Good Sam campground guide
We just took our first trip using the new Good Sam campground guide instead of our old Woodall's. What a disappointment! Only the Good Sam campgrounds are rated and they are not necessarily any bett...
Forum Discussion
My old Woodalls is the 2012 edition. I find it completely adequate for commercial parks, military parks, and some USFS campgrounds.
For detailed information about USFS campgrounds, I use this site:
http://www.forestcamping.com/dow/list/nflist.htm
Fred and Suzi Dow put a lot of effort into that site, and I have found their descriptions to be pretty much exactly the way it is!
For commercial parks, I rely more on the old Mark 1 Eyeball than any description in a book. What I see is what there really is. For a quick overnight I'm not very picky. If I plan to stay for a week or so, then I get VERY picky! I often find I do not agree with reviewers, whether it be a review of a movie, a motel, a campground, a restaurant, or wine (I once read a review praising a winery on Flathead Lake, in NW Montana. I bought some of their recommended wines, and found them rather disgusting! Most definitely not to MY taste!)
Of course, paid advertising is often unbelievable; it is geared to make the payer look as good as possible. Reality has nothing to do with it.
As for rating criteria, some things are the same no matter where (or what) the park is.
either the site measurements are accurate, or they are not.
either the number of sites is accurate, or it isn't.
either there are full hookups at each site, or there are not.
either the toilets and showers (if any) are clean or they are not.
the roads are either gravel, paved, or dirt (mud when wet).
the sites are either gravel, paved, or dirt (mud when wet).
either there is a firepit and table, or there isn't.
either there is stream or lake access or there isn't.
either the reviewer tells it like it is, or he/she doesn't.
etc.
It is NOT a "judgement call", it is either/or.
For detailed information about USFS campgrounds, I use this site:
http://www.forestcamping.com/dow/list/nflist.htm
Fred and Suzi Dow put a lot of effort into that site, and I have found their descriptions to be pretty much exactly the way it is!
For commercial parks, I rely more on the old Mark 1 Eyeball than any description in a book. What I see is what there really is. For a quick overnight I'm not very picky. If I plan to stay for a week or so, then I get VERY picky! I often find I do not agree with reviewers, whether it be a review of a movie, a motel, a campground, a restaurant, or wine (I once read a review praising a winery on Flathead Lake, in NW Montana. I bought some of their recommended wines, and found them rather disgusting! Most definitely not to MY taste!)
Of course, paid advertising is often unbelievable; it is geared to make the payer look as good as possible. Reality has nothing to do with it.
As for rating criteria, some things are the same no matter where (or what) the park is.
either the site measurements are accurate, or they are not.
either the number of sites is accurate, or it isn't.
either there are full hookups at each site, or there are not.
either the toilets and showers (if any) are clean or they are not.
the roads are either gravel, paved, or dirt (mud when wet).
the sites are either gravel, paved, or dirt (mud when wet).
either there is a firepit and table, or there isn't.
either there is stream or lake access or there isn't.
either the reviewer tells it like it is, or he/she doesn't.
etc.
It is NOT a "judgement call", it is either/or.
