QR Codes on the Trail

[miehoff]

The only way that I will like them.

If someone hand carves them with a chisel, I will be impressed.

 

[DougPaul]

But that URL can point to an enormous amount of information...

But only if you can access the information. Not everyone will have the capability or it may not work for a variety of reasons.

Doug

 

[Kevin Rooney]

But that URL can point to an enormous amount of information...

Bingo! We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.

It's not the bar code which contains the useful information, it's the potentiality (gotta love that word, thank you Dr. Chopra) of the information linked to a URL which in turn points to information stored on a server. It's possible for the smartphone to now have maps and other info downloaded to it within a few seconds, which could then supplement other information the hiker/walker might already have.

Is this a good thing? Is it practically feasible? Well, is the bar code itself vulnerable? Perhaps not if it the code is laser-etched into a steel sign, much like the signs you sometimes find in the National Parks and a few National Forests (signs leading to Horse Camp on Mt Shasta come immediately to mind).

In any case - at this point I'll reserve judgement on it. At first blush was reaction was similar to Walker's, but the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I've become. This approach may not prove practical in the National Forest setting, but we can be certain that using these specialized bar codes is an excellent pathway for providing information quickly in a host of settings.

(My evil twin also enjoys watching so many getting their shorts REALLY bunched up...)

 

[Brambor]

Nice target for pranks to substitute a with a funny qr code.

 

[psmart]

Here's an application of QR codes on urban trails:

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/greenlife/2012/02/a-walk-to-remember-pedestrian-signs-raleigh.html

 

[DougPaul]

But that URL can point to an enormous amount of information...

Bingo! We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.

Only if everyone can access that information with high reliability.
* Not everyone owns (or carries) expensive smart phones.
* Expensive smart phones are generally not weather resistant.
* Many trail locations do not have adequate cellphone signals.

QR codes are the equivalent of signs that only be read by a fraction of the hikers...

Doug

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Only if everyone can access that information with high reliability.
* Not everyone owns (or carries) expensive smart phones.
* Expensive smart phones are generally not weather resistant.
* Many trail locations do not have adequate cellphone signals.

QR codes are the equivalent of signs that only be read by a fraction of the hikers...

Doug

I did a quick google on "what percentage of people have smartphones" and found this article citing Pew entitled "Smartphone Adoption and Usage". It says, in part "In its first standalone measure of smartphone ownership, the Pew Internet Project finds that one third of American adults – 35% – own smartphones. The Project’s May survey found that 83% of US adults have a cell phone of some kind, and that 42% of them own a smartphone. That translates into 35% of all adults."

So, if the 35% figure is accurate, we don't know how representative that is of the hiker community. If it is representative, that's still much potentiality (there's that word again).

Are they expensive? I'd argue that point - a few months ago I upgraded from a cell phone to a smartphone via Costco. My smartphone is a Droid - Samsung Stratosphere to be exact. Not the top of the line, but not shabby either. The cost to me for the phone itself was $30 - rather modest. I did have to buy a data plan, and I now pay $40/month extra for my combined service. My monthly bill is now about $80, and I'll let others decide whether that is expensive. What I get for is a rather powerful, small computer that delivers email, my calendar, text messaging, bar code scanning (free app, BTW) and a whole host of other useful utilities. Oh, and occasionally I make/receive a phone call. But mostly, it's my smallest computer. So, count me in with those 35%, and rapidly growing, smartphone users.

As for cell service - there are a few pockets in the Whites where there is no cell service at a trailhead, but they get fewer every year.

As for a smartphone's weather-resistance - you're reaching for straws, Doug! Those of us who carry a cell or smartphone now already have worked out a reasonable method of protecting it from the elements. I doubt flashing it a barcode at the trailhead is going to create an undue risk to its longevity.

I say all of this with the caveat contained in my first post - I'll still wait on this particular usage of technology before I make a decision as to whether it enhances or detracts. What is clear to me is that smartphone usage will continue to rise, and my crystal ball says that fewer and fewer basic cell phones will be purchased. That may cause screams from the Luddites of "Say it ain't so!" but that would be like pushing the river.

 

[Tom Rankin]

That translates into 35% of all adults."

So, if the 35% figure is accurate, we don't know how representative that is of the hiker community. If it is representative, that's still much potentiality (there's that word again).

I'd bet it's higher. I've contended that hiking is an endeavor that requires a higher than average income.

 

[marnof]

So this percentile of hikers with smartphones (that have carriers in the vicinity of the QR-coded sign) are pretty likely to have access to apps or other web-based info already, making the QR link even less useful. Most smartphone users I know are pretty keen on getting apps that cover their hobbies and interests.

 

[spencer]

the Pew Internet Project finds that one third of American adults – 35% – own smartphones.

Perhaps irrelevant, but I would wager that 35% is pretty close to the percentage of hikers in the WMNF at any given time during the warm months that actually have, and know how to use, a map and compass.

Doug - your arguments are most always quite sound and logical, but I don't think your points are valid this time. An increasing number of people (and already a critical mass) have smartphones, QR codes can link to unlimited amounts of information, and there is cell coverage at an already large, and growing, number of locations where these would be best deployed in the Whites.

For some interesting insight into the mind of a budding engineer/designer, check out the original post on Backpacking Light that started this debate. While I personally still think the application of QR in the backcountry is kind of lame and may seem like an infringement on some people's reasons for being in the woods, I can definitely see the merit in the overall idea. It seems well suited to places like short nature trails around tourist centers (e.g., Highland Center). I can see a great application for arboretums, botanical gardens, etc. I wish this guy luck!

 

[Red Oak]

If someone hand carves them with a chisel, I will be impressed.

Reminds me of the person or persons who carved "Jah rastarfari",all over the whites about a year ago,funny stuff. Who needs a smart phone when you can have a smart chisel?But we should not encourage a earthfirst type of anti-tech. vandalism on signs in the whites.

 

[DougPaul]

Doug - your arguments are most always quite sound and logical, but I don't think your points are valid this time. An increasing number of people (and already a critical mass) have smartphones, QR codes can link to unlimited amounts of information, and there is cell coverage at an already large, and growing, number of locations where these would be best deployed in the Whites.

I think there is an issue of differing unstated assumptions from different posters...

Navigation can be a life-or-death issue in backcountry travel and IMO removing signs and replacing then with QR codes is dangerous because it will deny vital information to some users. On the other hand, I have no fundamental problem* with adding QR codes to existing signs as long as the basic navigational info is human-readable without a QR code reader.

* I oppose their use in the woods for additional info on esthetic and philosophical grounds, but not safety.

A rather obvious parallel example: a zoo would put a "Dangerous" sign on lion's cage, not a QR code stating the same... (But they might add a QR code to the "Dangerous" sign to tell you more about lions.)

Psmart's post shows an appropriate application: additional (or duplicate) info added to human-readable signs in an urban area (good cellphone signal area).

Doug

 

[spencer]

Navigation can be a life-or-death issue in backcountry travel and IMO removing signs and replacing then with QR codes is dangerous because it will deny vital information to some users. On the other hand, I have no fundamental problem* with adding QR codes to existing signs as long as the basic navigational info is human-readable without a QR code reader.

I totally agree with that. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has suggested replacing critical trail info (e.g., distance, arrows, names) with QR codes. If you go look at the pictures of examples that started this debate you'll see the QRs are in addition to the usual info.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I am sure nobody suggested replacement of typical signage with QR codes, only to supplement existing information. Note that (already) a Wilderness designation requires a reduced information level, like no distances on the trail signs, and presumably this would preclude QR codes.

As a supplementary form of information, they have a lot to offer with a very minimal footprint.

- data in more than one language
- trails / trail maps / distances / suggested hikes
- general announcements
- weather/weather warnings
- closures, hazards, obstacles
- educational links (LNT, 10 essentials, etc.)
- more timely / near real-time information
- instant access to information for the unprepared hiker

Yes, they can be damaged, but have some redundancy / error correction built in.
Yes, there is an aesthetic objection by some.

While I have no proof or sources to cite, I would bet more than 35% of the WMNF visitors have smart phones. I often feel like the only one who does not have a smart phone (and I plan to get one when my current plan expires.) Many visitors (not all) are younger, Boston-area residents, who don't even have land lines.

I know from running vftt.org that the mobile users are not to be discounted - there are plenty of them reading this on a smart phone.

I'd be entirely in favor of a trial at some popular trail heads. Unfortunately, without an observer/recorder, it would be hard (impossible?) to know how many people change their minds (and leave), and what number of those would have come a SAR statistic.

I probably wouldn't even notice a QR code since I don't even really look at trail signs any more - been there enough to know exactly where I am going.

Tim

 

[Gremlin]

Fascinating discussion. Thank you all.

I'll need to see QR codes in action before I can make a decision, however, this thread informs my ability to come to a decision.

 

[DougPaul]

I totally agree with that. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has suggested replacing critical trail info (e.g., distance, arrows, names) with QR codes. If you go look at the pictures of examples that started this debate you'll see the QRs are in addition to the usual info.

I didn't see it stated either way...

Yes the example shown in the first post shows an add-on. However, a common strategy is to first add on, then decide/declare that the old is redundant, and finally replace. (A version of divide and conquer--a little like the way Rte 93 was shoved through Franconia Notch.)

If one must use them, then I'd rather see them limited to add-ons at the trailhead kiosk. IMO in the backcountry, they are just another form of litter.

BTW, the smart way to deploy them at the trailhead would be to download a map and nearby trail info into the cellphone. That way the info and map could be accessed while on the trail even if one could not access a cell tower (at least while the batteries last...).

Doug

 

[dug]

I'd bet it's higher. I've contended that hiking is an endeavor that requires a higher than average income.

Interesting take. Probably depends on what people consider "hiking".

We specifically got into hiking as a fairly large family without a lot of disposable income, who could spend a day together with no additional gear than what we already had on (shorts, a t-shirt, a sweatshirt, and a pair of workboots).

As of the QR-itself...good conversation and I haven't personally formed an opinion yet.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I probably wouldn't even notice a QR code since I don't even really look at trail signs any more - been there enough to know exactly where I am going.

Aren't you the QleveR one!

But you should have made the QR code a link as well!

 

[TomK]

It's the recurring costs of a smartphone

The occasional costs to acquire and periodically upgrade a smartphone isn't as big a deal as the recurring costs for service/data every month. I have a non-smart prepaid phone, and my total *yearly* costs are about $100.

It would be possible to work around the cell coverage problem with an app that would cache the data for the area that you tell it you are going to be in, and then uses the QR code to access the cached data.

TomK

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...
I know from running vftt.org that the mobile users are not to be discounted - there are plenty of them reading this on a smart phone.

Yes, and others are using their smartphones with a utility such as PdaNet to "tether" their smartphone via a USB cable to their laptop, which turns the smartphones into a wireless router, or at least as their tethered device (i.e., their laptop) is concerned. PdaNet is in the 'droid world - IIRC, iPhones have a similar capability, or will have (again). I've even tethered my desktop to my smartphone when my ISP is down/very slow.

It's a very powerful feature of smartphones, and makes sure I'm always connected to such scintillating discussions like augmenting trail information in the backcountry using QR codes ...