[Tagging] Disabled access on footpaths

[Kevin Broderick]

I'd mostly agree with Greg's description of issues, with the additional
caveat that the better we can describe the obstacles, the more plausible it
would be for someone to be informed about what they'd be facing. One of my
high-school classmates is parapalegic but also athletic (he was actually on
the US Disabled Ski Team for a number of years), and especially with a
little bit of help, he could get into and around a lot of places that were
anywhere close to meeting ADA specs. At the same time, it was incredibly
helpful to know what level of barriers were involved, especially when
weighing options (i.e. shaving three minutes off a metro ride was most
definitely not worth it if it was going to take 10 extra minutes to get out
of the station). As it happens, the same info is helpful to a lot of other
people (parents with strollers, for example).

With that said, the suggestion he made—something similar to sac_scale,
ideally adopting something from existing organizations working in that
space—is probably a good target until / unless we can get to the level of
micromapping every curb, step, ramp (with steepness), etc.

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 7:11 AM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
>   I'm starting to map a new (ish) nature reserve which has permissive
>   access footpaths (that bit is easy), and some of those footpaths are
>   suitable for wheelchair users.
>
> I have been mapping trails and starting to think about this issue too.
>
> I think it's really important to separate physical suitability from what
> we put in the access tag.   My impression about access for the US
> matches another commenter's, expanded to:
>
>   Wheelchairs and mobility scooters are replacements for pedestrian
>   access.  They don't really have anything to do with bicycles, although
>   that aspect is debatable.
>
>   It is pretty much unthinkable to have someplace that allows
>   pedestrians but not wheelchairs.  There is essentially never
>   controversy about this.
>
>   Mobility scooter use by the disabled (perhaps certified disabled) is
>   sort of allowed whereever pedestrians are allowed, but with
>   limitations.  This is slightly controversial as there are many "no
>   motorized vehicle" places, and scooters are heavier and capable of
>   faster speeds.  An example policy, picked because I was able to find
>   it, but a tagging scheme should be able to cope with a large number of
>   such policies:
>
> http://www.middlesexcountynj.gov/Government/Departments/IM/Documents/Parks%20and%20Rec/Reservations/Trails%20Mobility%20Policy%202021%205.11.21.pdf
>
> A summary of the policy is that wheelchairs (unpowered) are allowed,
> period, and that powered devices have a presumption of being allowed
> except where it wouldn't be safe and there are rules per trail.
>
> So I conclude that at top level we have to represent three things
> (specific tags are to explain, not really proposals):
>
>   wheelchair=yes -- a wheelchair can physically travel
>
>   wheelchair:access=no -- wheelchairs are prohibited (but pedestrians
>   are allowed).  I don't think we need this, until there's a non-trivial
>   exmmple.
>
>   mobility_scooter:physical=yes -- a mobility_scooter can physically travel
>
>   mobility_scooter:access=no -- mobility scooters are prohibited, even
>   though foot traffic and wheelchairs are allowed
>
>
> Then there is the issue of grades of wheelchair suitability.  I have
> known multiple people using wheelchairs, and the difference in ability
> to travel among individuals is significant.  Consider a 90 year old who
> is generally not able to do much, with a traditional wheelchair, and
> someone who is 18 with strong arms but can't use their legs to walk,
> with a carbon-fiber sport wheelchair.
>
> The existing key
>   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wheelchair
> is to me very clearly about physical access.
>
> It says that for the US, wheelchair=yes means meeting ADA requirements.
> Those are pretty strict, and there are many places that don't meet them
> exactly but that most wheelchair users can in practice go.  Then there
> are things that are walking paths, trails, that become more difficult.
>
> So I think we need something like sac_scale, to indicate
>
>   ADA compliance (or the equivalent?), which is about max slope, curbs,
>   resting areas, and a bunch of other technical design requirements
>
>   suitable for someone in a heavy regular wheelchair who can't deal with
>   too much
>
>   suitable for someone with more arm strength who is willing to put up
>   with bumps
>
>   suitable for sport wheelchair use
>
> I don't presume to have gotten that right, and I'm basically certain I
> didn't -- but it's an example of how complicated this might be.   I
> would think there are disability organizations that have some
> definitions used in guides, and we really should figure that out and
> adopt their labels rather than making our own (hence the sac_scale
> reference).
>
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
ktb at kevinbroderick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210612/5ba54661/attachment.htm>