San Antonio Trail Accessibility Map
All 402.4 miles of city trail across 571 named trails, classified by whether the surface is firm enough to roll a wheelchair, a walker or a stroller across, plus the sidewalks that get you there. Built from the City’s own open GIS, and clear about the thing most accessibility guides skip: this certifies nothing, because no dataset the City publishes carries what a certification would need. It was measured properly, for fifteen parks, in 2011, and put on a sign.
Why nothing here is certified. The City's trail layer records a surface material and a length. It contains no tread width, no running grade, no cross slope and no obstruction survey, and ADA compliance cannot be established without them. So this tool says what the record settles, which surfaces are firm, and it refuses to say more. On 25.64 miles it cannot even settle firmness, and it says that too.
Every mapped trail, by surface
"Firm surface throughout" means every recorded segment of that trail is concrete, asphalt, pavers or rubberized. It is a fact about the surface field and still not an ADA determination: width, grade and cross slope are absent from the record for every trail here.
- Firm and stable 276.34 mi. Concrete, asphalt, pavers or rubberized. Meets the surface expectation.
- Not firm 96.92 mi. Natural or mulch. Not a firm and stable surface.
- Cannot be judged 25.64 mi. Aggregate or wood. Firmness depends on binder, compaction, joint gaps and maintenance, none of which the City records.
- Surface not recorded 3.50 mi. The surface field is blank or "Unknown".
Street names, contours and terrain, so you can find a specific trail and see what is around it. It loads only when you press the button, because it fetches map tiles from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Leaflet library from a public CDN. Nothing above this line contacts anyone but this site.
What the surface field actually says
| Surface | Verdict | Segments | Miles | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concrete | Firm and stable | 3,082 | 213.51 | 53.1% |
| Natural | Not firm | 785 | 95.86 | 23.8% |
| Asphalt | Firm and stable | 699 | 61.97 | 15.4% |
| Aggregate | Cannot be judged | 295 | 24.77 | 6.2% |
| Unknown | Surface not recorded | 45 | 3.04 | 0.8% |
| Mulch | Not firm | 3 | 1.06 | 0.3% |
| Wood | Cannot be judged | 15 | 0.86 | 0.2% |
| Pavers | Firm and stable | 37 | 0.52 | 0.1% |
| (blank) | Surface not recorded | 1 | 0.46 | 0.1% |
| Rubberized | Firm and stable | 14 | 0.35 | 0.1% |
Surface material as published by the City, classified against the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. "Cannot be judged" is a real verdict, not a missing one: whether crushed aggregate is firm and stable depends on its binder, its compaction and its maintenance, and whether a boardwalk is depends on joint gaps and running slope. None of that is in the record.
All 571 named trails
| Trail | Miles | Firm | Not firm | Cannot judge | Firm share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salado Creek Greenway North | 21.87 | 21.83 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 99.8% |
| S River Walk | 16.95 | 15.48 | 1.37 | 0.11 | 91.3% |
| Leon Creek Greenway North Park Trail | 16.10 | 14.83 | 1.27 | 0.00 | 92.1% |
| McAllister Park Trail | 12.00 | 2.41 | 9.59 | 0.00 | 20.1% |
| Medina River Greenway Park Trail | 11.27 | 11.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Salado Creek Greenway South | 8.54 | 8.54 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| McAllister Blue Loop | 6.28 | 0.00 | 6.28 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Olmos Basin Golf Course Park Sidewalk | 5.90 | 5.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| OP Schnabel Park Trail | 5.35 | 0.23 | 4.89 | 0.24 | 4.3% |
| Riverside Golf Course Park Trail | 5.33 | 5.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Black Hill Loop | 4.85 | 0.00 | 4.85 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Lytles Loop | 4.67 | 0.00 | 4.67 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Medina River Greenway Espada Connection | 4.50 | 4.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| N River Walk | 4.44 | 4.44 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Sendero Balcones | 4.42 | 0.00 | 4.42 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Stone Oak South Trail | 4.37 | 2.76 | 1.61 | 0.00 | 63.1% |
| Mission Trail | 4.17 | 4.17 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| San Jose Burial Park Trail | 4.00 | 3.93 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 98.2% |
| McAllister Park Road | 3.99 | 3.99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Joe Johnston Route | 3.99 | 0.00 | 3.99 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Salado Creek Greenway | 3.87 | 3.87 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Government Canyon Park Road | 3.82 | 3.82 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Apache Creek Loop | 3.69 | 3.69 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Leon Creek Greenway South Park Trail | 3.55 | 3.55 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Alazan Creek Greenway | 3.51 | 3.51 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Apache Creek Greenway | 3.11 | 3.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Far Reaches Trail | 2.99 | 0.00 | 2.99 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Restoration Way | 2.94 | 0.00 | 2.94 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| San Antonio Medical Foundation Trail | 2.84 | 0.95 | 1.90 | 0.00 | 33.2% |
| OP Schnabel Park Sidewalk | 2.79 | 0.96 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 34.2% |
| Twin Oaks | 2.61 | 0.00 | 2.61 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Woodlawn Lake Park Trail | 2.60 | 2.60 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Panther Springs Park Trail | 2.58 | 2.58 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Hillview Natural Trail | 2.54 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.54 | 0.0% |
| Carolines Loop | 2.47 | 0.00 | 2.47 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Leon Creek Greenway North | 2.35 | 2.35 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Medina River Greenway Trail | 2.28 | 2.28 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Leon Creek Greenway | 2.09 | 2.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Comanche Lookout Park Trail | 2.03 | 0.15 | 1.71 | 0.17 | 7.4% |
| Lakewood Acres Park Trail | 2.03 | 2.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Savannah Loop | 1.99 | 0.00 | 1.99 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| McAllister Red Trail | 1.92 | 0.00 | 1.92 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Culebra Helotes Creek Greenway | 1.90 | 1.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Pvt St at 17500 Donop Rd | 1.87 | 1.87 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Culebra Creek Tribuitary Greenway | 1.82 | 1.82 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| French Creek Greenway | 1.80 | 1.80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Botanical Garden Park Trail | 1.80 | 1.28 | 0.47 | 0.05 | 71.0% |
| Red Oak Trail | 1.79 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.79 | 0.0% |
| Bluff Spurs | 1.78 | 0.00 | 1.78 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Scenic Canyon Park Trail | 1.78 | 0.00 | 1.78 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| San Pedro Creek Greenway Trail | 1.75 | 1.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Zarzamora Creek Greenway | 1.72 | 1.72 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Cave Creek | 1.70 | 0.00 | 1.70 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Main Loop | 1.68 | 0.00 | 0.43 | 1.25 | 0.0% |
| Lakewood Acres Park Sidewalk | 1.67 | 0.00 | 1.67 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Historic City Cemeteries Park Trail | 1.65 | 0.00 | 1.65 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| Wildcat Canyon | 1.62 | 0.00 | 1.62 | 0.00 | 0.0% |
| River Walk | 1.62 | 1.62 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| Collins Gardens Park Sidewalk | 1.62 | 1.62 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
| McAllister Baseball Field Trail | 1.61 | 1.61 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.0% |
Select any trail to light it up on the map above. The 60 longest are listed here; the full 571 are searchable above with JavaScript on, and all of them are in the CSV and the API. "Firm share" is the share of a trail's length on a firm, stable surface. It is not an accessibility score and no trail is certified.
Getting there: the sidewalk network
A trail you cannot reach on foot or on wheels is not accessible, whatever its surface. The City inventories its sidewalks separately, and that inventory records 1,432.3 miles where a sidewalk is planned or expected and does not exist.
- less missing
- more missing
| Council district | Sidewalk (mi) | Recorded missing (mi) | Share missing | Recorded under 36in (mi) | Width never recorded |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outside the ten districts | 550.2 | 19.0 | 3.3% | 9.7 | 12.8% |
| District 1 | 637.6 | 214.9 | 25.2% | 100.2 | 11.1% |
| District 2 | 655.7 | 167.2 | 20.3% | 208.6 | 10.6% |
| District 3 | 603.5 | 263.5 | 30.4% | 184.5 | 12.2% |
| District 4 | 620.9 | 130.9 | 17.4% | 43.5 | 8.0% |
| District 5 | 705.4 | 93.0 | 11.6% | 115.3 | 11.0% |
| District 6 | 583.3 | 50.8 | 8.0% | 108.7 | 15.7% |
| District 7 | 522.2 | 220.5 | 29.7% | 49.6 | 18.1% |
| District 8 | 415.8 | 62.8 | 13.1% | 0.4 | 41.0% |
| District 9 | 444.3 | 86.6 | 16.3% | 1.3 | 14.7% |
| District 10 | 609.7 | 123.1 | 16.8% | 3.4 | 16.4% |
Read the last two columns together, always. A district can show almost no sub-36-inch sidewalk because its sidewalks are wide, or because its widths were never measured, and those two look identical in this data. District 8 records 0.4 miles under 36 inches while 41.0% of its widths are blank. Districts 9 and 10 also record very little, but their widths largely were captured, which is a different and more believable finding. "Outside the ten districts" is the City's District 0, which is not a council district: it is unassigned or extra-territorial, and 97.6% of it is unscored. It has no shape on the map above, deliberately.
Three fields that will mislead you
Three fields in the City sidewalk inventory will mislead anyone who reads them at face value. None of this is hidden; all of it is simply unstated, and every one of these traps is easy to walk into.
SidewalkScore
sentinel value used for missing data
12,049
12,049 of 75,934 Existing segments carry -999, which is a "no data" marker rather than a score. Averaging without excluding it returns a large negative number.
Width
zero used for missing data
10,871
10,871 Existing segments (924 miles) record a width of 0, which means the width was never captured, not that the sidewalk has no width.
Width
physically implausible values
11
11 Existing segments record a width above 20 feet. A sidewalk is not that wide; these are data-entry errors and are excluded from the width comparison.
A district can show almost no sub-36-inch sidewalk because its sidewalks are wide, or because its widths were never measured. Those two look identical in this data. Read every width figure beside its blank rate. The mean of the 63,885 segments that do carry a real score is 25.77. Average the field without excluding the sentinel and District 0 scores about negative 975.
Source. City of San Antonio open GIS: Park Trails, Sidewalks, Park Boundaries, Redistricted Council Districts 2022, via data.sanantonio.gov. Republished as fetched. No field was corrected, filled or smoothed. License: City of San Antonio open data.
Scope. 4,976 trail segments across 571 named trails, and 99,147 sidewalk segments. Sidewalk figures are computed by the City's own GIS service across every segment, not sampled.
Built. 24 August 2026 from the layers as published that day. The City republishes on its own schedule, so cite the API rather than copying a number if you need it to stay current.
Take the data. Trails as CSV · Public API · Developer portal. Cite as: BrandShyp, San Antonio Trail and Sidewalk Access, derived from City of San Antonio open GIS, 2026.
Share it with someone who has to plan the route.
Read this before you read the map
An accessibility guide that does not explain its own limits is worse than no guide, because someone will plan a trip on it.
What this is
Every trail segment in the City’s Park Trails layer: 4,976 of them, 402.4 miles, across 571 named trails, sorted by the one accessibility fact the record contains, which is what the surface is made of. Refetched monthly from the City’s ArcGIS services and republished exactly as fetched.
What it is not
Not a compliance determination, a route planner, or a promise that a trail is passable today. A concrete surface can still be blocked by a fallen limb or a flooded crossing. Nothing here has been walked. Where the City’s record is blank, this page shows a blank and says how large it is.
Why this map certifies nothing
For an outdoor recreation access route the ADA asks four things: is the surface firm and stable, is the clear tread width at least 36 inches, is the running slope within limits, and is the cross slope under five percent.
The City’s trail layer answers exactly one of those four. It records a surface material and a length. There is no width field, no grade field, no cross slope field and no obstruction survey anywhere in it.
It gets one step more careful than that. On 25.64 miles the record cannot even settle the surface question: crushed aggregate is firm and stable when properly bound and compacted, and loose gravel when it is not, and the City does not publish which. Those miles are reported as undecidable rather than quietly counted as passing, because a wrong answer sends somebody down a trail they cannot get back up. A further 3.50 miles carry no surface value at all, and are shown rather than dropped, because a trail missing from a table reads as a trail that does not exist.
The City did measure all four. It is on a sign, not in a dataset.
A reader walked Gold Canyon Park, saw the trail signed as accessible, and asked why this page would not say so. Following that up produced a better finding than the question.
The City of San Antonio has had every one of those four measurements taken, properly, by a certified trail assessment coordinator. We found and read published assessments for at least fifteen parks: Brackenridge, Cathedral Rock, Comanche Lookout, Crownridge Canyon, Eisenhower, Elmendorf Lake, Friedrich, Phil Hardberger, McAllister, Medina River, Olmos Basin, O. P. Schnabel, Southside Lions, Stone Oak and Woodlawn Lake. Each one gives, per named trail, the typical grade, the typical cross slope, the typical tread width and the surface type, plus the maximum grade, the maximum cross slope and the minimum clearance width. That is more than the ADA asks for. It is “at least” because the City’s own index of these maps refuses automated requests, so the list was assembled by checking park names one at a time; there is a sixteenth for Walker Ranch that is a scan we could not read.
Every one of those assessments was carried out in March 2011, and each map carries the City’s own warning that conditions may have changed since. They are published as per-park PDF signage maps. Checked 2026-08-30: the measurements appear in no dataset at all. The trail layer this page reads carries six fields and not one of them is an accessibility field, the City’s GIS has no accessibility layer, and none of the 166 datasets in the open data catalog covers it.
So the position is not that nobody knows the grade of a San Antonio trail. It is that for fifteen parks somebody measured it fifteen years ago and put the answer on a board at the trailhead, and for every other park nobody has published it at all. A number on a sign cannot be queried, compared across parks, checked against a later survey, or read by anyone planning a route before they leave the house. That is a records problem rather than a survey problem, and it is the reason this page still refuses to certify anything.
Gold Canyon is not one of them. Whatever the sign there says, no published assessment stands behind it. What the City’s record does show is that the trail is split almost evenly: 0.45 miles concrete and 0.53 miles natural surface, plus a 0.12 mile concrete connector. That is why this page reports it as 45.9% firm rather than as accessible or not, and an accessible route across half a trail is exactly the case a single verdict would get wrong.
The trap sitting inside every accessibility statistic
The sidewalk inventory records a width per segment, so it is tempting to count how many fall below the 36 inch minimum and publish the total. That number is 825.2 miles across 9,671 segments, and on its own it is close to meaningless. District 8 records almost no sub-36-inch sidewalk at all, which reads as the most accessible district in the city. But 41.0% of District 8‘s widths were never recorded in the first place.
“Few narrow sidewalks” and “few measured sidewalks” produce identical-looking statistics. Every width figure here is printed beside the share of that district’s widths that are blank. If you take one thing from this tool, take that.
It would be just as wrong to assume every low number is an artefact. Districts 9 and 10 also record very little sub-minimum sidewalk, but their widths largely were captured, which makes theirs a believable result. You cannot tell those two cases apart without the coverage rate, and almost nobody publishes the coverage rate.
Three fields that will quietly ruin your analysis
None of this is hidden. All of it is simply unstated, which is worse.
SidewalkScore uses negative 999 to mean “no data”. 12,049 segments carry it. Average the column and District 0 comes back with a score of about negative 975. The mean across the 63,885 segments carrying a real score is 25.77.
Width uses 0 to mean “no data” too. 10,871 segments, 923.8 miles, record a width of zero. A zero-foot sidewalk is not a very narrow sidewalk. Averaging that column drags the mean down by a seventh; counting those segments as failing the minimum overstates the problem by about as much as ignoring it understates it.
Eleven segments record a width above 20 feet, the widest at 287.5 feet. That is a plaza, a parking lot or a typing error, not a sidewalk. They are excluded from the width comparison and reported separately.
How this was built
A monthly job queries the City’s ArcGIS endpoints directly. The 99,147 sidewalk segments are never downloaded: every sidewalk figure is computed by the City’s own GIS service through grouped aggregate queries, so the totals cover every segment rather than a sample. Before anything is written the build reconciles, and if the width buckets or the per-district totals fail to match it aborts and leaves the previous dataset in place. This page can go stale, but it cannot go wrong.
An ADA Title II self evaluation is a data problem before it is a civil engineering problem, and the honest first finding is almost always that the inventory is incomplete in ways the inventory does not announce. You can call the API, pull the CSV, and check either against the City’s original layers yourself.
We should say plainly what we get out of this, because it is the obvious question about a firm auditing a city it would like to work for. ADA Title II remediation is work we sell. This page is not a bid for it: nobody commissioned the audit, no agency reviewed it before publication, and there is nothing to buy here. It certifies no trail and no sidewalk as compliant, and it says so in the same words whether or not that is convenient for us.
Other San Antonio tools
Same method, a different public record. Each one states what its record cannot answer.
Crime Map Building Permits Bar & Restaurant Revenue Aggressive Driving Trail Accessibility License Plate Readers Data Centers Data Center Zoning 311 Response Times Data Center Corroboration Data Center Environmental Record Bond Projects Council District Lookup Sheriff Response Times County Capital Projects Police Response Times Missing Children Records
All 17 are free, with no signup and no email wall, and the public API behind them needs no key.
Who publishes this
These tools are built and maintained by BrandShyp LLC, a San Antonio software firm. We sell data, software and accessibility work to public agencies and are seeking state and local government contracts. Small business certification with the South Central Texas Regional Certification Agency is in process. We hold no City of San Antonio contract.
No client, agency or sponsor funds, reviews or approves any of these tools, and nothing on these pages is a solicitation. Every figure comes from the public record named below, which is linked and can be queried without us.
Corrections. If a number here disagrees with the record, write to Justice Harker at [email protected] with the figure and the source that contradicts it. Corrections are made on the page, and what changed is noted there rather than replaced silently.