Layout of campgrounds

[jarata1]

Just started getting into camping one thing I noticed is the campsites are all in a row right on top of each other.Its really frustrating.They almost look like refugee camps.
Does anyone else feel this way and is it a matter of just looking to find the best campgrounds.
I like the state campgrounds they seem more speadout but im wondering if they are a little more wild do to maybe not as much rules about noise

[DE88ROX]

Just spent 2 weeks at our favorite SP. And once again im left scratching my head at what was going through someones mind when they laid out the sites.

Mostly, the placement of the fire rings. Some are right in the middle of the site, forcing you to roll up your awning if you wanted a fire. Other are so close to the side boundry, that any decent fire would surely get the trailer next you a tad warm. They even have a few sites where the fire rings are about 6' away from the site behind you.

Im pretty sure that the people that laid out these sits never camped a day in their life. Just like the car designers that never have to repair their own vehicles.

[Opie431]

The state park we go to has strict rules about noise and enforces them. You can get a large site with lots of trees or the sardine can sites. And we have seen state parks with the sardine can sites. Every time you are near a park, drive thru and make a list of the sites you would be willing to take.

[broark01]

All this is the reason that I prefer boat camping on a nice lake, river or ocean where you can find your own cove away from the masses and nitwits that campgrounds seem to attract. Think I will try to talk the wife into selling the camper.

[myredracer]

Don't know about the eastern US but on the west coast, Thousand Trails are typically well spaced apart and in many, you can't see neighbors at all because of all the foliage and trees. But they're often old and in some of them you've got to be able to put up with low voltage, low water pressure, lack of sewer hookups, lack of 50 amps and/or overgrown trees in the way (can't be cut down or trimmed).

We don't mind being close to neighbors, but we hate it when a row of pull-through share the same pedestals and you end up with your awning almost touching theirs. RVparkreviews.com is good but note that some RV-ers expectations can very widely.

[Roy_Lynne]

That is called "parking" not camping and as others have mentioned, state, country and even city parks are usually better than those concrete pads for a price. But saying that, usually they have a small pool, might have a club house and generally all have washers and dryers, so some of us, schedule a stop at them to do our laundry. Also for just traveling thru, they often are better than WalMart or campgrounds due to being easy in and easy out.

[qtla9111]

Boondock. It's a lot more fun and you can really get away. Install a good solar package and enjoy the great outdoors.

Rio Grande Valley has a park where you get a lot with a frame only coach house to use as you please. It costs $50,000 plus monthly fees. So as someone quoted about turning the orange grove into a portion of the park, those 40 sites were $25,000 with the land already included. Not a bad price considering the example above.

[bigred1cav]

Cloughfam wrote:
My family and I tend to do state parks in order to have some space and quiet. The fact that alcohol is prohibited helps things stay quiet. Fewer golf carts and less water parks allow us to enjoy nature....but certainly to each his own.

Please send me a list of those parks

[jarata1]

I had no idea it costs that much to build a site

[johnhicks]

About 10 years ago our co-op park in central Florida turned an orange grove into a 40-slot RV park. No trees, just a field with paved streets and drainage.

$1,000,000+. Seriously. And we already owned the land.

[PawPaw_n_Gram]

The space between campsites costs money for installation/ setup.

Just think of it this way.

Every extra 5 feet between campsites means an extra 5 feet of sewer line has to be laid and plumbed, and extra 5 feet of water line is needed, and extra 5 feet of electrical cable has to be added. Do that for 40 sites, and it runs into some real money.

If you are laying out an RV park, not a destination park, you are going to minimize your costs as much as reasonable, and you will want as many spaces as zoning or physical layout will allow to maximize income.

As mentioned several times, government run parks tend to provide more space between campsites.

However, I've noticed that new or newly redone government campgrounds tend to be putting in more spaces closer together.

Another problem I've seen occurred last year when we went to a COE campground where my family spend a lot of weekends in the 1960s.

There used to be 16 campsites in one area where we liked to camp, a bit close together, but plenty of room for everyone to enjoy. We were all in tents then.

Today there are 10 campsites with 45 ft long RV pads, 50A/W. The sites are incredibly crowded, about 10 ft between rigs. The slides barely leave room to walk between the rigs, or the rig and the road.

The size of the campsite we want has gotten larger over the years.

Google Earth is my friend. I always try to look at campgrounds on a satellite view before we go there. At least when I get crowded in, I'm usually not surprised.

[Dutch_12078]

SoundGuy wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:
There are parks with better sites if you look for them.

Sumter Oaks RV Park, Bushnell, FL:

Jacksonville North/St Mary's KOA, Kingsland, GA:

The Villages at Turning Stone, Verona, NY:

Those are "better" sites? I'd call those maybe a 3 out of 10! :E

You need to come north here to Ontario where a "better" site would look more like this ...



Obviously of the tens of thousands of sites available in the provincial park system, conservation areas, etc, not all are this generous but as a general rule this is what you'll often get. Neighbours? ... sure, might be lucky to see part of the site next to you ... maybe. One downside - those camping on electric sites in the provincial park system would be well advised to have lots of main service cable on hand as 100'+ runs aren't unusual at all. :E

And yes, we have camped in many various parts of the US and haven't often found sites as private as those here in Ontario. :B

I purposely only showed a few private park sites, since that seemed to be what the OP was griping about. If I included the thousands of available federal and state park sites, I would have included sites like this one at Myakka River State Park in Florida:



Or this site at the COE Tompkins Lake park near Tioga, PA:



Yes, there absolutely are some very private provincial park sites in Canada, just as there are in the US if that's your primary criteria and are willing to look for them.

[dave54]

parkmanaa wrote:
The biggest difference between a private park and a Govt. park be it Corps of Engineers, or just a park built by a state, is one is privately financed, the
others are Govt. subsidized. One must make a profit or close it's doors, the others can lose money forever and still remain open.
Cost of building a nice park is extremely high. A few years ago The National Assn. of Campground Owners came out with a cost figure of $14,000 per site to construct, AFTER you buy your land. That means a 100 site park costs $1.4 million dollars to build plus cost of the land, which is also expensive if located in a good location with high traffic count.
It's a matter of Govt. supplying or private industry supplying the park.

x2. And ongoing high maintenance/operation costs after it is all built. Depending on location the peak use may be seasonal, so the owners must make a years worth of income in only 4-5 months. No one gets independently wealthy running a private RV park.
Profit is not a dirty word.

[mgirardo]

Except for our seasonal site, most of our camping is in state parks in FL, GA & SC. We prefer wooded sites and some privacy. State parks usually offer both of those, although some do not - like Topsail near Destin, FL. Probably the only non-state park we stay in near home is Disney's Fort Wilderness. Most of their sites are roomy. The ones we try to stay at have a lot of "wilderness" around it.

Our seasonal site is more like a parking lot campground, but there are lots of trees and every site has grass. To our west is a farm with great sunsets. To the east is another seasonal camper. They are an older couple, very nice and very quiet. To the south there are two rows in front of us, but the sites directly in front of us are no longer usable, so we have a view of the lake about 150 feet away. To the north is another older seasonal couple, except they are rarely here. They rarely spend the night and when they do come, it's usually only for a few hours.

-Michael

[Mr_Mark1]

Dennis M M wrote:
Best bet is to go to RV Park Reviews.com and check the reviews.

I also look at the satellite view on Google Maps to see if the site I want has a clear view of the sky for the sat dish.

I use that site religiously. It has certainly given us good info about parks to try and ones to avoid. I'm amazed at how some parks get such a low rating.

We skipped western Los Angeles area once just because of the low ratings of the parks in that area and drove much further than we would normally. When we stay at parks, I will rate them on rvparkreviews.com. I find the poster's opinions very helpful.

MM.