Email is the route: hello@passports.pics. A small team reads everything; no ticket system, no queue numbers.

The report that fixes a spec fastest

Requirements move, and a well-formed correction lands straight into the next dataset review. Four lines are enough:

1. Which spec — the country and document, or the card’s page URL.
2. What the card says now.
3. What the authority says — paste the line that contradicts us.
4. The link — the official page or notice. If a portal and a printed checklist disagree, tell us which channel you actually applied through; those splits are exactly what the notes field is for.

Other good reasons to write

• A missing country or document. The dataset is deliberately small and verified — sixteen specs — rather than large and guessed. Tell us what you needed and how often the need comes up; real demand sets the research order.
• A verify flag you can clear. If you hold the authoritative source for a flagged spec — Brazil’s head band is the open one — send it and the flag becomes a cited number.
• Something broken or mistranslated. A widget that misbehaves, an accessibility problem, a sentence in Spanish or Hindi that reads like a machine wrote it — include the page URL and your browser.
• A stale stamp. If a card’s verified date looks old relative to a rule you know moved, say so — the stamp exists to be challenged.

What we can’t answer

“Will my photo be accepted?” — only the issuing authority decides, and edge cases (religious headwear, infant photos, medical exemptions) are officer judgement no spec sheet covers. What we can do is give you the exact published target to aim at, with the source.

Expect a real reply, not an acknowledgement bot — usually within a few days, and sooner for corrections with a source attached.