Loading page…
Editorial standards
These standards explain what qualifies for publication, how dog-access claims are described, and how editorial decisions remain separate from advertising and reputation scores.
We prefer evidence that is current, attributable and specific to the place or rule being described. Useful evidence usually falls into this order:
We do not treat popularity, an uncited directory entry or the absence of a “no dogs” sign as evidence that dogs are allowed.
Local guides use a defined market boundary and researched coverage area. Coordinates must fall inside the applicable scope, and nearby places are not silently attributed to a different authority. A place must have a stable public identity and enough location evidence to distinguish it from duplicates or private residences.
Home-based operators are not inferred from a business name or approximate geocoding. Sensitive or private addresses are excluded unless the operator has made the premises public for the relevant service and publication is appropriate.
Off-lead status is recorded separately. A dog-friendly place is not automatically an off-lead place.
Verification records who or what supported a claim and when it was checked. Confidence considers source quality, corroboration and factual completeness; it is not a guarantee that the policy has not changed. Time-sensitive evidence is scheduled for re-verification, and seasonal rules retain their actual date or recurrence details.
Unknown fields remain unknown. We do not award certainty merely because several websites repeat the same unsupported statement.
Contributions are reviewed for relevance, evidence and privacy. Public contributor profiles show accepted-work aggregates and public moderation milestones, not reviewer identities, rejected-item details, private claims or internal notes. Reputation reflects accepted contributions but never grants editorial permission by score alone.
Recommendations combine explainable signals such as proximity, evidence confidence, verification recency, published popularity and an owner’s private dog preferences. “Newly opened” requires an actual opening date; a recently created listing is labelled only as newly listed. Unknown suitability facts are surfaced rather than presented as confirmed matches.
Reports are attached to the relevant place and assessed against current evidence. A correction may update a field, add a restriction, reduce confidence, mark a fact unknown, merge a duplicate or leave the published record unchanged with a documented reason. Locality releases and promotion events remain auditable rather than being rewritten in place.
Learn how to submit useful evidence on the Corrections page.