IFTA requires accurate miles by jurisdiction. You can get there with constant GPS tracking or with city-based (map-based) routing. Both can be compliant, but they differ in privacy, data volume, and operational overhead.
GPS tracking: pros and cons
- Pros: Highly granular, captures real detours and stops, easy to automate.
- Cons: Privacy concerns, larger data storage, device/battery burden, and noisy data cleanup.
City-based mileage: pros and cons
- Pros: Privacy-friendly, lightweight data, predictable and reproducible routes for audits.
- Cons: Doesn’t capture every small detour; needs a solid routing engine and boundary splits.
Auditability & compliance
- Auditors want reproducible miles by state and reasonable MPG.
- Map-based routes are easy to replay; GPS data can be noisy but highly detailed.
- Whichever you choose, keep routes, timestamps, and fuel links for at least 4 years.
When to use which
- GPS-heavy fleets: If you already run telematics and need near-real-time visibility.
- Privacy-first drivers/fleets: City-based routing for predictable, audit-ready miles without constant tracking.
- Hybrid: Light GPS cadence (e.g., every 30 minutes) plus map-based mileage to balance visibility and privacy.
Bottom line
Both methods can meet IFTA requirements. GPS gives granular visibility; city-based mileage protects privacy and is easy to reproduce. Pick the approach that fits your operations, document it, and retain audit-ready records.