Loading the journal
Visa rules are the part of trip planning where being approximately right is worth nothing. A restaurant recommendation that misses is a mildly disappointing evening. A visa assumption that misses is a denied boarding, a forfeited fare, and a holiday that ends at an airport check-in desk.
So it is worth being precise about what we do and do not know.
Visa and entry information in a Saferni plan comes from a hand-curated internal table. Not from a language model, and not from scraping. Every row records the passport, the destination, the status, a link to the source it was taken from, and the date a human verified it.
That design has an obvious cost: coverage is partial, and it grows only as fast as someone can check rows. We accepted that trade deliberately. A table with gaps that tells you when it does not know is more useful than a complete-looking table generated by a model that is confidently wrong about the passports it has seen least.
Our answer is a starting point, not a determination. Several things can change the real outcome that our table has no way of seeing:
Check with the official government source for your destination, and with your airline, before you book anything you cannot cancel. Not because we expect to be wrong, but because the consequences are asymmetric: verifying takes ten minutes, and not verifying can cost the trip.
Travel advisory levels shown alongside visa status come from published government advisories via an aggregator. They are informational, and they describe a country in aggregate — which is a blunt instrument for somewhere large enough to contain both a quiet coastal region and an area under an active warning.
We would rather tell you exactly how far our information reaches than let a confident-looking green tick imply a guarantee nobody can give.
Every claim in this post is something you can check on a real plan. One sentence is enough to start one.