Backcountry Campsite Info/Reviews TESTING

[mattB]

Just some ideas for a BC campsite info/review thread, and an example. If this seems ok, then I think we should start a new thread for the actual reviews. This thread will just be to resolve the format of the review template, etc.

And maybe to make a list of the sites for people to sign up for reviews.

Here's what I came up with as an initial cut and example:

==============================
Fields in the review template
----------
Name:
Trailhead: {name description} Distance: {from trailhead to camp} (* what about camps on thru-hikes? distance from other camps? *)
Date of Visit:
Total number of sites:
Popularity:
Privacy:
Distance to Water source:
Campsites:
Overall: Size: Quality:
Tent Pads:
Location: {description: "near lake shore")
Food Storage: {type: pole, crossbar, box, none-bring cannisters}
Food Prep area:
Fires:
Privy:
type:
distance:
quality:

Views: {excellent, good, bad, none)
{description "nice views of lake"}
Comments/Issues:
{ "bugs, lots of misquitos in August"}
Images:
Campsite :
Cooking area :
View:
=============================================


========================
Info on Rating Scales
---------
General Rating scale: (Excellent Good Acceptable Bad Avoid)
Privy
distance( close, ok, far, very far)(* this maybe different for specific campsites?)
quality (excellent, good, acceptable, bad, avoid)
type : (outhouse, open-air seating)
Food Storage: pole, crossbar, box

Privacy:
TOTAL (can't see or hear other campsites)
GOOD (can see but not hear other campers)
ACCEPTABLE (close but tolerable)
BAD, (you can see/hear everything, better have earplugs)

Popularity (Low, Medium, High, VeryHigh)

Distance to Water Source
very close(50ft), close(< 50yards), far(200yards), very far(>200yards)

Campsites: Do we need size for both the campsite and the tent-pad? Or are they the same?
size (good,ok,bad)
good=spacious, room for the tent, and a lawn chair,
ok=enough room for tents and enough to walk around the tent
bad=enough room for the tent but not much more.
tent-pads
quality (good, ok, bad)
good = nice, level surface free of rocks, roots, etc
ok = not so level, maybe a rock or two
bad = you better bring an extra sleeping pad (or two!)

Views: <amazing, awesome, excellent, good, none>

[mattB]

===============================================================
Here's an example I did for the Logging Lake site.
------------------------
Name: LOG - Logging Lake
Trailhead: Inside Road Logging Creek
Distance: 5.5 miles
Date of Visit: August 2009
Number of sites: 4 (sites occupied at time of visit: 2)
Distance to Water source: <very close>
Food Storage: crossbar
Food Prep area: Good
Fires: yes
Privy: type: <outhouse> distance <close> quality <acceptable>
Popularity: <low>
Privacy: acceptable
Campsites:

• Overall: Size<Good>, Quality<good>
• Tent Pads: Size<Good>, Quality<acceptable>
• Location: 2 on lake shore, 2 on hill-side

Views: <acceptable>
nice views of lake, some peak views of mountains to south
Comments/Issues:
bugs, lots of misquitos in August
Images:
Campsite

Cooking area
http://www.ab-travels.com/Travel/2011-G ... &k=4XMrCtp
View


==========================================

[Jen]

This is a good start. I think we can make it simpler though. For instance, if we did it in one thread we would need to create a separate post for each BC site and then lock it. I really feel like each site should be an overview written by one person....not a review by many, just for the sake of simplicity. Not saying that one person writes all the overviews though.

I also think we should change the name of the "Backcountry Permits" section to simply "Backcountry" and put this there as a sticky.

[toddnick]

Awesome!!!! Great job!!!!

[mattB]

This is a good start. I think we can make it simpler though. For instance, if we did it in one thread we would need to create a separate post for each BC site and then lock it. I really feel like each site should be an overview written by one person....not a review by many, just for the sake of simplicity. Not saying that one person writes all the overviews though.

I also think we should change the name of the "Backcountry Permits" section to simply "Backcountry" and put this there as a sticky.

Good ideas!! I agree these wouldn't be a "review by many", but it would be nice if we could split it up so many people could work on it separately doing reviews of different sites.

So were you thinking one big file containing all the reviews for all the sites? And different people would just add their site review as they get time? That would be much easier for making it a sticky. Or were you thinking each BC site would have its own thread, containing a single post? My first thought was that then there'd be a gazillion threads cluttering up the Backcountry section, but maybe we could create a sub-section under Backcountry.. ie CampsiteInformation?

I agree having a separate post for each BC site would be a bit messy, although that would allow individuals to work on their site review post separately and post it whenever they're ready.

I'm not that familiar with sticky's, I thought they were just a thread that was locked and always stay at the top. Which would work good for this, or we could make it a FAQ file, or part of the existing FAQs.

[Selkie]

The urge to catalogue everything is universal. How the human brain works.
I saw a very similar thread on another hiking site go down in smoke in less than 24 hours.
Anyhoo, so what if there is not a view? Or if you like it less/more than others do? If your backcountry travel calls for 4 nights, it's all part of the picture. Are you *not* open to the unexpected, the serendipitous?
Have fun. I'm just not into parsing every tiny bit.

[Hockey Ref]

Although it's not nearly as extensive as what's proposed here, there's an rudimentary appendix in the back of the Molvar hiking guide to Glacier that rates all the BC sites. Included is a 1-5 scenic rating, the number of tent sites, whether or not open fires are permitted, and whether or not horses are permitted (and how many). Pretty basic.

[Pocketlint]

Maybe create a thread where past visitors post pictures of the campsites they stayed at with their comments. Include only pictures of the major sections of the campsites, e.g. (tent pad area, food prep area, pit toilets, water sources)
Then the information would at least be in one place.
If everyone used the standard acronyms for the campsites, e.g BOU GRN, etc.
one could use a keyword search to find the campsites of interest.

Have fun. I'm just not into parsing every tiny bit.

Well said if you mean what I believe you mean.

I told a friend in a PM I wasn't going to wade into this topic, but I can't help myself

All my original suggestion, quoted above, was meant to do was simply provide pictures of the various campground, illustrating their main features. However, I admit I didn't make that absolutely clear about limiting the comments as I've done below.

No "ratings", no "subjective analysis", nothing more than pictures, hopefully good pictures of the campground's principle features e.g. food prep area, tent sites(each one if possible), water source(s) and outhouse/pit toilet.The old saw, "A picture is worth a 1000 words" comes to mind.

Let the viewer, the presumptive backpacker, make up their own mind and form their own opinion about the "quality" campground.

Personally, I believe less is more in this endeavor. I would limit any "text" to that which is objectively "fact" e.g.
The distance from the food prep area to the water source is ~50 yards, or maybe ~60 paces. The outhouse is ~200 yards from the tent sites.
Like that....Again, let pictures tell the story. Pictures are unambiguous, far more "objective" in nature. The less actually said, the better imho.

Guidebooks like Erik Molvar's have most all the information y'all are talking about here. Repeating the same information on the chat, albeit in a different form/format, would be redundant (as well as subjective). Good pictures of the various campgrounds depicting the details of their principle features is not available...in guidebooks or here...at least not that I'm aware of.
And so that should be the focus here. Do something that hasn't been done.

Your ever so humble minority viewholder

pocketlint

[Apikuni]

Guidebooks like Erik Molvar's have most all the information y'all are talking about here. Repeating the same information on the chat, albeit in a different form/format, would be redundant (as well as subjective). Good pictures of the various campgrounds depicting the details of their principle features is not available...in guidebooks or here...at least not that I'm aware of.
And so that should be the focus here. Do something that hasn't been done.

I agree with pocketlint here, but modify it by saying I think the all the facts can be found and brought in from an outside source.

My suggestion is for someone to take the lead (mattb?) and gather the already available unbiased facts.

Then create a thread inside a category for Backcountry Campsites or Camping(of course this has to be approved by the moderators and all that) for each backcountry site with the first post being all the facts and the replies being comments and pictures only related to that site.

This would be an overwhelming amount of work for one person and probably seems like overkill looking at it right now. However, once the initial work was done, I think the payoff would be tremendous for those daydreaming and scouring the web for their next trip to Glacier.

I think the skeptics would ask "why go through all this trouble?". The answer is because we love Glacier and obsess over it on this forum This would just plunge us further into the depths of longing and despair by not being there.

Mattb, I'd be glad to help you if this project takes off, whichever way it may go. I could also create a Kml file for google earth that duplicates all the info from the threads.

[Jen]

Mattb and myself are working on this project full throttle with several others.

We will post a link as soon as we gather all the info.

Thanks for your support.