Is a Resort REALLY a Resort & is a Park REALLY a Park or??

[Keeter59]

We all have probably run into this problem. We check a website and it looks great. We plan to stay 3 or 4 days and when we get there it is NOTHING like what it looked like on the website. I have been working for almost a year on an EXHAUSTIVE project that lists RV Parks & Resorts. I am tired of pulling into a "big-rig" friendly place that maybe go-cart friendly at most. If anyone is interested let me know. I might try to publish this project. It includes an Excel Spreadsheet cross-referenced to places I have marked on Google Earth. A Resort should be a Resort and a Park should be a Park and a Campground should be a Campground and a hell-hole should NOT be any of the aforementioned.
By the way, if any of you use Google Earth to check out a site, if you use the date of satellite passover tool you can see if the same vehicles have been there for an extended period. You can learn a lot with Google Earth and whether or not the site has long-termers or permanents.
Again, if anyone wants to help with this endeavor let me know. It is mainly for 40" and larger rigs which is where I feel "Big Rigs" start.

[Community Alumni]

fla-gypsy wrote:
Sites like this one are your friend;

http://www.campsitephotos.com/

I think that this site has old photos. I looked up a camp at Timothy Lake Oregon, Pine Point, and it has the old photos prior to a re-do in 2011.

jimR

[MartyG2]

To me, an RV park is just a bunch of concrete slaps with hookups. Maybe a nice building, laundry, etc. Sometimes not even picnic tables outside. Designed for big RV's and MOHO's that stay inside.
My definition for a campground is more space, more tables, outdoor swings, parks, paths, tent spaces, etc. KOA and state parks fit in this category, IMO.
State and county parks take it down another notch. Usually water/electric only, if you have that. Stop by the dump station on your way out.
These are only generalities, and there are of course exceptions, but this is how we see them.

[Aridon]

Welcome to the Internet. Threads of random people commenting on things tend to wander all over. Someone replying in the thread isn't necessarily replying to the OP and when you make a thread it sometimes can get hijacked usually unintentionally.

[Bill_Satellite]

Keeter59 wrote:
I think many have missed my point entirely. I'll just use my own project and you guys can do as you have been. Nevermind!

Interesting. You don't like some of the responses so you are going to completely ignore them, take your ball and go home.
I am sorry to hear that you were really just looking for confirmation and not an open discussion.

[DutchmenSport]

Keeter59 wrote:
I think many have missed my point entirely. I'll just use my own project and you guys can do as you have been. Nevermind!

Don't give up. You've gotta be thick skinned to hang around here. Consider all the negatives, (and positives) and then ask yourself, "Why?" Behind everyone's comments, there's some real personal experiences that have caused them to respond the way they do. Maybe the negatives are worth exploring???

[Keeter59]

I think many have missed my point entirely. I'll just use my own project and you guys can do as you have been. Nevermind!

[BillMFl]

Almost all parks are mostly equal unless its raining a lot. Then some pretty nice parks turn into mud soup. One thing is a lot of the older parks have trees that were nice and small when the park was built but have become way bigger and make getting in and out very tight. And also snug for slide outs. Also some of the older parks have all the hookups to the rear instead of midship where most class A"s are now.

[Aridon]

We've been through many parks over the years and have seen very very very FEW dumps.

Mostly we use rvparkreviews.com and most of the comments tend to be pretty easy to decipher if a place is decent or not.

I don't care what they call themselves. Titles are great to placate people with small minds. I don't worry about if the "resort" I'm at is really a resort or more of a "RV Park". The owner can call it the "sheep barn" if its got hookups and ok we'll stay there.

[cvbdsl]

Bill.Satellite wrote:

hardtobe wrote:

Bill.Satellite wrote:
It sounds like it would be too speculative to me since you would be using other peoples input and out of date info as would be found on Google Earth. If you feel like you would like to do it, do it but as you said, it would just be "just one more reference" and if you are looking to find that "Discriminating Motor Coach Adventurer" you have just cut your market again by about 99%. I pick a park basis upon my travel requirements. If I want to visit St. Louis and you don't like the parks in the area I am not going to stay in St. Charles because there is a park there for the Discriminating RVer!

?

While I do find your response to be a brilliant commentary on my post, I wondered if you could provide any further details that I might be able to clarify. :S

Wow, thought I would check out your profile. You joined 3 days ago and have made 69 posts (avg 23 per day). Hope 68 of them were not "?" Welcome to the group!

It sounds like our least favorite troll is back as "hardtobe" - he always makes a bunch of comments (mainly negative) before the moderator catches him again. If you see he is still on here, report it to the moderator so he can be shut down again.

Chris

[Old-Biscuit]

Deleted due to OPs posting

Keeter59 wrote:
I think many have missed my point entirely. I'll just use my own project and you guys can do as you have been. Nevermind!

[carp65]

We traveled over 5,000 miles last summer. Planned our trip using
the Good Sam Atlas and Campground books. Only had one "park" we
did not feel was up to the standard and we moved to another park.

The previous summer we traveled thru New England and in New Jersey
we had a bummer campground--only one on the whole trip.

The nice thing about full-timing is "if you don't like where you
are or your neighbors are obnoxious and have a barking dog, you
can always move"!

[jerseyjim]

RLS7201: An interesting subject you inferr here. I've seen ads in the RV mags of these "high end" parks that only accept Class A (DP?) motorhomes, and a guy in a Ferrari at the entrance of the place.
I guess me and my 12 year old gasser pulling a 6 year old HHR or 3 year old Ranger might not be welcome, even if I offer to pay the going rate of perhaps over $125/day.

To each their own.

[RLS7201]

Man! I hope you guys figure this out. I really hate staying in low budget, un-kept camp grounds with short older coaches. Snuggling up in between 40+' coaches gives me a warn, fuzzy, secure feeling. GRIN

Richard
95 Bounder 32'

[Bill_Satellite]

I know I mentioned it earlier, but for those unfamiliar with this relatively new site, you really should check out RV Parky RV Parky It's available on line as well as an app for your phone. I find it easier to use than rvparkreviews and it's just the facts with the parks amenities listed, big rig friendly (or not), etc., and location. Most have a link to the parks website if one is available. Well run and created by an RVer for the RVer.

[okgc]

fredbon wrote:
If it's my first visit, I use RV Park Reviews

X3
Internet has made review so much easier. We usually discount the best and worst reviews to look for the real story on the facility.