What we learned from auditing 866 splash pads

What we did and why

When we started SplashPadHub, we assumed the data on splash pads was basically right. Cities post their pads, online directories scrape them, families show up. Most of the time the pad is open, has a restroom, and matches its description. We figured we were doing data hygiene work, not investigative work.

We were wrong.

Between November 2025 and July 2026, we audited 866 splash pads across all 50 states. The audit included direct calls to parks departments, in-person visits where possible, photo verification through volunteer family submissions, and cross-referencing against city budget documents and inspection records. What we found surprised us, frustrated us, and ultimately changed how we structure listings.

This is the meta-post about that process and what we learned.

Surprise 1: a third of splash pads lack adjacent restrooms

We expected most splash pads to have nearby restrooms. Kids drink water, kids need bathrooms, this seems obvious. The actual number from our audit:

• Pads with on-site or directly adjacent restrooms (within 100 feet): 67 percent
• Pads with restrooms in the same park but more than 100 feet away: 21 percent
• Pads with no functioning restroom in the park (closed, removed, or never built): 12 percent

Twelve percent is a lot. That is one in eight pads where a family arrives expecting basic infrastructure that is not there. The pads in this category are concentrated in three patterns: small pads added to neighborhood parks without a budget for restroom construction, pads where the park restroom was permanently closed for budget reasons after construction, and pads added to plaza or downtown sites that assumed nearby commercial restrooms would suffice (often a false assumption on Sundays).

We now flag this clearly on every listing, with three states: on-site, in-park, or no functioning restroom. This single change generated more positive feedback from families than any other.

Surprise 2: accessibility claims often fail real-world tests

This was the hardest finding to confirm and the most important.

About 78 percent of US splash pads claim some form of accessibility on official city pages. After auditing 200+ of those claims with input from disability-led families and adaptive-rec advocates, the gap between claimed and actual accessibility was striking:

• Claimed accessible and verified accessible by a wheelchair user: 41 percent
• Claimed accessible but with serious access friction (gravel paths, steep ramps, missing curb cuts to the deck, transfer challenges): 32 percent
• Claimed accessible but functionally inaccessible (no path from parking, no ADA path on the deck, restroom not accessible): 5 percent

The remaining 22 percent we could not yet verify confidently and excluded from the breakdown.

The lesson here is hard. ADA compliance is a minimum legal standard. Real accessibility is a continuum, and "accessible" on a city page often means "we put in a curb cut once." We now distinguish between three accessibility levels in our listings: ADA-baseline, verified-accessible (confirmed by wheelchair-user visit or trusted source), and accessible-first (rubberized full deck, multiple transfer benches, sensory considerations, accessible restroom in the park).

The accessible-first pads are exceptional and rare. They deserve to be findable.

Surprise 3: year-round claims often mean March to October

About 9 percent of US splash pads describe themselves as "year-round" on official city pages. We assumed this meant year-round. We were wrong roughly half the time.

The actual pattern from auditing 78 of those claims:

• Truly year-round (open in January, weather permitting): 34 percent
• Closed in winter but treated as year-round in marketing (typical pattern: open March, close October): 47 percent
• Open year-round but mechanical issues caused multi-month closures during the audit period: 19 percent

This was the most frustrating finding because the gap is mostly in marketing language, not malice. A Sun Belt city writes "year-round" because their pad is open more months than the regional norm, even if it does close from late October through February. A traveling family in December who relies on that "year-round" label finds a fenced-off pad.

We now distinguish between confirmed year-round (open in our December and January spot checks), seasonal-extended (March through October at minimum), and standard-seasonal (Memorial Day through Labor Day equivalent).

Surprise 4: hours change quietly

Splash pads update their hours far more often than their other information, and the changes rarely make it to scrapers. In our audit:

• Roughly 23 percent of pads had hours that differed from the most recent listing on city or third-party pages
• 14 percent had peak-summer hours that differed from posted pages by more than two hours per day
• 7 percent had operating days that did not match listings (closed Mondays vs. closed Tuesdays, etc.)
• A surprising number of cities post no hours at all and rely on signage at the pad

Hours are the data field most likely to be wrong. We now do quarterly automated calls to parks departments for the top 20 percent of pads by visit volume and rely on community submissions for the rest.

Surprise 5: shade is wildly underreported

About 60 percent of splash pads have some form of shade structure, but it is reported on official city pages only 31 percent of the time. Cities just do not think to mention it, and shade is one of the highest-priority features for families.

Conversely, "no shade" is reported on official pages even less often, leaving families to discover the absence in person on a 95F afternoon.

We added explicit shade fields to every listing: shade source (trees, sails, pavilion, none), shade coverage estimate, and a flag for pads where shade is missing entirely. This is one of our highest-engagement filters in the search experience.

Surprise 6: cities want this data more than we expected

When we started reaching out to parks departments to verify information, we expected polite resistance. What we got, repeatedly, was enthusiasm. Many parks directors had been frustrated for years that their official pages were the only source of truth on their pads, and that those pages rarely got updated. A platform that maintained accurate, family-readable information was a relief, not a threat.

Concrete patterns:

• About 70 percent of parks departments responded to email queries within two weeks
• Roughly half offered to share additional information not on their public pages
• Several wanted to learn from our audit (especially on accessibility)
• A few asked us to help them build better internal data systems

This shifted our posture. We are not just publishing a directory; we are increasingly a data partner for parks departments who care about their pads being findable and accurate.

What this means for parks departments

If you run a city parks department, three lessons from the audit apply directly:

1. Audit your own pads at least annually. Most cities have not walked their own pads with an accessibility lens. The first audit reveals more than you expect.

2. Update your listings quarterly. Hours, status, shade, restrooms. Pick a person to own this and budget for the time.

3. Be honest about year-round claims. "Open March through October" is more useful than "year-round."

What this means for families

Three lessons for users:

1. Do not trust official "accessible" labels alone. Look for verified or accessible-first pads if that matters for your family.

2. Confirm hours by phone before driving more than 30 minutes. Hours are the data field most likely to be wrong.

3. Bring your own backup plan for restrooms. One in eight pads has no functioning park restroom.

What we are doing next

The audit continues. We are aiming for 1,500 verified pads by end of 2026, with sharper accessibility verification, photo coverage, and quarterly hours refresh on the busiest 30 percent of pads. The goal is the simplest one we have: make the listings as right as we can make them, and tell the truth when we are not sure.

Most directories do not say what they do not know. We will keep saying it.