If you’re looking for a testimonial from an end user, we should acknowledge that these are still early days for OSM in assistive technology, despite the many nascent efforts. Let’s start with the assumption that we aren’t needing the needs of people with disabilities, then solicit their stories about mobility in their lives, regardless of whether OSM is a part of it yet, to better understand the requirements. If you don’t know of anyone in your in-person social circles who can shed light, online forums like r/wheelchairs, r/Blind, and AppleVis could help.
From the limited interactions I’ve had so far locally, my impression is that the pedestrian router is only a part of the story. When Code for San José started working on mapping sidewalks several years ago, we were guided by a desire to improve pedestrian routing in a notoriously unwalkable, pedestrian-unfriendly environment. One of our volunteers was very excited about the potential for OSM to improve his mobility as a blind person. However, for him, it wasn’t just about using an OSM-powered navigation application directly.
He relies on the the local paratransit service to get around, because the local government has determined that bus and light rail services don’t meet his needs. (Paratransit service is designed for people with physical, visual, or cognitive disabilities. Buses make many accommodations for physical disabilities, but the routes don’t serve every neighborhood.) He calls a government hotline a day in advance to schedule and pay for a trip, then the next day they send someone in a minivan to pick him up within a half-hour window and take him to his destination. It’s less convenient than a taxi or private ride-sharing service, but it can be more affordable and the only option for people with specialized mobility needs.
He was satisfied with the paratransit service except for one thing: the driver’s navigation application frequently locates the pickup point imprecisely, presumably because of messy address data. He struggles to describe his location to the driver without being able to make eye contact. If the driver can’t find him standing at the curb within a few minutes, they could report him as a no-show. A pattern of no-shows could get him suspended from riding paratransit.
To be sure, he cares about the sidewalks and crosswalks. But it’s also important to him that OSM facilitate a credible alternative to the proprietary navigation solutions that were indirectly disadvantaging him and those with similar needs. Credibility has been an issue for OSM here in Google’s backyard. Despite our superior coverage of pedestrian infrastructure for wheelchair routing, the local public transportation agency (bus, light rail, and paratransit) couldn’t depend on OSM and Pelias for geocoding and ultimately abandoned its OpenTripPlanner router in favor of Google Maps.
After the sidewalk import, we’ve focused on improving coverage of addresses and POIs. A well-rounded map can be superior to a superficially accessibility-focused one if it’s adopted by the mobility services that people with disabilities depend on.
Of course, this is just one perspective and one use case in one locality. To get more perspectives, perhaps rephrasing the initial question can be a start: “What do you need to get around?”