The short version
If your contract specifies interior checkpoints on separate floors of one building, a scanning system answers something a site boundary cannot, and you should buy one. For perimeter patrols, mobile rounds and multi-site work, presence measured over time is the stronger record and there is nothing to install or maintain.
Side by side
| Scanning guard tour systems | VisitsTracker | |
|---|---|---|
| Install at each site | NFC tags, QR codes or beacons | Nothing, draw or import the boundary |
| What is recorded | A scan: identifier plus timestamp | Arrival, departure and duration |
| Officer action required | Scan every checkpoint | None |
| Interior checkpoints by floor | Yes | No, boundary level only |
| Defeatable by | Photographing a QR code, moving a tag | Mock location, which is detected and marked |
| Maintenance | Replace damaged or missing markers | None |
| Tamper evidence on the log | Varies by vendor | Per-day hash seal, verifiable |
| Client-facing proof | Scan report | Standing portal, expiring links, day report PDF |
Where scanning guard tour systems is the better choice
Interior granularity
A tag proves an officer reached one exact point inside a large building. A single site boundary cannot tell the third floor from the sixth. This is a real and specific advantage and it is the reason the category exists.
Depth in the trade
Incident reporting, post orders, client portals and scheduling built specifically for guarding, from vendors who have sold to security companies for years. Some of that we have, some we do not.
A tag works with no signal and a dead battery
A physical checkpoint does not depend on a location fix. In deep basements and shielded structures that matters.
Familiarity
Supervisors and clients already understand a scan log. Explaining dwell-based evidence takes a conversation.
Where we are
A scan proves a phone touched a sticker
One vendor describes it plainly: guards scan checkpoints using the mobile app, with NFC tags, QR codes or Bluetooth beacons placed at designated locations. That records an identifier and a timestamp. It does not record how long anyone stayed.
A QR code is an image
Photograph it once and it scans from the car park. NFC needs contact and is harder, though tags can be prised off and moved. Neither medium was designed to resist someone trying to defeat it.
Hardware-free still means tags on walls
The modern pitch is no proprietary RFID wand, which is true and narrower than it sounds. You still install a marker at every point and replace the ones that get painted over or vandalised. We install nothing.
A tour of eight points is eight instants and seven blanks
The blanks are most of the shift. Dwell inside the boundary covers the whole of it.
Their own argument, better answered
A category vendor writes that if a system cannot answer these questions clearly it is not creating proof, it is only collecting data, and that a timestamp alone may show only that something was entered into a system. We agree. A scan is that timestamp.
Faked positions never count
Readings from mock-location tools are marked and excluded from patrols, hours and mileage while staying visible, including in what you send the client.
Questions
Is a scanning system worse than this?
Not universally. For interior checkpoints on separate floors it answers something we cannot. For proving how long an officer was on a site, a scan does not contain the answer and dwell does.
What if the client insists on checkpoints?
Some contracts specify them. Then buy a scanning system, and be clear with yourself about what the scan log proves if the patrol is ever disputed.
Do we need to buy any hardware?
No tags, QR codes, beacons or wands. You draw each site boundary on a map or import boundaries you already hold.
How is a patrol proven without a scan?
By time spent inside the boundary, from readings we are prepared to stand behind, with arrival and departure recorded. A reading flagged as faked never counts toward it.
The relevant product pages