By the AirCourt team · June 30, 2026
When a parks team decides to start counting how spaces get used, one of the first questions is whether to use a camera-based approach or a non-camera one. It is a fair question, and the honest answer is that both can give you the anonymous usage counts you are after. The real difference is less about accuracy and more about fit, what a given site needs, and how a community feels about cameras in public space.
AirCourt offers two categories for this reason. AirWave is our non-camera option, and AirCam is our camera-based option. Both are available on the platform today. We describe them as categories on purpose, because what matters for your decision is what each one is for and what each one means for privacy, not the inner workings of either.
Start with the privacy outcome, because that is what residents and council members will ask about first, and the answer is the same for both categories. Either way, the only thing that reaches you is an anonymous count of how many people were present and when. No personal data is retained. No individual is identifiable. With the camera-based option, no unblurred image is kept. Whatever category you choose, a visitor in your park does not become a record of a person. They are part of a total, and nothing more.
Given that the privacy result is the same, the choice usually comes down to the setting. A non-camera option like AirWave tends to be the easier conversation in places where the very sight of a camera would worry people, or where mounting one is impractical. It lets you measure a space without putting a lens on it, which removes a common objection before it is raised. For many parks, trails, and open areas, that is reason enough.
A camera-based option like AirCam fits other situations better. Some spaces are complex enough, or busy enough, that a camera-based approach is the more natural fit for getting a reliable count, while still keeping every visitor anonymous and keeping no unblurred image. The point of having both categories is that you are not forced to stretch one approach across every kind of site. You can match the option to the place.
Whichever you pick, the standard does not move. Anonymous counts only. No personal data retained. No individual identifiable. No unblurred image kept. We hold both categories to that same line because a counting program that compromises on privacy will not survive contact with the public it serves, and it should not. If you want the full detail on how we handle data, our privacy page lays it out.
If you are weighing the two options for your own sites, a good next step is a conversation about the specific spaces you want to measure. You can see both categories in context on our solutions page, or schedule a demo and we can talk through which fits where.