> "Give us a list of secret sites you don't want us to cover". This seems like a non-starter to me. If the gov't hands out an accurate list, they've given out

> "Give us a list of secret sites you don't want us to cover". This seems like a non-starter to me. If the gov't hands out an accurate list, they've given out the secret and it's no longer under their control, negating the whole point of having secret sites. If they pollute the list with random, bogus (but plausible) data to reduce it's utility for discovering secret gov't locations, it also reduces the utility for Strava as well, as now there's random swaths of land where nothing is logged, despite there being nothing there. I have to say, part of this seems like an opsec failure on the part of the various militaries and government agencies. I would hope that whomever is in charge of security at a sensitive facility would recognize that modern phones are general purpose computers that are, amongst other things, location aware. If a facility's location or whom works there is sensitive info, the security officer should probably be forbidding phones from being operated while on site, or even being brought to the site in the first place.