By situation
Mountains and alpine passes: which planner to use
Sustained climbs cost far more than the distance suggests, and the descent gives back less than people expect.
_--_2016_--_0275.jpg){kind=link}
What actually decides it
A mountain pass costs range on the way up and returns some on the way down. Flat-earth routing is survivable in the Netherlands and not in the Alps.
How each one handles it
| Product | Accounts for elevation | What the documentation says |
|---|---|---|
| A Better Routeplanner | – Unverified | Widely assumed and not stated on the pages checked. |
| Apple Maps | – Unverified | Not stated in the documentation checked. |
| Chargemap | – Unverified | Not stated on the pages checked. |
| Chargeprice | ○ No | Out of scope for the product. |
| Drive Charge Eat (our own app) | ● Yes | States it adjusts for elevation and terrain. |
| Octopus Electroverse | ○ No | Not a routing product. |
| Google Maps | ● Yes | Battery prediction is stated to analyse elevation changes. |
| PlugShare | ○ No | Not a routing engine. |
| Tesla in-car navigation | – Unverified | Not separately stated in the owner documentation checked. |
| Zapmap | – Unverified | Not stated on the page checked. |
The honest caveat
One capability does not settle a purchase. This page sorts on accounts for elevation because that is what this situation turns on, but price, platform and country coverage will rule some of the shortlist out — those are on each product's own page.