Accessibility statement for ordnancesurvey.co.uk

This website is run by Ordnance Survey. We want as many people as possible to be able to use this website.

For example, that means you should be able to:

• increase the browser font size to its largest setting without the text spilling off the screen
• navigate most of the website using just a keyboard
• listen to most of the website using a screen reader (including the most recent versions of JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver)

We’ve also made the website text as simple as possible to understand.

AbilityNet has advice on making your device easier to use if you have a disability.

How accessible this website is

We know some parts of this website are not fully accessible:

• some pages have empty links or values which may confuse people using assistive technology

• the keyboard focus indicator is not consistent on some elements

• some features on the site are not fully keyboard accessible

• some form elements have duplicate attributes or missing labels

• some PDF documents are not fully accessible to assistive technology users

• some page headings are not in a logical order

• some page elements have insufficient text contrast

• the purpose of some graphical elements may be unclear.

Feedback and contact information

We’re always looking to improve the accessibility of this website. If you find any problems not listed on this page, or think we’re not meeting accessibility requirements, use our accessibility feedback form.

Enforcement procedure

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is responsible for enforcing the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 (the ‘accessibility regulations’). If you’re not happy with how we respond to your complaint, contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS).

Ordnance Survey is committed to making its website accessible, in accordance with the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018.

Compliance status

The website has been tested against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 AA standard. This website is partially compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.2 AA standard, due to the non-compliances listed below.

Non-compliance with the accessibility regulations summary

Numerous access issues may be experienced by users who require audio feedback to navigate and interact with page content. For example, some page elements either do not contain discernible text or programmatically determined labels, or they are not descriptive enough for users to determine the elements function or purpose. Some structural and interactive elements are not marked up accessibly for these users to understand and utilise, particularly relating to heading elements. Some non-text elements do not have sufficient or appropriate alternatives, meaning users may not understand their purpose. The language of content is not properly identified, meaning it may not announce as expected. Users requiring audio feedback may also not be made aware of dynamic changes to page content, and page titles do not update to reflect these changes.

Mobility impaired users encounter some elements that are not accessible to standard keyboard commands or voice activation software. Some interactive elements are not accessible to keyboard users, which could also impact other assistive technology users. Some keyboard only users may also be unable to reliably track the order in which some page elements receive focus because they do not receive focus in a predictable order and / or are not highlighted by a visible focus indicator, and / or are obscured by other content. Some interactive elements are not labelled accessibly for voice activation users to interact with them via their visible labels.

Some of the colour combinations found on the site for both text and non-text elements are low contrast and are likely to be difficult for people with low vision to discern. In some instances colour is relied upon to convey information, meaning users with colour vision deficiencies may be unable to understand some content. Some isolated sections of content are not accessible when viewed at high magnification, therefore some users may be unable to access them independently. Interactive elements do not have sufficiently descriptive labels in some instances, which may make their purpose difficult to discern for some users, particularly those with cognitive, language, and learning differences.

Video content does not have sufficient textual alternatives or audio descriptions, meaning that users with vision impairments and learning differences may find it difficult to perceive the information. Captions are not fully accurate for synchronised media, and so may not be fully accessible to users with hearing impairments.

Non-compliance with the accessibility regulations

The content listed below is non-accessible for the following reasons.

1. Some synchronised media components do not have sufficient alternatives for users who have vision impairments or who cannot perceive synchronised media. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criteria:
   1. 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Pre-recorded) (Level A)
   2. 1.2.5 Audio Description (Pre-recorded) (Level AA)
   3. 1.2.8 Media Alternative (Pre-recorded) (Level AAA)
2. Some headings and labels were not sufficiently descriptive of topic or purpose. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (Level AA).
3. Some non-text content did not have sufficient or appropriate textual alternatives for screen reader users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A).
4. On some pages, colour is relied as the only visible indication of information and states, meaning content may not be accessible to users with vision impairments. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.1 Use of Color (Level A).
5. Some page titles were not sufficiently descriptive or unique to help screen reader users understand the page purpose. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.2 Page Titled (Level A).
6. Keyboard focus did not follow a logical or predictable order, which could make it more challenging for keyboard users to navigate content. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.3 Focus Order (Level A).
7. Some interactive elements did not have sufficient labels or instructions to aid users in understanding them. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (Level A).
8. Dialogs were not properly displayed to assistive technology users and did manage focus as expected. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criteria:
   1. 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (Level A)
   2. 2.4.3 Focus Order (Level A)
   3. 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) (Level AA)
   4. 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) (Level AAA)
9. Some interactive elements were not accessible via keyboard input, meaning users with mobility impairments may be unable to access some content. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criteria 2.1.1 Keyboard (Level A) and 2.1.3 Keyboard (No Exception) (Level AAA).
10. Some custom comboboxes were not implemented accessibly for assistive technology users to understand or interact with. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criteria:
    1. 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (Level A)
    2. 2.4.3 Focus Order (Level A)
    3. 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (Level A)
11. Synchronised media did not have sufficient, accurate captions for who are deaf or hard of hearing. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.2.2 Captions (Pre-recorded) (Level A).
12. Some text did not contrast sufficiently to meet the minimum requirements, and could be difficult for some low vision users to read. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criteria 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (Level AA) and 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced) (Level AAA).
13. Non-text elements required for understanding did not contrast sufficiently to meet WCAG 2.2 requirements, and could be difficult for low vision users to discern. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast (Level AA).
14. The language of passages or phrases in content could not be programmatically determined. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.1.2 Language of Parts (Level AA).
15. Some status messages were not programmatically identified as such, meaning screen reader users were not aware of updating content. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 4.1.3 Status Messages (Level AA).
16. Some interactive elements were not defined by a visible focus indicator when they receive keyboard focus. This meant that it could be difficult for keyboard users to track their position within the page. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.7 Focus Visible (Level AA).
17. Access to information or functionality was restricted when viewed at high magnification. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.10 Reflow (Level AA).
18. The YouTube player used on the site could pose accessibility barriers to low vision users due to low contrast non-text content and lack of support for magnification. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criteria 1.4.10 Reflow (Level AA) and 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast (Level AA).

Content that’s not within the scope of the accessibility regulations

PDFs and other documents

Some of our PDFs are essential to providing our services. Where possible, we plan to either fix these or replace them with accessible HTML pages.

The accessibility regulations do not require us to fix PDFs or other documents published before 23 September 2018 if they’re not essential to providing our services.

Any new PDFs or Word documents we publish should meet accessibility standards.

Live video

We do not plan to add captions to live video streams because live video is exempt from meeting the accessibility regulations.

We are continually working to improve the accessibility of this website. This statement outlines the accessibility issues we currently know about and will be updated as we identify and fix issues.

This statement was prepared on 18 February 2021 and last reviewed on 19 October 2026.

This website was last tested for compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 AA standard in January 2026.

The test was carried out by the Digital Accessibility Centre (DAC). Sixty pages from this website were tested as a representative sample.