Changed policy? Wrong detail? Tell us what changed and why.

Find the place through Search, open its trust panel and choose “Report outdated information”. The report then carries the correct place identifier into moderation.

If the place is missing entirely, use the locality’s “Suggest a place” action instead.

• the exact field or restriction that appears incorrect;
• the replacement fact, written without promotional language;
• a public first-party or official source URL where one exists;
• the date of a first-hand observation when no public source is available; and
• enough context to distinguish a permanent policy from a one-off event.

We compare the report with existing evidence, check whether sources refer to the same place and determine whether the change affects access, restrictions, location, identity or confidence. A business representative can provide valuable first-party evidence, but an ownership claim is verified separately from the proposed factual change.

Depending on the evidence, we may correct the record, add a qualification, mark a field unknown, schedule re-verification, merge a duplicate or decline the change. Public contributor timelines expose only appropriate accepted or published milestones; private review notes and reviewer identities remain private.

We welcome precise corrections from operators and land managers. We will not remove accurate public restrictions, suppress legitimate community reports or change ranking in exchange for payment. If evidence conflicts, the page may show uncertainty while the conflict is reviewed.

General correspondence can be sent through the Contact page. Read the Editorial Standards for the evidence hierarchy.

Locality release records, checks and promotion events are append-only in the editorial workflow. A new correction can replace the active factual state, but it does not silently alter the digest that was previously reviewed. This separation supports rollback, accountability and scheduled re-verification.