The things every buyer asks.

Where does the data actually come from?

From the bodies that publish it.

Every one of those is a public record, and every field on a report carries the specific source it came from and the date we pulled it. Which layers we hold, for which jurisdictions and how deeply, differs by body — we publish that per jurisdiction rather than claiming a region.

What it never comes from: a listing, a broker’s input form, a third-party aggregator, or a person on our end typing what they think is true. That is the entire difference between this and the platforms you already use.

How fresh is it?

It depends on the layer, and the report tells you which. Every field carries the date we pulled it, so freshness is something you read off the page rather than something you take on trust. Assessment rolls move when the county publishes them; FEMA panels change when FEMA changes them; a board’s record moves when that board posts it.

We can’t be fresher than the authority.

If a county posts minutes three weeks after a meeting, our record of that vote is three weeks behind the meeting, and the pull date on the field shows you exactly that. We would rather show you a date you can reason about than a refresh promise that sounds better than it is.

The practical answer: for anything decided well before our pull date, we’re current. For something that happened at last week’s meeting, check the agenda too.

What does “not covered” mean on a report?

It means one of four specific things, and we always say which. A blank field is a claim about the world, and we don’t make claims we haven’t checked.

The same discipline applies to us: where we haven’t classified something, the page says so rather than leaving a gap that reads like a finding.

Why won’t you just tell me if it’ll get approved?

Because we don’t know, and neither does anyone selling you a number that says they do.

What we know is what a specific body did with specific comparable applications, on the record, with the votes. That’s a fact you can verify. A probability attached to your parcel would be our opinion in a number’s costume — and the moment you’re trusting our judgment instead of the record, you’ve lost the only thing that makes this worth buying.

There’s a practical reason too. Base rates here are small-n. Nine or twenty-three comparable cases in one jurisdiction is a genuine signal and a thin sample simultaneously. So we show the count and list every case behind it, and we don’t render a percentage at all below twenty final outcomes — “seven of nine approved” is honest at any size; “78%” at nine cases is noise wearing precision.

What we will do:

Show you what the approvals had in common, what the denials had in common, and where your parcel sits on each of those. You draw the conclusion. It’s your capital.

What is this, and what is it definitely not?

It’s a compilation of public land-use records, organized by parcel, so you can screen a deal before you spend real money on it.

It is not a title search. No county here publishes a machine-readable easement index, and no report from us substitutes for a title examination.

It is not a survey, appraisal, or wetlands delineation. Mapped layers are screening tools. A line on our figure is not a line on the ground, and a mapped wetland is a flag to go check, not a finding.

It is not a zoning determination. Only the zoning administrator determines what’s permitted. Our by-right envelope is a reading of the published ordinance with the section and version cited, so you can check it against the code yourself.

It is not a consumer report. We don’t assemble information about individuals for credit, employment, insurance, or tenant screening, we aren’t a consumer reporting agency, and our terms prohibit using our reports for any FCRA-covered purpose.

It is not legal advice, and we are not your attorney.

What happens when you’re wrong?

Tell us — grier@upyourbids.com, with the parcel and the field. You don’t need to be a customer.

If we misread the source, we fix it and re-run the underlying extraction rule across every affected record rather than patching the single value, because a misreading that happened once usually happened wherever that shape appears. If the source itself is wrong, we cite the source and note the discrepancy on the field — we’re accurate to the record, not to the world, and we say so.

Every correction names the person who verified it against the source and the reason they gave, and the originally parsed value is kept beside it. The disagreement between the two is the auditable part; a correction log without its verifier is just an anonymous edit.

We don’t publish a response-time commitment, because we haven’t made one. When we do, it will be because we can keep it.

The method page has the audit numbers, including the date of the audit and what it measures. A vendor publishing an accuracy figure without an audit date is publishing marketing.