We use official sources
We use laws, agency rules, park policies, permit pages, official maps, and official FAQs. Community and commercial sources may suggest a lead, but they do not establish the answer.
We match the rule to the place
A statewide rule may not answer a city-park question, and a beach rule may not apply to the rest of a park. Each page states where the rule applies.
We show what is unknown
We do not invent fees, permit details, contacts, boundaries, or exceptions. If the official sources do not give a clear answer, the page says so and points to the next useful check.
We protect sensitive locations
We do not publish precise archaeological, burial, tribal, historic, or sensitive ecological locations, or encourage collecting in those places.
We keep dated updates
When a substantive rule or source changes, the public page receives a dated update. Corrections do not silently rewrite the history.
AI source audit is the standard review method
Each record receives evidence extraction and a critic pass in a separate AI context, followed by documented reconciliation. Both passes must support the published wording. Source snapshots, actual model and run identifiers, reviewed claims, dates and digests are retained. Read the audit methodology.
We disclose limitations
Incomplete permit terms, source-access limits and differing official wording are stated with what remains supported and what visitors should check. An unsuccessful source check does not by itself mean a rule changed or that the linked page is unavailable to you. The page retains the earlier evidence and its actual check date until a new check succeeds.
What a named review covers
The site’s standard review method is the AI source audit described above. Where a historical human review is shown, it names the reviewer, date, and claims checked; it does not cover later evidence or wording automatically. An AI source audit is never presented as human review, legal verification, government approval or guaranteed permission.