Okay, I accept the argument regarding limited, established sites. Maybe the focus could be on which ones to avoid!
Okay, I accept the argument regarding limited, established sites. Maybe the focus could be on which ones to avoid!
I love the idea, but I also agree with others. I believe that everyone should enjoy nature, but still be kind to her and our brethren. These secret spots that the brave people have uncovered through tedious and diligent work should remain so.
Believe me, there is nothing more that I would have loved than to have this insight during my first ever 7,000 mile road trip last year.
With ease of information, rift raft will follow all too quickly with their inconsiderate litter, graffiti, and noise.
There is nothing secret about Mount Sterling in the Smokies or Helen Lake in Glacier, everyone who knows about the respective park is probably aware that these are great places. At the same time, there are people who are likely planning their first trip to one of these parks and may not be aware of great sites or terrible sites. This website is designed to help people plan trips to places where there aren't really any secrets, but it may involve a lot of work gathering information. People ask online about where to go for 2-3 nights in the Smokies and someone always mentions Mt Sterling because it is an obvious place if you have never been to the park. Instead of asking around on a bunch of forums, someone could do the initial research with this website.
Maybe as someone said above, people should just review the crappy campsites and not mention the good ones. That would still be beneficial for planning purposes.
To give a specific example. In the Smokies, I reviewed sites 40 and 41. Both are in the Cataloochee area and are only a couple trail miles apart. Site 41 is great, site 40 sucks. Neither one is secret, if you want to camp in the Cataloochee area, you will likely be staying in one of these sites, but if you have never been there before it is hard to gather information ahead of time. I'm really happy that I randomly choose site 41 the first time I was in the area.
https://backpackandbeer.blogspot.com...ee-valley.html
When "101 Hikes in xxx" was publish decades ago, it was a blessing and a curse. People wanting the outdoor experience had some info about where to go and EVERYONE went there. One person pointed out it could be a feature, not a bug. Because "everyone went there" so she knew where NOT to go. In a specific case, one of our high lakes, Mirror Lake, is always mentioned in hiking books. So everyone goes/stops there. But looking at a map, there's a cluster of lakes further up the trail. I'm happy the guide books mention Mirror Lake (and stops there).
Given that we have a Trip Report sub-forum, perhaps it could be reorganized by State. Because reports aren't as useful if you can't find them. To that end, it would be helpful if first the state, then the campsite name, were placed in the thread title. In other words, something to let me know the report describes an area of interest.
Maybe adventures that just go "somewhere" can just have a more general tread title (but at least State would be useful). For a formal (named) camp area it would be helpful to know how friendly the regulations and/or Camp host are with hammocks and, with numbered campsites, which ones have the best tree location for hanging.
Sometimes camp sites have to be reserved, online, ahead of time. Nice to know what site number (or numbers) would the good for a hang.
I thought I posted this idea before but in the original I went off on how our local forest service decided to remedy overuse by charging a fee for all the popular trails so those who couldn't afford it would drop out. Perhaps that got too political
Last edited by cougarmeat; 02-06-2019 at 13:21.
It looks like I was the first to review sites in Rocky Mountain National Park!
I only reviewed the two in which I stayed. I feel like the information I shared could help steer someone toward one and away from another.
Bookmarks