I just went on gmaps-pedometer.com and found out some quite interesting things, about my commute to, and from, work. Firstly I would have guessed that my work and home are about on the same level, but it turns out that work is at 472 ft a.s.l, and home is at 170 ft a.s.l. So you would think I would be a lot quicker to get home than to get there, but it's almost the same - sometimes about 10 mins shorter but i think that's more often due to southerly tailwind (home is north work is south.) Secondly that my normal route BACK from work involves about 600ft of climbing (and obviously therefore about 900 ft of descending). ... this is the route i have always taken, and is the route i take when i'm driving aswell, and is the route that viamichelin.com recommends. But I have just put the route that google.co.uk recommends with 'avoid highways' ticked into gmap-pedometer and it would appear to involve only about 65ft of climbing! i.e. only about a tenth as much... this route is slightly longer, but only by about a mile. So i'm wondering whether it will be quicker? i'm hopefully going to try it tomorrow! bid me luck in not taking a wrong turning... anyhow i guess the point of this thread is that while we all know that "from x to y is a bitch of a climb" and "from a to b is always a fun descent", it's actually interesting to note the altitude profile of our routes as a whole, and more importantly quite good to know the absolute altitude of various points so we can tell without having done a route how much climbing and how much descending there'll be... comments? anyone else done any similar analysis?