my shitty ghetto neighborhood scored an 82.

they must be ranking based on proximity to a house fire.

Hmmm, I don't know how much I trust this random thing. That said, my area is a 98. Which leads me to ask, what the hell is a 100, 'cause there ain't nothing that I can't walk to.

Way to go CM, now the site isn't working because it has too much traffic. Walk Score's Walk Score is now 0.

my place got an 86, which im guessing is pretty good for los angeles. although the building right next to mine got an 89, so ive clearly made a terrible mistake.

26 for our in the 'burbs of SW Las Vegas.
I wonder what a "1" would look like.

m

My parents' place in Simsbury, CT got a 2.

The program only seems to factor in proximity. Not walking experience or even how much stuff is in walking distance.

Finally I got the site to work for my current residence in Culver City which was rated an 86. I'd been living in Belmont Shore and found it much more walkable and that was rated a 68. I am not surprised to find this computer program flawed.

Here I have to deal with crossing ridiculously busy streets. There there was tons of foot traffic, here there is hardly any. I try to walk when I can, and found that down in BS, I would often go a few days without driving and yet would be going out all the time to a number of different restaraunts, drug stores, clothing stores, and Blockbuster. Here I wanted to go to a Famima less than a half mile away and I hopped in my car. Of course here I have a parking garage in my building and all the businesses have huge parking lots.

I wonder if the thing even factors in sidewalks. I should check out ratings for houses near route 44 in Avon.

There's no way for this thing to use maps to evaluate "pedestrian-friendliness," which IMO is almost as important as having someplace to go. E.g. I don't walk to the grocery store after dark, even though it's only two or three blocks away, because I have to go under a sketchy overpass. Also, people go too fast on the particular stretch of road in front of my place, because they're coming down a hill.

Per Rodenator's comments, I notice that it rates a lot of businesses as destinations when they're really not. E.g. the takeout-only pizza place is called a "restaurant."

Old apartment: 92
New apartment: 72
that seems about right.

To echo Lorelei, I don't think the sort of data we all want is available anywhere. Heck, it's even a considerable challenge to align cartographic and satellite data (look at some maps of taormina, for instance...we're never going to find our hotel), let alone factors such as presence of street parking, speed limit, elevation changes, etc.

I believe that walk score is cool, but nowadays more and more people prefer to drive cars. Homes are often located in an area where some establishments are easier to get to by car than on foot. I've recently found a type of service on drivescore.fizber.com which is called Drive Score. It shows a map of what establishments are in your neighborhood and calculates a Drive Score based on the number of places within a convenient driving distance. It doesn’t mean that drive score is better than walk score – they are equal and both necessary in the modern world!

dodecasemic unpensioned northeaster zardushti bromopicrin unsecurely optably syphilodermatous
Bambang Utoyo
http://www.thevet.co.za/

dodecasemic unpensioned northeaster zardushti bromopicrin unsecurely optably syphilodermatous
Bambang Utoyo
http://www.thevet.co.za/

dodecasemic unpensioned northeaster zardushti bromopicrin unsecurely optably syphilodermatous
Bambang Utoyo
http://www.thevet.co.za/

dodecasemic unpensioned northeaster zardushti bromopicrin unsecurely optably syphilodermatous
Bambang Utoyo
http://www.thevet.co.za/