Five questions concerning the properties of spatial representations are explored. (1) How accurately does a spatial representation correspond to the true scene? (2) If inaccurate, how does it differ? (3) Are representations of a familiar scene more accurate than those of an unfamiliar one? (4) Do representations of a scene currently in view differ from those retained in memory? (5) Do the representations of the blind have properties comparable to those of the sighted? Seven sighted and 7 highly mobile blind subjects, all familiar with a room, and 6 sighted subjects unfamiliar with it, were asked to estimate the absolute distances between 10 salient objects in the room. The 14 familiar subjects made their estimates twice: while they were in the room, and while they were remote from it. Regression analyses showed that the estimates of all subjects had strong metric properties, being linearly related to true distance, with a true zero point; and multidimensional scaling showed that all subjects produced distance estimates that could be scaled in two dimensions to closely match the actual locations of the objects. Familiarity had no effect. The effect of location of testing was the same for both the sighted and the blind: all subjects displayed better spatial knowledge when tested in the room; and all subjects underestimated true distance substantially when tested out of the room. The results showed no qualitative differences as a function of blindness, at least for these highly skilled blind travelers.