Argthtjtr

I did not use to think of geotagging photos as a leave-no-trace issue. In fact, one slogan says leave only footprints, take only photos. Yet the Leave No Trace Social Media Guidance states:

Tag thoughtfully – avoid tagging (or geotagging) specific locations. Instead, tag a general location such as a state or region, if any at all. While tagging can seem innocent, it can also lead to significant impacts to particular places.

This to avoid visitors loving nature to death (see Crisis in our national parks: how tourists are loving nature to death, The Guardian, 20 November 2018)

I tend to quite successfully choose to visit places that get very low visitation, yet are quite spectacular. In 2017 I hiked for 2 weeks on Iceland and met only one other hiker. In 2018 I hiked for 10 days in central Norway/northern Sweden and met no other hikers. Also in 2018, I hiked all day along the Grand Canyon North Rim with canyon and river views, yet I met no other hikers.

In all cases, I have uploaded geotagged photos on the internet without giving much thought about what the potential impact my geotagging may have. I tend to quietly assume that places that are quiet now will be quiet later. Am I inadvertently threatening the solitude of the beautiful and quiet places I have visited, such as Lónsöræfi, Þjórsárver, Kinnarodden, Fajana de Franceses, Ljusfjällskåtan, Glenthorne Beach, or Tuweap? Or are they likely to remain quiet in any case, with visitors flocking in ever greater numbers to more famous places in the area instead?

Some places are already so busy, that I can't think that my geotagging will add any visitors (such as Lofoten or anything within a 10 minute walk from the road in a popular U.S. National Park or Monument). Other places are so remote and quiet, that I can't imagine they'll ever be busy (remote corners of Laponia WHS come to mind). Yet other places have strict visitor limits in place already, so an increase in popularity will only lead to more disappointed tourists (I've experienced that only in the USA and Canada, but it's being discussed in parts of Iceland, although not in any place in Iceland I've hiked). But perhaps there are also places where I should be more careful in advertising their beauty?

What criteria should I consider in whether or not to geotag photos online?

It seems likes this is mostly an issue of scale, in well-traveled areas where lots of people go it's not going to make a lot of difference, while remote areas that could possibly see lots of sudden traffic, it would not be a good thing.

Also was one to be an "outdoor influencer" with thousands and thousands of followers rather than an average person, the effects could be that much more severe.

On the one hand, there’s the notion that posting content on the outdoors inspires others to get outside (see: #OptOutside, et al.). On the other, there’s the very real fear that posting photos of hidden hikes and hot springs invites an influx of visitors these places lack the resources to handle.

Geotagging can also get specific, and that’s where the real issues start. “We’re having a lot of problems with people geotagging hidden or sensitive places,” Boué said, adding that these places don’t always have the infrastructure to handle a lot of new visitors.

Source

There are any number of small specific things in the outdoors that are preserved because not many people know about them, geotagging hurts that preservation.

My general experience is that the problem is really that most tourists are focused in some very tiny but extraordinary popular areas. For example I have seen places in the Rockies where you need to book your camping place slots months in advance... But if you simply visit the next valley over (literally, distance was probably some 5-10km) you can walk for a week without meeting another soul. The same in Scandinavia... If you're walking Kungsleden for example you might encounter 100 people a day - go to any of the side trails and they will often be abandoned.

The popularity of already popular tourist destinations has certainly increased with the advent of social media and the readily available digital pictures. However, in my estimate this is rather one of these 'the rich get richer' (or here: the popular get more popular) situations...

I don't think that there is any immediate danger for the remote places you visit and then tag in pictures - unless you do some stunning shots of a really extraordinary place and they go viral.

If you are on a photo safari where you take pictures of endangered big-game animals (elephants, rhions, lions, etc.), do not geo-tag your images. Poachers are known to check the geo-information from such pictures in order to locate the territories of these animals and hunt them.

According to this article, signs like this can be found in wildlife reserves in South Africa:

Another situation where you should avoid geotagging is if you are taking a picture which shows you engaging in some activity in a place where this activity is prohibited. But you would of course never camp, fish, hunt, climb, drive, or build a fire at a location where it isn't explicitly allowed, would you?

There's a saying in Arizona "If you like our wildness, go away".

I'm of a different mind. By going into nature, and coming out of it wishing it to be protected, we do a service to it. How can we know how important nature is if we don't go into it? If you geotag a location, and more people see that it's a nice spot, there will be more effort to keep it the way it is. This will help to stop things like clear-cutting or mining from happening.

With that in mind, Charlie Brumbaugh's answer brings up a good point: There are already rules in some places. We should probably follow them.

As an answer, get in contact with the local wildlife people. What are their actual concerns? They might want more tourists.

I agree with most of the posters here. You're probably not going to have a hugely detrimental effect unless one of your photos goes viral and then it's a balance between encouraging people to get out and love nature and the effect that LOTS of people doing that at once will have. Generally remote areas are mostly safe from that as most people can't up go take a three-day hike at a moment's notice.

But as was mentioned with the Rhino, DO NOT geotag any endangered species - plants, animals, fungus, or lichen! If you see something really cool, maybe give it a quick google before posting and when in doubt, ask the management authority (though I can only speak to US authorities here). If it's federal land, ask the National Park Service or the Forest Service, for States, the Department of Natural Resources or State Fish and Wildlife agencies are good. Rangers at both levels tend to be really nice people that will be thrilled to talk to someone who just wants to help (as opposed to yell at them for something out of their control). For more local areas, try your county Extension agent (Extension programs are run through the State's land grant University), and they should at least be able to point you in the right direction.
Also, I imagine most of these people who you call will have a good beat on the land you photographed and have an opinion on whether geotagging could be detrimental.

Seriously though, I know it sounds lame, but you wouldn't believe how many people steal endangered plants. It really bums me out.