Mysterious Wheelchair Tags

Today I stumbled upon Node: 513728282 | OpenStreetMap - It maps a natural spring of fresh water, nearly two kilometers mountain hike from the next car parking, which somebody once considererd a source of drinking water.

There is no way to get there in a wheelchair. The information is of no use at all. Should this be kept in the data?

Uhh, your posting has somewhat of an old German OSM forum vibe. Maybe you want to rephrase that or start out this topic differently. It may be more constructive to first identify and describe the general issue, which effects it may have and then invite discussion for possible solutions to it.

Obviously, allows to add information on wheelchair accessibility to be added to various shops, amenities and a number of other types of POIs. The information value of this information of course varies depending on where the POI is situated. Wheelmap doesn’t know how useful the information is going to be as much as an iD or JOSM preset doesn’t know that.

It’s the same for any other information on the map. For example, the information value of where benches and bins are located on a hiking trail is going to be much higher than benches in an urban park, for plenty of benches are to be expected in parks. Yet, people map these benches also in parks.


I’ve got a loved one who requires a wheelchair and I always look for wheelchair tags in OSM to give me an idea of what tourist attractions might be worth investigating further. Wheelchair=no helps indicate to me that I shouldn’t waste my time.


Well I guess you wouldn’t want to check if a spring on the mountain hiking trail is wheelchair accessible. Is it wrong or a problem in this case? I don’t think so. Nevertheless it can get quite messy in some areas if there are dozens of unnecessary tags. To exaggerate a little bit: you could tag every street as oneway=no, bridge=no, tunnel=no, etc. (edit: actually you can find several ways, that are tagged this way Way: 978304231 | OpenStreetMap ) You could argue this is a problem that editors have to solve, but as there is no fixed static set of valid tags, people will always want to look at the raw data to some extent

1 Like

If this was a help-question still, I’d select #2 as the solution. Unlike a bit farther, there is no POI there.

Here picture of the path leading there, - I do not think, somebody actually went there in a wheelchair.

Still, the title of the topic might want a more toned down wording. Gonna try to change that.

1 Like

So interestingly enough, having an isolated location explicitly tagged is very helpful, because it allows a wheelchair user to make their own decision regarding whether they want to visit a location, since not all wheelchair users are permanently wheelchair bound, and many wheelchair users have “all terrain” chairs that can handle more challenging terrain.
In any case, I would strongly recommend that you reconsider whether those tags are “unnecessary” or just not useful to you as a data consumer.


I just deleted the wheelchair tag from the spring, and the amenity tag too. Thanks to your post above, that made me aware, that what prompted my strong reaction was more the made up “amenity” than the accessibility thereof, or the gung-ho accessibility tagging without much looking at the OTG truth. The “Apollon Temple” a bit up the path, which is a notable POI, as it is mentioned on incoming tourism adverts, of course merits the wheelchair tagging. I never questioned that, now I know the reason.

Isolated wheelchair accessibility info may be still useful. Some people may be partially carried and partially use portable/carried wheelchairs.

In such case it is useful to be aware that there is island of wheelchair accessible way/location where porters may have a pause.

I also see nearby aerialways on the map, which may allow reaching this location for disabled people (or may not, not checked tagging or aerial).


Hello Mateusz, according to this logic, the Apollontempel am Hundstalsee – Wikipedia should be tagged “wheelchair=yes|limited”. I will not do that!

PS: implies “wheelchair=no”, shouldn’t “sac_scale=mountain_hiking” do so too? I’m fairly certain, no wheelchair router will send you there. The key nevertheless, even if actually incorrect, will help people like imnichol in planning trips without a wheelchair router, OSRM eg.

PPS: The aerialways are only nearby if you are a bird.

It does, effectively. Perhaps someone with more hands-on knowledge of wheelchair accessibility could help to explicitly document these (like kerb=* does).

I agree, any sane wheelchair router should let you down on the destination “Apollontempel”. Trying to come up with a use case, why it still makes sense to tag node 290516197 as not suitable for wheelchair users, I found that, when I search from the box (Nominatim behind) it directs me straight to the node, and with the tag shown there, no router will be required, to tell the fact.

Essentially, if a specific location or POI is accessible to wheelchairs (e.g. has a ramp), it should be tagged as wheelchair=yes, regardless of whether it’s connected to any other wheelchair infrastructure.
As we speak I’m at a handicap accessible playground that is completely disconnected from any sidewalks, but I’ve still tagged it as such.
We can’t build a valuable network of wheelchair accessible infrastructure if we dont tag everything accurately


In its latest issue, our local alpine club magazine promoted the Joëlette.

1 Like

As somebody who has always formatted questions like above, this is good to know.