This part is clearly nonsense:
> According to the planner’s calculation, the journey would have taken 43 days to cover 1,500 Roman miles. To put that into a contemporary context: the same route by road today can be completed in 14 days (340 hours) on foot, or 16 hours by car (source in Spanish).
It would take 340 hours to walk, whether you do it today or in Roman times. Google maps is assuming you would walk for 24 hours a day, the planner is assuming you could walk for around 8.
Yes, distance is about the same. 1488Km in Google and 1075 Roman miles in Omnesviae [0], that is ~1590 Km.
Who'd walk the route more easily for 8h though? A random Western today or a random Roman then?
That said, as someone who has walked on cobblestone - a modern road in modern boots is different to an ancient road in ancient boots.
I'd bet money the 'real' travel times would differ.