Expectations at RV Parks - Do you adapt?

[bigdogger]

I was reading the bad reviews on rvparkreviews.com today and was struck by how some people apparently are unwilling or unable to adjust their expectations based on special circumstances.
On person gave a park the lowest possible score because of guests making noise. Understandable, until you realize they were staying at a park adjacent to Churchill Downs during the Kentucky Derby. The reviewer even said they were there because of the race. Surely most people would understand that the Derby is the biggest party in Kentucky and no one would expect normal quiet hours to prevail that weekend, but not that reviewer.
A second reviewer was upset that the park they were staying in told them they should disconnect their hoses at night due to freezing temperatures. I would consider that to be good advice and welcome news, not these people. The park also unhooked their washing machines in the evening (the reviewer said they were outside) again a prudent move if a freeze was expected. Didn't make a difference to the reviewer, to them freezing temperatures and precautions to make sure damage didn't occur results in the lowest possible score.
I try to put things into perspective and rate accordingly. What do you do?

[Skid_Row_Joe]

bigdogger wrote:

Pogoil wrote:

MiRV wrote:

docj wrote:


I pretty much agree with you, but the comment "the park is full of long term tenants" I think is a pejorative remark that is often unfair and out of touch with the realities of life in the US these days.

As full-timers my DW and I like to travel and have found that the percentage of RV parks with "long term tenants" is well over 50% and includes major chains such as KOA that have, in the past, almost exclusively appealed to families on vacation.

For a variety of reasons there are lots of people living on a long term basis in RV parks and I, for one, don't have any problem with that as long as the appearance of the park doesn't suffer because of it. Many of these folks are in towns on temporary jobs and prefer to living in their RVs rather than in hotels or short-term apartments. Even my DW and I could be considered long term tenants at the park where we winter for 4-5 months. Do we make that park less desirable because of our presence?

As an admin of RVParkReviews, I feel that the derogatory use of "long term residents" and similar terms is unwarranted in many of the cases in which it is used. If the park looks "seedy" because of its long term residents, then you have every right to comment on that, but it's not at all clear why the very presence of long term residents, like ourselves, for example makes a park a less desirable place.

Joel

Docj,

Agree completely! It's not the Long Termers who make it undesirable since many of them are a wealth of knowledge for the area. And "wintering" is very different than spending YEARS in one CG! We just left a park (Charleston SC area) where an individual had been at the park for 5+ years!

If you want to live in the area, buy a house or park your "camper" in an mobile home park so that RVers have a place to stay!

Facts are facts, many parks now have long term and seasonal tenants and this will only grow as people downsize and more baby boomers start to full time. Yes their are folks who lost their home for what ever reason and live and work out of their RVs. THESE ARE NOT SECOND CLASS PEOPLE. Just folks trying to survive. Get used to it because it is way over 50% now and in 10 years will probably be 70%

Talk to some of these people and you will find some very nice people.
Yes their are some parks poorly run that are a mess. Many just no longer want a house and the responsibilities involved. It is hard for some to understand.

Their will still be resorts available to folks who do not want to park by folks who some call undesirable. It is a shame that a guy that parks for 5 years in a park is considered a bad guy.

Pogoil.

I am going to disagree. There are different kind of parks for different needs, just like not all restaurants serve the same clientel. If a park tries to be all things to all people, it will almost assuredly fail to meet the needs of nearly everyone. Long term stay parks are clearly a need, but to also try and be a good overnight park will cause conflicts and failure to meet expectations, exactly the same as McDonalds trying to serve fine French cuisine (no, not French fries).

In my travels, parks that have a large number of long term guests generally do not appeal to me. The long term guest sites look like they are long term. There are often storage sheds, poorly constructed skirting, personal belongings scattered about, and yes you tell when something has been on the ground for months instead of hours. Long term guests naturally have developed cliques and have set schedules (most have jobs) and routines that do not mesh with short term stays. Yes, those are all generalizations, and may not apply everywhere, but to me it is more common than the other way around. Hence, if a review says there are many long term guests, or the website appears to cater to seasonal guests, I am looking elsewhere if I am in search of a short term stay. Likewise, when I stay for a longer period of time, I will try and not be in a park where it turns over nightly. Thankfully, there are a lot of parks that understand what they are should and should not be.

Excellent post. That's church!

The long-term park residents by in large have junky appearance to their site confines. They are a liability to any overnight RV park. I avoid those parks like the plague. I RV - I'm NOT into long-term mobile home parks.

[Veebyes]

Bumpyroad wrote:
I think I'll stay at a park in western NDakota and fuss that the park was full of pipeline/oil shale workers.
bumpy 🙂

Here is a gem for you. Last night we stayed at Buffalo Gap SP on I94 W N Dakota, west of the Dickinson boomtown & only about 15 miles from the MT line.

We were the ONLY people there. No power. No water. No dumster. Basically closed but the gate was open. My kinda place. Wonderful even if it did happened to be a record cold for date night.

Regular rate is $6. Not much. But when fully open the park is not much except for being a stunningly beautiful little CG with limited services.

[PAThwacker]

I have been bouncing around in contractor purgatory since 2012 in the global pharmaceutical market. I have been able to land 3 contracts and stay at my house. I consider that lucky. I work in the gmp qa field and have been with the big players since 2001( sanofi, teva, Barr, pliva,nps, pfizer) I have attempted to get rediculus salaries, per diem rates, and full blown housing. They refuse to hire anyone since 2005, and shed 100,000 jobs per year in this industry.

[PAThwacker]

We go to one park per year and they do have a high percentage of seasonals and year round residents. The caveat, School aged kids are excluded by the park. No bus stop allowed by the schoolboard. Keeps the perceived trailer trash element out.

[noe-place]

Same as military "intelligence."

[Bumpyroad]

bigdogger wrote:
exactly the same as McDonalds trying to serve fine French cuisine e.

"fine French cuisine"
an oxymoron.
JMHO
bumpy

[bigdogger]

Pogoil wrote:

MiRV wrote:

docj wrote:


I pretty much agree with you, but the comment "the park is full of long term tenants" I think is a pejorative remark that is often unfair and out of touch with the realities of life in the US these days.

As full-timers my DW and I like to travel and have found that the percentage of RV parks with "long term tenants" is well over 50% and includes major chains such as KOA that have, in the past, almost exclusively appealed to families on vacation.

For a variety of reasons there are lots of people living on a long term basis in RV parks and I, for one, don't have any problem with that as long as the appearance of the park doesn't suffer because of it. Many of these folks are in towns on temporary jobs and prefer to living in their RVs rather than in hotels or short-term apartments. Even my DW and I could be considered long term tenants at the park where we winter for 4-5 months. Do we make that park less desirable because of our presence?

As an admin of RVParkReviews, I feel that the derogatory use of "long term residents" and similar terms is unwarranted in many of the cases in which it is used. If the park looks "seedy" because of its long term residents, then you have every right to comment on that, but it's not at all clear why the very presence of long term residents, like ourselves, for example makes a park a less desirable place.

Joel

Docj,

Agree completely! It's not the Long Termers who make it undesirable since many of them are a wealth of knowledge for the area. And "wintering" is very different than spending YEARS in one CG! We just left a park (Charleston SC area) where an individual had been at the park for 5+ years!

If you want to live in the area, buy a house or park your "camper" in an mobile home park so that RVers have a place to stay!

Facts are facts, many parks now have long term and seasonal tenants and this will only grow as people downsize and more baby boomers start to full time. Yes their are folks who lost their home for what ever reason and live and work out of their RVs. THESE ARE NOT SECOND CLASS PEOPLE. Just folks trying to survive. Get used to it because it is way over 50% now and in 10 years will probably be 70%

Talk to some of these people and you will find some very nice people.
Yes their are some parks poorly run that are a mess. Many just no longer want a house and the responsibilities involved. It is hard for some to understand.

Their will still be resorts available to folks who do not want to park by folks who some call undesirable. It is a shame that a guy that parks for 5 years in a park is considered a bad guy.

Pogoil.

I am going to disagree. There are different kind of parks for different needs, just like not all restaurants serve the same clientel. If a park tries to be all things to all people, it will almost assuredly fail to meet the needs of nearly everyone. Long term stay parks are clearly a need, but to also try and be a good overnight park will cause conflicts and failure to meet expectations, exactly the same as McDonalds trying to serve fine French cuisine (no, not French fries).
In my travels, parks that have a large number of long term guests generally do not appeal to me. The long term guest sites look like they are long term. There are often storage sheds, poorly constructed skirting, personal belongings scattered about, and yes you tell when something has been on the ground for months instead of hours. Long term guests naturally have developed cliques and have set schedules (most have jobs) and routines that do not mesh with short term stays. Yes, those are all generalizations, and may not apply everywhere, but to me it is more common than the other way around. Hence, if a review says there are many long term guests, or the website appears to cater to seasonal guests, I am looking elsewhere if I am in search of a short term stay. Likewise, when I stay for a longer period of time, I will try and not be in a park where it turns over nightly. Thankfully, there are a lot of parks that understand what they are should and should not be.

[docj]

Pogoil wrote:

MiRV wrote:

docj wrote:


I pretty much agree with you, but the comment "the park is full of long term tenants" I think is a pejorative remark that is often unfair and out of touch with the realities of life in the US these days.

As full-timers my DW and I like to travel and have found that the percentage of RV parks with "long term tenants" is well over 50% and includes major chains such as KOA that have, in the past, almost exclusively appealed to families on vacation.

For a variety of reasons there are lots of people living on a long term basis in RV parks and I, for one, don't have any problem with that as long as the appearance of the park doesn't suffer because of it. Many of these folks are in towns on temporary jobs and prefer to living in their RVs rather than in hotels or short-term apartments. Even my DW and I could be considered long term tenants at the park where we winter for 4-5 months. Do we make that park less desirable because of our presence?

As an admin of RVParkReviews, I feel that the derogatory use of "long term residents" and similar terms is unwarranted in many of the cases in which it is used. If the park looks "seedy" because of its long term residents, then you have every right to comment on that, but it's not at all clear why the very presence of long term residents, like ourselves, for example makes a park a less desirable place.

Joel

Docj,

Agree completely! It's not the Long Termers who make it undesirable since many of them are a wealth of knowledge for the area. And "wintering" is very different than spending YEARS in one CG! We just left a park (Charleston SC area) where an individual had been at the park for 5+ years!

If you want to live in the area, buy a house or park your "camper" in an mobile home park so that RVers have a place to stay!

Facts are facts, many parks now have long term and seasonal tenants and this will only grow as people downsize and more baby boomers start to full time. Yes their are folks who lost their home for what ever reason and live and work out of their RVs. THESE ARE NOT SECOND CLASS PEOPLE. Just folks trying to survive. Get used to it because it is way over 50% now and in 10 years will probably be 70%

Talk to some of these people and you will find some very nice people.
Yes their are some parks poorly run that are a mess. Many just no longer want a house and the responsibilities involved. It is hard for some to understand.

Their will still be resorts available to folks who do not want to park by folks who some call undesirable. It is a shame that a guy that parks for 5 years in a park is considered a bad guy.

Pogoil.

Excellently stated. It's pretty common these days to see school buses picking up kids at RV parks. If it bothers you to have your kids playing with "those kind people" then I suggest you stay only at state and federal campgrounds that have maximum stay limits.

[Bumpyroad]

I think I'll stay at a park in western NDakota and fuss that the park was full of pipeline/oil shale workers.
bumpy 🙂

[Pogoil]

MiRV wrote:

docj wrote:


I pretty much agree with you, but the comment "the park is full of long term tenants" I think is a pejorative remark that is often unfair and out of touch with the realities of life in the US these days.

As full-timers my DW and I like to travel and have found that the percentage of RV parks with "long term tenants" is well over 50% and includes major chains such as KOA that have, in the past, almost exclusively appealed to families on vacation.

For a variety of reasons there are lots of people living on a long term basis in RV parks and I, for one, don't have any problem with that as long as the appearance of the park doesn't suffer because of it. Many of these folks are in towns on temporary jobs and prefer to living in their RVs rather than in hotels or short-term apartments. Even my DW and I could be considered long term tenants at the park where we winter for 4-5 months. Do we make that park less desirable because of our presence?

As an admin of RVParkReviews, I feel that the derogatory use of "long term residents" and similar terms is unwarranted in many of the cases in which it is used. If the park looks "seedy" because of its long term residents, then you have every right to comment on that, but it's not at all clear why the very presence of long term residents, like ourselves, for example makes a park a less desirable place.

Joel

Docj,

Agree completely! It's not the Long Termers who make it undesirable since many of them are a wealth of knowledge for the area. And "wintering" is very different than spending YEARS in one CG! We just left a park (Charleston SC area) where an individual had been at the park for 5+ years!

If you want to live in the area, buy a house or park your "camper" in an mobile home park so that RVers have a place to stay!

Facts are facts, many parks now have long term and seasonal tenants and this will only grow as people downsize and more baby boomers start to full time. Yes their are folks who lost their home for what ever reason and live and work out of their RVs. THESE ARE NOT SECOND CLASS PEOPLE. Just folks trying to survive. Get used to it because it is way over 50% now and in 10 years will probably be 70%

Talk to some of these people and you will find some very nice people.
Yes their are some parks poorly run that are a mess. Many just no longer want a house and the responsibilities involved. It is hard for some to understand.

Their will still be resorts available to folks who do not want to park by folks who some call undesirable. It is a shame that a guy that parks for 5 years in a park is considered a bad guy.

Pogoil.

[docj]

Tvov wrote:
You bet I adjust my expectations depending on the campground / park / resort! One of my favorite campgrounds is a state park with no hookups, water "access" is a well with a working hand pump (very, very cool!), outhouses, tight roads where my 21 foot TT is probably the biggest thing you can reasonably get in there, and heavily wooded. I gave this park an 8 out of 10. Didn't give it 10 mostly because the campsites are not clearly marked as to which can take a camper or are tent only.

My other favorite campground? Fort Wilderness at Disney World. That resort is a 10 for me.

I use RVParkreviews all the time. I LOVE that the campground owners are not supposed to post there. I take an average of the reviews, excluding the 1 and 10 reviews if there are obvious issues.

I also LOVE reading the "1" reviews! They are usually a hoot, and I feel bad for the camper -- or the campground owner, if the camper obviously is one of those "I want a different rope for hanging" types!

Most of my reviews are in the 8 range. Two of my reviews that were lower ("6" I think) were because one campground had poor layout of hookups and dumping station, and one campground (which was pretty much a nice resort, but...) had terrible management that deferred to the seasonal / long termers - it was a classic case of long termers making a campground not inviting for weekenders.

Most other campground review sites simply do not have nearly as many campgrounds listed and reviewed as RVParkreviews. It seems to me that the moderators there are doing a pretty darn good job.

It's great to see someone using RVParkReviews the way you do and you have explained it well. Parks need to be judged in the context of the service they are trying to provide. A park can be rated a "10" in the category of "nice places to stop along the highway" without having nearly the amenities of a park that chooses to compete in the much more demanding "family destination parks where you would want to spend a week or more" category.

I particularly resonate with your point that campground in places of natural beauty can get high marks even if they have few amenities. Quite a few users give very high marks to national and state CGs with practically no services, but others will criticize a national park for "being in a location at which there is no OTA TV!" :h

Thanks for supporting RVParkReviews!

[Tvov]

You bet I adjust my expectations depending on the campground / park / resort! One of my favorite campgrounds is a state park with no hookups, water "access" is a well with a working hand pump (very, very cool!), outhouses, tight roads where my 21 foot TT is probably the biggest thing you can reasonably get in there, and heavily wooded. I gave this park an 8 out of 10. Didn't give it 10 mostly because the campsites are not clearly marked as to which can take a camper or are tent only.

My other favorite campground? Fort Wilderness at Disney World. That resort is a 10 for me.

I use RVParkreviews all the time. I LOVE that the campground owners are not supposed to post there. I take an average of the reviews, excluding the 1 and 10 reviews if there are obvious issues.

I also LOVE reading the "1" reviews! They are usually a hoot, and I feel bad for the camper -- or the campground owner, if the camper obviously is one of those "I want a different rope for hanging" types!

Most of my reviews are in the 8 range. Two of my reviews that were lower ("6" I think) were because one campground had poor layout of hookups and dumping station, and one campground (which was pretty much a nice resort, but...) had terrible management that deferred to the seasonal / long termers - it was a classic case of long termers making a campground not inviting for weekenders.

Most other campground review sites simply do not have nearly as many campgrounds listed and reviewed as RVParkreviews. It seems to me that the moderators there are doing a pretty darn good job.

[Bumpyroad]

MiRV wrote:


If you want to live in the area, buy a house or park your "camper" in an mobile home park so that RVers have a place to stay!

many of those don't take transients.
bumpy

[Skid_Row_Joe]

MiRV wrote:
With respect to the Kentucky Derby, it's like going to a NASCAR race…you expect to have noise and partying!

You said the magic word.......NASCAR!

There was a shooting homicide at the overnight, infield RV parking menagerie of the TMS / Texas Motor Speedway near Fort Worth, Texas this Spring of 2014.

See NASCAR, and take your chances in an RV!