Corrections

What counts as a correction

A figure published that was wrong; a claim published with no source behind it; a link that went somewhere other than where it said it went; a machine or a part named as something it was not. Each is fixed on the page that carried it, in the place where the wrong sentence was, with the date, and indexed here.

What does not count. A manufacturer revising its own published figure after we read it is not an error here — it is why every figure carries the date it was read. Nor is it a correction when a page says no application has been published for a machine and somebody later fabricates a mount for one: the claim was about what has been published, and it was true.

Reporting one

Send it through Contact. It reaches the contact desk at the dealership that publishes this site — the same inbox an order enquiry lands in, tagged so the two can be told apart. There is no ticket to follow. Where a report changes a page, the change is made in the body of that page and indexed here, and that entry is the whole of the record.

The message that is quickest to act on names the page, quotes the sentence as it currently stands, and links whatever the source says instead. A link to the source settles a disagreement that an argument about it does not. C1 below is one a reader found.

2026-09-26 · C1 — This site published Washington as broadly permissive. It is not, and a reader caught it

Corrected on Washington. The method error underneath it was corrected across the whole of the state section.

What was wrong.The Washington entry led with a statutory definition of a “tracked all-terrain vehicle” and a concurrent-registration provision, called the state “the clearest in the country on this question”, and recorded trail access as an unqualified yes. A reader with local knowledge said plainly that Washington does not permit tracks the way the page implied. He was substantially right.

What the law actually does. RCW 46.09.310(19) defines a wheeled all-terrain vehicle as a machine on four tires, or four or more low-pressure tires of twenty psi or less. A machine with tracks fitted in place of those tires therefore stops meeting the wheeled definition — and RCW 46.10.300(8) folds “tracked all-terrain vehicle” into the meaning of snowmobile. So while the tracks are on, the machine is a snowmobile in law, and RCW 46.10.470 makes road operation lawful in only four narrow situations. The wheeled machine’s 35 mph on-road privilege does not travel with the tracks.

The error underneath the error. The original pass treated explicitly addressed in statute as good news. Frequently it is the opposite: a state that names tracked machines often does so by moving them into a narrower vehicle class, which removes rights the same machine had on wheels. That reading error was not confined to Washington — it was the method.

What changed.Washington’s trail and road values are now conditional rather than yes, the summary leads with the reclassification instead of the definition, and RCW 46.10.470 is quoted in full. Every state page that reports a state naming tracks in law now carries a standing warning that being named is not the same as being permitted.

What it means if you ride there. In Washington, while the tracks are on, treat the machine as a snowmobile rather than as a wheeled ATV: the road privileges you are used to on tires do not travel with the tracks, and RCW 46.10.470 is the section to read before you put a wheel on pavement.

Credit. Found by a reader. The page was wrong for as long as it was published.

2026-09-26 · C2 — Three fabricated quotations were published on this site and have been removed

The three named below were corrected on Wisconsin, Oregon and Georgia. The rest of the pass ran across all fifty state pages.

What was wrong. Of 281 quoted statutory and agency passages on the fifty state pages, 10 did not match the page they cited and were deleted. Three of those were not transcription slips — they were text that exists nowhere in the source.

Wisconsin. A definition was attributed to a state agency page. It appears on that page only inside a commented-out block of dead HTML — an older version of the rule, left in the markup and invisible to a reader. Two separate passes lifted text out of that same comment. The quote has been re-sourced to the live statute, which does carry the wording.

Oregon. A trail-access quotation ended in “[and] highway motorcycles”. The real sentence ends with hikers, mountain bikers and horse riders. The invention reversed the meaning — the actual list is non-motorised users, which is why those trails are narrow — and it was dressed with a bracketed editorial [and] so it read as careful transcription.

Georgia. A statutory definition was quoted that appears on no page at all. The linked act prints an amendment with the old figure struck through; an earlier pass silently deleted the struck text and presented the result as a quotation.

The rest. Three quotations were real statutory text pointed at a URL that does not contain it. Two were verbatim from a bill that has since been amended — correct text, wrong version. Two were stitched together across bullet points or subsections with an ellipsis, so no contiguous sentence like them exists.

The quieter problem, which was larger. 48 further quotations were real but cut short — several stopping immediately before an except, an unless or a provided that which narrowed the rule. Each has been extended to include the qualifier. A truncated quote is harder to catch than an invented one and changes the answer just as much.

What changed.A dropped quotation leaves its citation and its link in place, so the reader can still go and read the source — a checkable link is worth more than a quotation nobody can trust. No state’s answer moved as a result: no verdict rested on a deleted quote.

Why it happened.Hedged language and a “confirm with your state” notice handle uncertainty. They do nothing about text that was never in the source. Those are different defects and only one of them is fixed by being careful about tone.