Location-based time tracking answers one question well and several badly. It can tell you whether somebody reached a job, which is genuinely hard to establish otherwise for mobile work. It cannot tell you whether they were working, and the further you push it beyond arrival and departure the less defensible it becomes.
State the question in one sentence
Did the visit happen, or where is the nearest engineer, or how long was spent on this job. Each needs a different configuration, and products sold for one are frequently deployed for another. Choose the least collection that answers your sentence, because everything beyond it is a record you must justify, secure and eventually delete.
Set retention before go live
Location history accumulates quietly and becomes the most sensitive dataset a small employer holds. Decide how many weeks you keep and make the product enforce it rather than trusting a habit. A retention rule the software applies is a control; a retention policy in a document is an intention.
Where it genuinely earns its place
Field service, home care, security patrols, multi site cleaning and trades. In each, work happens where the customer is, nobody passes a fixed door, and confirming attendance is a commercial question rather than a suspicion about staff. In those settings the record often protects the worker as much as the employer.
Questions people ask about location-based time tracking
Can workers see their own location record?
They are usually entitled to, and good products show it by default. Choosing one that does removes a whole category of suspicion at no cost.
How accurate is it?
A few metres outdoors and much worse indoors or in dense city centres. Treat it as corroboration rather than proof.
Do we need an impact assessment?
For systematic location monitoring of staff, it is commonly expected and it improves the specification. Doing it first is cheaper than retrofitting.