Question on determining campsite size?

korbe wrote:

fla-gypsy wrote:
I am not sure why this would be debatable? It's overall length. Nothing else makes any sense or stands up to reason.

What? Debatable? Everything is debatable. Especially on a forum that caters to us opinionated folks. :B

The debate is now open then~

fla-gypsy wrote:
I am not sure why this would be debatable? It's overall length. Nothing else makes any sense or stands up to reason.

What? Debatable? Everything is debatable. Especially on a forum that caters to us opinionated folks. :B

fla-gypsy wrote:
I am not sure why this would be debatable? It's overall length. Nothing else makes any sense or stands up to reason.

x2

I am not sure why this would be debatable? It's overall length. Nothing else makes any sense or stands up to reason.

since to date I have never paid for my site per foot... I give the total length including everything... this would usually assure me that the site will be large enough..

In general, your safer to include the length to the tongue when checking out the site sizes.

Depends on the cg.

National park online reservations, for example, specify that they want the total length of all vehicles that will be there, and you cannot be one inch longer. So I round up.

In a phone call to a private park, I usually just say 'class B'. (And I explain that it's really just a minivan with bed, fridge, and toilet, in case they have a problem with that but only one park ever has.) Length does not generally come up.

If I had a bigger rig I think I would ask them about their sites, what would be good for me. And tell them how good/bad I was at backing it :).

Well, when we're asked by an RV park we give the legal length (34 feet)....I would believe THEY would know there is tongue, etc. When reserving state parks, etc, I look at the length of the site and determine if our rig and our truck will fit in :) :)

My way is to give the total size including the tongue and back bumper and then add a foot.