Recently, there has been a push to have photographers keep their shoot locations secret, as park administration and others are asking photographers not to geotag their images. I don’t agree, and think this practice is counterproductive.A number of organizations, including the Jackson Hole Travel & Tourism Board and Leave No Trace have started to push the concept of #nogeotag. They argue that the landscapes many photographers enjoy documenting are under threat from hordes of “influencers” who learn of the location via geotags. The Jackson Hole Travel & Tourism Board has even created a focused campaign to “Keep Jackson Hole Wild”, connecting a geotag with “one big problem”. The growing awareness of the practice even lead to an article in the New York Times.
Many photographers appreciate the practice of geotags, for both researching future locations, getting inspiration, and sharing images among users with a specific geographic focus. Many popular instagram hashtags have a geographic element, with specific pages and groups of users focused on certain locations. This practice is even built into most phones, which embed a geotag into the EXIF data at time of capture.
As a landscape photographer, I’ve uploaded images to Instagram or other platforms with geotags intact. I’ve tagged images with location specific hashtags, and mentioned locations by name in captions or online discussions. I’d hate to think that I’ve caused damage to these locations through my actions, but after some further thought, I believe the organizations are approaching this problem from the wrong direction.
Photography is an essential medium for tourist destinations, now more than ever. It is little coincidence that tourism boards, national parks, and hotels all run Instagram pages promoting their unique locations and encouraging visitors to “share your favorite images with our hashtag”. I’ve been inspired to visit locations based on work from other photographers I admire, and I know that browsing other images of a location is the best way to plan shots in an unfamiliar location.
Some of my favorite locations are in the wild, or in state and national parks. I appreciate how important it is to follow the rules, not only for my safety, but for the safety of others and animals. I even try and go beyond the letter of the law by picking up some extra trash. Most photographers I’ve seen sharing the trails with me are following the same practices, so I’m disappointed to see the blame placed on myself and other photographers for problems that occur.
There will always be the potential for an individual to cause damage — a prominent example includes a graffiti artist who was banned for life from national parks for vandalism in a number of national parks.Interestingly, it was the very online communities that are now being demonized for hashtagging that helped track her down. In another instance, vandals carved graffiti into rock formations at Utah’s Arches National Park. Again, the park officials turned to their social media looking for help in tracking down the individuals responsible.In both these cases, the individuals weren’t lured in by a well composed image of a remote location that a photographer shared with a hashtag, but instead caused damage within a few feet of the trail.
When it comes to dealing with an increase in visitor volume, national parks have seen a 20% increase over the last decade, and a number of specific locations have gone “viral”.
Horseshoe Bend at the Grand Canyon, is getting a parking lot, a visitors station, bathrooms, and more, owing to the increase in visits. I don’t doubt that a number of people learned about this amazing location thanks to Instagram, and I don’t begrudge them wanting to visit. I think it is great that the Parks Service is stepping up to the challenge, and implementing some facilities to accommodate its new popularity.
Of course, there are instances where keeping a shoot or subject location secret is important. The Times article mentions a population of rhinos who aren’t formally protected, which could become the subject of poaching.
Going back to the original situation in Wyoming, I’ve visited in the past, and would love to go back, but I was surprised to see the hotel I stayed at had nearly doubled its rates, and was booked solid on many dates. Now, I didn’t geotag my stay at the hotel, so I was quite surprised. Clearly, only my photos had the power to drive crowds to a major travel destination.
On the other hand, tourism spending in Wyoming has risen by about 45%, with tax revenues from travel almost doubling in the last ten years. Clearly, with more visitors, and even more money flowing in, there must be some powerful geotags at work.
Jokes aside, I think tourism boards and local authorities have to take some responsibility. I’ve been on the waitlist for a permit to visit the Wave rock formation in Arizona for a couple years, and while I’m disappointed I haven’t had the chance to visit yet, I appreciate that measures need to be taken to preserve it for everyone. I also am happy to pay the seemingly ever-increasing park admission fees for our state and national parks, because they are worth it.
Anti-geotagging efforts seem to be the easy way out, as instead of coming up with a reasonable management plan for stewarding a location’s natural resources, or having to turn away visitors (and more importantly their revenues), these groups can blame photographers for causing these problems. It might be easy to have “security by obscurity” for some out of the way locations, but if it really is that good, it’ll end up shared. I strongly encourage readers to keep practicing a respectful approach to our natural resources, but would also call on those in charge of these locations to take responsibility. Create reasonable rules for visitors, and leverage the large amounts people that are willing to pay to build facilities, trails, and resources necessary to accommodate visitors. Like many issues, a poorly structured rule like “no geotags”, only harms those who aren’t causing the problems.
Geotagging does nothing to destroy a location. Selfish/Ignorant/Entitled people do that.
that´s true. But geotagging makes their actions easier and more accessible. Why not use the good old image caption instead of a tag that can be indexed by a search engine or an algorithm. The geotag is just a factor that makes it easier and more accessible to find a location and thus makes a location more accessible to idiot xyz who wants to get his unique magnesium flare shot.
You are correct! Though doesn't a Geo Tag tell those "Selfish/Ignorant/Entitled" where they should go if they want to see that view?
...That would suggest the only way to find out where the really interesting views are is via geo-tagging.
This isn't a new problem. I've been in this game long enough to see trash/vandalism and wildlife
harrassment at various spots around the world long before instagram made it's first appearance.
You can't stop stupidity...you can make it uncomfortable for that to be an excuse though.
What social network platform do "Selfish/Ignorant/Entitled" people seem to gravitate towards the most?
I never suggested that it's THE ONLY way but certainly it's making it easier since so many "Selfish/Ignorant/Entitled" people are on Instagram. My point is that, yes it's a large problem but denying that geotags could have a part in this would be a little dismissive.
"Geotagging does nothing to destroy a location. Selfish/Ignorant/Entitled people do that."
This just seems like an over simplification.
I disagree with keeping locations strictly secret, but I think geotags are harmful, because they enable an algorithm or basically anyone to "pull" that data. For example one might program an algorithm that selects geotagged locations by the likes they get on instagram and uses the data for a "Lanscape Photography Scouting" app. This does not sound harmful at first, but it bears the potential danger that way too many people see it and get the exact location to "replicate" that one shot they saw. And I´m sorry, most photography on instagram nowadays is a replication of a replication of a replication of the same motif. And the more people frequent a location, the more harm is done to the place. If someone wants to share a location, that´s fine. But making it super accessible for a machine or an algorithm or a business to exploit is dangerous in my opinion. Sometimes, self opposed limits are a good approach, and having a location accessible for basically everyone with a smartphone at the tap of an app á la "places you could like based on your social media preferences" bears the potential danger that too many people want to go there, instead of the 5 people reading your image caption.
This is the most persuasive argument against geotags I have heard so far. Instead of vague scaremongering you are actually presenting a reasonable case.
Geotagging is super goony. Why do it? Look at me I’m cool I was here. Bail the geotagging it’s reall super dumb. All it does is bring more people to an exact location, the type of people too lazy to care about the ethics and etiquette as rules of a location. STOP GEOTTAGING ITS IS SUPER LAME.
Everyone that geotags is just a sheep using software without giving 2phucks about the impact. It’s making Instagram billions and putting somewhat hard to find locations on the map for literally everyone with a phone. So random this time we live in where anyone would support or defend this horrible feature.
Go explore on your own! Go find new location on your own! Get inspired by others work and go make something fresh on your own!
The 'Go explore on your own!' argument doesn't work if the area you are visiting is far from where you live and you don't have the luxury of wandering around for weeks.
I do do extensive research before going to a remote area not to replicate anyone's shot, but rather to identify where I want to go as the list of potential destinations usually varies from long (cities) to virtually limitless (nature).
Your argument is that geotagging brings tourists and so it's good. But you don't have to geotag, you can just say the general area where you took the shot... Most tourists want to visit the region, not to go there just for a photo. Also, if you know it's an off track area that very little people go to, why would you geotag it ? Tell your mates about it if you want, or bring them here yourself, but don't boast about it on Instagram by showing how remote it is with the geotag. Wildlife photographers don't do it because of poaching. Well imagine instagram users as poachers of the landscape. Do you see the apalling state some National Parks areas are in right now because of the shutdown ? I know it's better for your sanity to imagine the best in people, but in that particular case you're reaching millions of people. A few dozens with bad intentions and bad manners is all that's needed to utterly ruin a location.
Cue the "guns don't kill people..." comments. (eye roll)
Yeah, human beings are terrible, and need to be taught how to better respect the outdoors.
But to point fingers in such a manner is to get into a "chicken-VS-egg, which came first?" fight. The bottom line is, the FASTEST way for us to actuallly START increasing the preservation of certain locations, is to significantly reduce the number of geotags, period. THEN you can work on teaching current and future generations how to better respect the outdoors, how to explore their own new favorite cool spots, practice LNT, etc...
To sit around bickering about which is more effective is to get nothing accomplished, thus taking a step further down the path of increased entropy.
"The bottom line is, the FASTEST way for us to actuallly START increasing the preservation of certain locations, is to significantly reduce the number of geotags, period."
Is there actual data to back up this assertion or is it your own speculation?
If you need "data" in order to understand such incredibly basic, clear logic, then you may be part of the non-solution.
The funny thing about relying on logic is that we often encounter unintuitive responses to what may initially seem like logical solutions because in the process of employing our logic to problem solving, there might be a myriad of factors that we are not taking into account.
It's entirely possible that erasing every geotag on social media may have no appreciable effect on the problem. Responses like yours assume that geo tags are the core problem in leading people to these sites, but what research do you have to draw the conclusion that geotagging is the specific cause of this trend?
If you're asking people to go out of their way to change their behavior, I feel like it should be backedup by a little bit more than "this is the logical result that I foresee".
Also, an unrealistic solution (eg. Getting everyone to go the extra step to erase location information automatically recorded by your device) is not a solution at all. It's just mental masturbation. It's more reasonable to demand park services and municipalities to increase patrols, penalties, and maintenance than it is to fruitlessly try to change the behavior of millions of people.
Or better yet, if you care so much about the issue, use your own time and resources (the only things you can actually control) to start a group that volunteers to keep these sites clean.
"It's entirely possible that erasing every geotag on social media may have no appreciable effect on the problem."
There's maybe a 0.01% chance. This is not a "innocent until proven guilty beyond all (reasonable) doubt", ...this is a time-sensitive situation that needs to begin testing solutions asap, especially if they're 99.99% likely to have at least a small effect.
Also, I think you're misrepresenting what goes into geotagging a location on many social media platforms. By default, you have to actively tag a location, in apps like Instagram etc. So, all we're really asking is for people to break the habit of "bragging" about where they've been.
But, I get it. You're not interested in doing anything unless there's a 100% chance it'll work. That's a very respectable attitude towards any big undertaking. Unfortunately, like I said, that's the attitude that will get us nowhere, and allow entropy to increase. Oh well.
The way I figure it, this planet is doomed no matter what. Whether it's an ecological thing, nuclear warfare, or the rock we live on getting swallowed by an expanding sun, I don't care all that much as long as I'm not alive to see it. As for our grandchildren, they won't miss what they never knew in the first place.
Call me indifferent. I've never seen a dodo and I don't think my life would be any richer if I had. I don't get this thing about preserving nature for its own sake. 🤷♂️
Haha, if it's an indifference challenge you want, I'm game! that's why I'm probably not bringing children into this world, and I'm ready to just wander off into the mountains and be self-sufficient if/when the global economy decides to implode and anarchy ensues... :-)
There's the slight issue where we, as a species, are utterly reliant upon the environment for our survival.
But hey, I didn't have children either.
Yeah... my kids will probably just look at me and shake their head just like I look at my parents and grandparents and shake my head. So the cycle continues. LOL
Your kids are likely to be fighting for survival. Things are quite catastrophic, and the rate of environmental collapse is terrifying. The human population is going to collapse, and we will be lucky to come out of this with more than a billion humans.
The bitch is that it doesn't matter how many people I can convince at this point, nothing can alter it - the extent of current extinction, combined with the rate of extinctions, and the fact we continue to aggressively pursue economic growth make it so.
We think we're safe in the West, we aren't.
Well I guess that's a problem they'll have to deal with. Every generation deals with its woes.
As I said, I didn't have kids.
Now, I'm well and truly middle aged, and I'm going to have to deal with it. The marine environment is proper screwed, but we simply aren't paying attention, after all, it's under water.
2 billion people rely upon the ocean for survival.
I tend not to tell people where I am, beyond a general area, if I'm in delicate habitat.
Good article with a well stated conclusion.
Good, I never started geotagging, so I am so far behind that I am ahead again.
I have responded several times that geotagging is the least of our concerns in an era where rolling back EPA regulations, unpledging support of the Kyoto accord, and ignoring the murder of journalists for oil from allies are more critical topics. I have suggested that people could hike locally rather than travel by evironmentally inefficien5 means such as jet planes.
But I was thinking about this conversation further and have an additional perspective; people want it all but don’t want anyone else to have it. We want the other person to compromise, to live without, but not ourselves. If geotagging is such a problem then give up your camera and witness with your own eyes or better yet don’t go if it is over-visited. No, instead we tell snowflakes “have at it” but just don’t post your geotagged pic and encourage others; this is f***ed up. This only comes from an age on entitlement where non NFL fans purchase thousand dollar tickets and show up in expensive jerseys just so they can say they were there. It is an artifact of wealth distribution that creates out of touch millionaires that are self serving and a working poor that go further in debt trying to keep up with the Jones.
No I am not a communist or a liberal. I just wish that people would once in a while push away from the table and consider the future of our society and our kids.
So do we appoint Kent LaPorte to be the arbiter of how others should spend THEIR money? There's a lot of places on this Earth that already do that. I prefer to live where there is still a choice as to how I spend MY money.
I have no way of knowing you're political leanings, however, wisdom guided by experience gives me a pretty fair idea which column your name would be in. I'm quite the Libertarian, by the way and wear it on my sleeve.
The mentality, "it's my money, how dare you put any restrictions whatsoever on how I get to spend it!" is what will destroy our planet, unfortunately.
The problem is, we're too short-sighted and small-minded to fully grasp the long-term ramifications of our "freedom" to be as wasteful and greedy as our disposable income allows. The bottom line is, we're not all scientists, and yet we're burning through natural resources like they're infinite. Political leanings are irrelevant; one way or another, things are going to go sideways eventually.
Hmm... seems like someone else's problem. 😋
Yeah. Your grandchildren's problem. ;-)
Yeah, hopefully they're better people than me.
Sorry, people spending money won't do it. It'll be a 20 mile wide asteroid or maybe something like the Yellowstone Caldera.
By the way, when you acquired your camera and lenses, did you use corn or wheat in trade? No, wait. You spent money on it. Say it isn't so! How about if I told you that you spending your discretionary funds on a camera and lenses means you've contributed to the death of Ma' Earth? Sounds rather silly, doesn't it?
And when the asteroid is entering the atmosphere, set your camera to AI Servo and burst mode.
I'm voting for the supervolcano, more than the asteroid. ;-)
I picked the asteroid first since astronomy is my other hobby. :-)
David: Your response says it all. Rather than consider that our actions have consequences and that nature doesn’t care what you want, it will respond to us like the ants that we are, you made this a topic about America versus socialism. Grow up and be an adult. Americans compromise their freedoms for societal order every day (laws against murder, incest, licensing and insuring heavy equipment - i.e. cars) no different than other countries. The difference is that we collectively decide the rules and we minimize them to avoid tyranny over our lives. But we still create rules for the collective good. For the record we both vote to control what the other spends their money on. Give me back my taxes and then you can talk.
You're veering off track. I stated that the money that makes it to me is my money. Not you or anyone else should ever consider telling me how to spend it.
All that other pap you wasted your time typing is deflection. I'll continue to spend my money as I see fit and sleep well at night. And I want you do as you please, which is just how it should be.
Thanks David for telling me what I should say and not say. You're a real libertarian alright and would never tell another person what to do. Apparently we are both hypocrites. And yes I own expensive, environmentally wasteful cameras. But I do compromise elsewhere and try each day to reduce my footprint.
But getting back to your argument about it being your money and not being told how to spend it, you too went off on a tangent. If you read again my comments I was only suggesting that people look at their lifestyles and see if they could find more meaningful and fulfilling choices that were sustainable and that these would have more impact than restricting geotagging. I wasn't telling or demanding laws to control your behavior; simply suggesting some alternative solutions.
Having said all this, keep in mind that your blind allegiance to your freedoms and rights to do what you want may eventually restrict how you live. If wasteful spending on gas fueled excursions eventually cause the free markets to make oil too expensive for day trips you may be affected negatively. The illusion of control. I simply share that each of our decisions have a butterfly effect. I wish you the best in your particular approach to life, but will happily denounce it without fear every day that I breathe for the sake of my family, friends, community and others.
Apparently we agree to disagree.
You're right...we'll agree to disagree.
Would you like the last word?
Kent, I do think that there is plenty of room for a compromise in which "the masses" still can enjoy the outdoors, without causing excessive wear-and-tear to the iconic spots. And, nobody is saying that those other political and social issues you mentioned are un-important. To imply that those issues are mutually exclusive from this one would be a fallacy.
Indeed, we need to reduce the sheer volume of traffic to certain spots. We need to come to grips with the fact that there are too many of us on the planet for us all to be able to visit one favorite spot ten times every year, instead of just a few times in our whole life. We need to bite the bullet and enforce permit and capacity restrictions on the more delicate spots, and encourage folks to go check out new spots that can handle a few more travelers. And yeah, gas (and jet fuel) should probably cost double or triple what it currently does.
Anyone who lives a modest lifestyle is putting a far smaller "carbon footprint" on the planet, even if they go on big trips throughout the year, so long as they do it in a planet-friendly manner.
Unfortunately, nobody cares about this "planet-friendly" nonsense, and many see it as some sort of shallow, jealousy-fueled battle between the haves and the have-nots. Until we can get past that narrow-minded way of thinking, I fear that the long-term outlook is pretty grim for both the planet and the human race.
I've got a question: So what?
Just playing devil's advocate for a second, but what does it actually matter if these spots get trashed?
Hey, I totally get it. Say a few rocks get toppled over, and a few footpaths get worn through what was previously a pristine landscape. Say a few random flora/fauna get decimated. Honestly, that's not a very big deal.
We've got much bigger problems to worry about, indeed. Global warming isn't going to be solved by us stopping geotagging a cool patch of wildflowers that we find in the desert, let alone one of the tourist-ready spots like Horseshoe Bend, or Zion...
It's the overall attitude towards the outdoors, and our planet, that really needs to change. We need to actually understand how our entire lifestyles are causing changes to the planet as a whole. Because most of the people who say they're "outdoorsy" really don't have an understanding for long-term conservation efforts. They just want to go camping, see cool sights, and get away from the stress of work etc. That's not caring about the outdoors, that's downright selfish.
I don't know what the solution is, because no one single solution will fix everything. All I can do is start by encouraging others to open their minds to how their whole lifestyle may impact the whole planet. That's not too much to ask.
Global warming... you're not going to stop it so start buying what will be future waterfront property today and cheer for each fraction of a degree that the global temperature goes up.
We're humans. We'll either be smart and adapt by moving inland and to higher elevations or we'll stubbornly throw resources into continuing to build in places where nature will kick our asses with fires, hurricanes, and floods. Let the grandkids decide.
I'm of the same suspicion. I'd love to have clean air and all that good stuff, for the sake of our own lungs if nothing else, but I think that even if we all switched then entire planet to electric vehicles tomorrow, the glaciers will keep on melting.
I just don't like the thought of going out to some of the beautiful places I've seen earlier in my life, only to find that some ass has decided to deface them because they're selfish and disrespectful. It's already happening everywhere that is even remotely close to my childhood home in suburbia... https://youtu.be/pfmeWWk3au4
I appreciate everyone’s reaction and passion to my comments. For those that accuse me of being a left leaning libotard ( i.e. persuasion through bullying) I just so happen to be an aerospace engineer whose father was a 20 year military veteran and both parents were farm children. My father was also a blue collar union man for the railroad for 30+ years and taught me my way around weapons and tools. I have voted for both parties both past and present. I am a man of faith but have existential questions about organized religon. I laugh at your simpleton way of trying to paint people in boxes. Grow up and be an adult.
As a engineer and scientist I attempt to reason things more objectively. I appreciate the “shoot your way out of the bag” and let technology solve the problem approach, but sadly we live on an earth with finite resources and if we moderate our consumption at the very least we change the trajectory of the problem. Why is this a bad thing?
The nihilist approach of “it doesn’t matter anyway” is also a position but as Tom Hanks from Apollo 13 would say “ once were done bouncing off the walls we will be right back in here with the same problems”. Existential nihilism would suggest in the absence of an observed purpose you are free to define your own purpose. Why not make it something positive? If your not a nihilist then kicking the can is immoral at worst and dangerous to your own self preservation at best.
Well, I hope you all figure it out for yourselves. Good luck. In the meantime I will be enjoying my geotagged pictures from the places I love and hoping that my talents and perspectives help move my community forward. I think it is ironic that people feel more unhappy, isolated and paranoid in this age of prosperity. I think I will keep to my cameras ( yes plural) and try to create a small footprint in other parts of my life.
Thank you reminding me that I care to make a difference. What will be your legacy? For some of you perhaps you think I have been suckered by trolls. Perhaps, but they have to read my words to react. Maybe this makes the difference.
I have all the respect in the world for the people who genuinely care enough to try to make a difference and I hope you succeed. I think I'm just being honest enough with myself in saying that I've got too much to worry about in my own life to care all that much about what happens 50 years from now much less 100 years from now when I'll surely be long dead and gone.
All other things being equal, of course I'd choose the environmentally friendly option. The problem is that all other things are never equal. :/
The "no geotags" mantra seems uncomfortably close to saying, "Now that I'm in the club let's close enrollment to new members." I don't like it. If it's one bad actor we're worried about then removing geotags might do some small amount of good on a rare occasion. But if it's overuse, then other measures would be better. Personally, I'd start by banning tour buses. Yes, this is a discriminatory policy that wouldn't affect me but I believe it would be a good way to target litterbugs and the otherwise ignorant and/or disrespectful who, in my observation, seem disproportionately represented within this class of visitors.
To play devil's advocate, however, the "yes geotags" mantra is a form of entitlement. In a way it is saying, "now that you've done all the work in finding a place, I demand that you hand it to me on a silver platter."
Admittedly, it is certainly hypocritical of someone to say "no geotags" if they themselves have been using that exact method to find locations just prior to deciding that "no geotags" is a good idea.
However, many, many people who go outdoors and visit "hot" places have indeed put in a lot more effort in figuring out where those places are, how to get there, getting permits, paying fees, etc.
There are a few places that I know of, and have visited, which are indeed very fragile and special, and the GPS information is rather difficult to come by. For these types of places, I don't have any delusions about me being more entitled to being there than anyone else. I simply would like to see the location remain equally difficult to find, so that others who visit the place put in the same effort that I did. That's not selfish, that's just a barrier to entry which helps in some small way to safeguard against damage or even vandalism.
A lot of iconic spots are built to accommodate tour busses, and that's a good thing. Keep the average tourists at the Grand Canyon rim, or in Yosemite Valley; indeed I don't want to see those litterbugs venturing deeper into the wilderness. But, most spots that tour busses visit can be kept clean by simply hiring more janitorial staff.
Cleaning up after litterbugs is a band-aid on a cancer, though. What really needs to change is society's genuine respect and appreciation for the outdoors, instead of this shallow, self-centered thing that so many people call "being outdoorsy"... Only if we can truly change the attitude that society has towards preservation, can we hope to actually change the impact that we're having on the places we claim to love so much.