[usrusr]

Nice! I used to work on a similar project that was probably in direct competition for research grants back then. Compared to our failed attempts what I can see on wheelmap.org seems delightfully pragmatic in how it avoids unrealistic ambition for details. We got utterly lost in stuff like e.g. measuring/describing the steepness of ramps to document the quality of accessibility features, completely ignoring the issue that someone who wanted to pretend accessibility would just conveniently forget to mention the ramp (or step) at all. Similarly, you took a deep breath and decided to restrict scope to exclude streets and sidewalks (must have been a painful decision), we never did. In hindsight it almost seems as if we actively tried to fail (we didn't), congratulations for avoiding all those pitfalls.

[holgerd]

Thanks. Wheelmap is really minimalisitic in the number of questions, and we often get asked to extend it. It's only after we worked with all the other sources which had more detail that we start to show these. It's more difficult to map but when users add a new place we ask more questions today.