Comparison of two geospatial models
| Model I Based on Ouma et al | Model II Based on Munoz et al* | |
| Travel speeds (km/h) | ||
| Tree cover | 5 | 1.5 |
| Scrub cover | 5 | 2.5 |
| Grassland, cropland, bare and cultivated areas | 5 | 1.67 |
| Water bodies (including rivers) | N/A | N/A |
| Primary roads | 100 | 50 |
| Secondary roads | 50 | 20 |
| Tertiary roads | 30 | 5 |
| Road network† | OpenStreetmap | OpenStreetmap |
| Spatial grid‡ | 94 m | 94 m |
| Slope analysis (using DEM in analysis) | No | Yes |
| Including rural/unclassified roads as tertiary roads | No | Yes |
Comparison of two geospatial models based on the methodology described by Ouma et al11 and “scenario 3” Munoz et al.12
*Walking and public transport scenario.
†In this study we extracted the road network from OpenStreetMap while Ouma et al combined the road network from OpenStreetmap and Google Map Maker Project and Munoz et al. obtained the road network from Centre for Geographical Information Systems – National University of Rwanda.
‡In this study we applied a spatial grid of 94 m compared to a spatial grid of respectively 100 m and 90 m in the original articles.
DEM, digital elevation model; N/A, not assigned.