31/100 from my house (Grimsby, UK) that said I live in a suburb and I'm pretty sure if I used for example my friend's house which is closer to the town center the score will be much higher. i shall see~

Ok that only bumps it up to 38/100. Guess Grimsby sucks.

That said this site seems to have quite a conservative view on what is considered walking distance and it seems to lack certain locations - the site claims my closest gym is over 2 miles away, whereas there is blatantly a swimming pool and gym less than half a distance away that isn't marked on the map.

Haha, my house (Cannock, UK) gets a 22/100 which I think is quite harsh, as the town centre is an 18 minute walk (or you can take the bus which runs every 10 minutes, and the nearest stop is 3 minutes at most), or you can go up the high street which is a 10 minute walk. Unfortunately the nearest cinema is about 10 miles away.

Ha, I'm worse than all of you! 11/100 FTL!

My old town in England was 91/100. Walker's paradise. Damn, now I want to go back, I miss the weather.

Also The Moon is in South Dakota.

95/100

Harlemworld STAND UP !

32 for my home in Blaine... 51 for my university's main campus in St Paul

I put in my postcode and it gave me a score of 4/100... because it got completely the wrong location. o_O Same thing when I try my uni postcode.

Putting in my street gives a walk score of 56 which is pretty fair. I'm quite a way out from the town centre but I could walk it if I really wanted to. Doing the same for Cambridge, however, gives 44/100 which is bizarre as Cambridge is a hell of a lot more walkable than Cardiff. I've gotten by two years so far without so much as a bike and hardly ever using the bus. Hell, if anything Cambridge discourages vehicle use because the roads are crap and full of cyclists. Putting in a more central location in Cambridge gives a much more sensible 80/100, although I'm not sure where it's getting 1.3 miles for the nearest park as there's one two minutes' walk away.

Putting in just city names rather than specific places gives 84 for Cardiff (which is true of the town centre I guess, but not many people actually live in the centre). Funnily enough doing the same thing for Cambridge gives the exact same score.

NYC = 100/100.

Now if I only I walked. Or lived in New York.

57/100 "somewhat walkable"

54

Ha, I'm worse than all of you! 11/100 FTL!

*cough*

2/100.

>_>;

A measly 23/100 D:

74, surprisingly.

65/100 for my area of Bristol, not bad. It does miss things out - I can think of a book store just up the high street that isn't on their map, although granted that's secondhand books.

It rates the cinema less than a mile away quite highly, I'd imagine. What it doesn't say is that the only way to get there is to walk firstly through an industrial estate, then down a badly-lit, narrow, generally deserted footpath / cycle path over the canal and finally through an isolated pedestrian subway... Strangely enough, I take the car!

Where I may end up moving to in a few years (only a mile or so up the road) is rated 56/100. Daft thing hasn't noticed that the nearest library to this new location is the same one as the old, but about half a mile nearer.

DW

My town gets 28/100...
But it's CLEARLY missing a couple of things, as it lists the closest book store at 45km and there's one further down the street... also, half of the "Grocery stores" listed seem to be hotels. o.o"

54/100
the map got most of the major things around me, but it did miss alot of small parks and restaurants nearby. that thing's pretty cool, though.

Walk Score: 48 out of 100 - Car-Dependent

Omaha, Nebraska and I live on campus not that close to downtown XD

Ha, I'm worse than all of you! 11/100 FTL!

*cough*

2/100.

>_>;

As for my hometown where I lived until 3 years ago:

Walk Score: 0 out of 100 - Car-Dependent

Hahaha beat that! Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico is not pedestrian friendly.

Just took a walk today in San Francisco starting from the Ferry Building. Went to a lot of places before returning there for my ride home. Anyway:

San Francisco, CA - 97/100

I am really tired now.

From my place, Tally gets a 54/100.

However, as a couple posts have previously established, this thing has some pretty weird criteria. For example, this little Italian deli in a plaza near me is listed as both the closest restaurant and the closest grocery store. The Publix about a mile away is mentioned as the closest drug store. A Tae Kwon Do place gets mentioned as the nearest fitness center (ignoring the Gold's Gym less than a quarter-mile away) and the nearest school. There's also supposedly a Starbucks just over a mile away that I've yet to actually see. Fortunately. I thought those things were concentrated downtown and around the universities.

considering I live in a small town in midwest U.S.A. with a extremly low crime rate, my town is very walkable...but reallly im just to darn lazy to go anywhere with out my car.

i'd give it a score of 81/100

From my current lodgings:

Walk Score: 73 out of 100 - Very Walkable

¦3

The place I live is a 46 but the place I go to school is a 60. My school gives me free access to buses all over the city, so I don't need a car on campus. Good thing, too, with gas being so flippin' expensive.

I find it odd that by just adding my street will give me a 43/100 "Car-Dependent"

yet, my city (Escondido, CA) gets a score of 97/100 "Walkers' Paradise". >_>

Albuquerque got a score of 53... my neighborhood got 88 though. Yay?