krizek

Estimating Bicycling Demand. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2005. 1939: 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105193900106.

43.

Chen

C.-F.

Chen

P.-C.

Estimating Recreational Cyclists’ Preferences for Bicycle Routes – Evidence from Taiwan. Transport Policy, Vol. 26, 2012, pp. 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.001.

44.

Meeder

Aebi

Weidmann

The Influence of Slope on Walking Activity and the Pedestrian Modal Share. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 27, 2017, pp. 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.12.095.

45.

Cabiroğlu

Özden

Effect of Long Cycling Tracks on Cycling Behaviour in Turkey. European Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 32, 2022, pp. 850–857. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1042311.

46.

De Jong

Fyhri

Spatial Characteristics of Unpleasant Cycling Experiences. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 112, 2023, p. 103646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103646.

47.

Akiz

Jeoit Kullanarak Elipsoit Yüksekliklerinden Ortometrik Yükseklik Belirleme Yöntemlerinin Doğruluk Araştırması. Master thesis. Selçuk University, 2007.

48.

Eroğlu

Nariän

Ö. G.

Google Earth and GDM Globe Comparison with Dijital Elevation Model(DEM) Produced with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Journal of Polytechnic, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2020, pp. 545–551. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.676608.

49.

Zhang

Tao

Zhu

Shi

Wang

Quality Assessment of GNSS Observations from an Android N Smartphone and Positioning Performance Analysis Using Time-Differenced Filtering Approach. GPS Solutions, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2018, p. 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-018-0736-8.

50.

Kocaman

Practical Tools with Python – Google Elevation API. Hakan KOCAMAN. https://www.hakankocaman.com/practical-tools-with-python-google-elevation-api. Accessed August 8, 2023.

51.

Wang

Zou

Henrickson

Wang

Tang

Park

B.-J.

Google Earth Elevation Data Extraction and Accuracy Assessment for Transportation Applications. PLoS One, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2017, p. e0175756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175756.

52.

Heiskanen

W. A.

Moritz

Physical Geodesy. Bulletin Géodésique, Vol. 86, No. 1, 1967, pp. 491–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02525647.

53.

Attai

Comparative Analysis Between GPS-Based Field Digital Terrain Model with Tandem-X 90M, ASTER and SRTM Digital Elevation Models. Journal of Surveying Construction & Property, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2023, pp. 13–25. https://doi.org/10.22452/jscp.vol14no2.2.

54.

Habib

Alzubi

Malkawi

Awwad

Impact of Interpolation Techniques on the Accuracy of Large-Scale Digital Elevation Model. Open Geosciences, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2020, pp. 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2020-0012.

55.

Salekin

Burgess

J. H.

Morgenroth

Mason

E. G.

Meason

D. F.

A Comparative Study of Three Non-Geostatistical Methods for Optimising Digital Elevation Model Interpolation. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 7, No. 8, 2018, p. 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7080300.

56.

Yamazaki

Ikeshima

Tawatari

Yamaguchi

O’Loughlin

Neal

J. C.

Sampson

C. C.

Kanae

Bates

P. D.

A High-Accuracy Map of Global Terrain Elevations. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 44, No. 11, 2017, pp. 5844–5853. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl072874.