Walmart, Camping World Etc Reviews

Wondering if we can post "reviews" of non-RV parks. Specifically I am thinking about Camping World, Walmart and other businesses on how much space is available, are they friendly and welcoming etc.
But also have spent the night at a winery through membership club "Harvest Host". Would rate one location a 9 except no hook-up but this is expected at these $0 locations.

 

I could see special events but Wally World. It is a parking lot. Had to laugh as we were camping one Friday night and we ran into Wal Mart. Had to be 20, if not 30 units in the lot. Slides out, awnings open, chairs lined up and everyone sitting around. I was like really, at 7 PM. If traveling and you need to pull off the road at midnight I can see it but to setup camp...

 

I realize that many ignore the "guidelines" of not setting up and "camping" which will in some cases result in everyone loosing the privilege. What I was thinking of was a simple post on XYZ does or does not allows overnight stay as of ABC date. The parking lot has or does not have level areas.

Still wondering if ParkReviews wants or does not want posts on Membership only locations.
Harvest Host does not want specific locations made public but I would think just naming the town would let those of us that are members to easily cross reference our membership guide listing to learn more about a specific location.
Example might read
Roseburg, OR Winery. Rating 8. Level gravel parking. Good WiFi, Very Friendly hosts

or

Beaverton, OR Farm, Rating 2, Closed for season on Aug 30. No phone answer message. Guide listing incorrect.

 

I cannot speak for everyone involved with this site, but personally I do not think this is the place for Walmarts, etc. I think our listings should be places whose primary purpose is to provide RV sites as their primary business. Camping World might be a little different if they actually have a campground where people can stay at times other than when their RV is being worked on.

As for membership parks, I am not familiar with the ones you mentioned, but I know we have some membership parks listed, for example Thousand Trails and Elks Lodges. Are the membership parks you are talking about different from TT or Elks in some way? If not, I guess they could be listed also.

 

Having been Harvest Host members for one year I see no reason to list them. They are nothing but a bunch of businesses that happen to have available parking areas at certain times of the year. You pay a yearly fee if you wish to be able to park at these locations.

There are websites that specialize in providing information about low cost/no cost places for RVers to spend a night. For example, Escapees has a subgroup that provides a Days End list for a small yearly fee. If this appeals to people they can explore those sites. I don't believe it is RVPR's role to try to compete with them. Quite honestly, for places such as Elks lodges that provide nothing more than a parking area with no hookups I sometimes wonder why such places are included either.

 

Joel, some Elks clubs do have at least a limited number of RV hookups (typically elec or elec & water) available for traveling members.

Elks Club: RV Facilities

 

QUOTE(NYDutch @ Sep 6 2014, 09:07 AM) [snapback]38197[/snapback]

Joel, some Elks clubs do have at least a limited number of RV hookups (typically elec or elec & water) available for traveling members.

Elks Club: RV Facilities



My statement wasn't clear; I don't have an issue with listing Elks Clubs that have an actual "RV parking area" that has hookups. It's the clubs that don't have anything but a parking lot that I think should be omitted. If we're not going to list businesses that allow RVers to park in their lot (Walmart, Cabella, Home Depot, etc) then what makes Elks any different?

 

QUOTE(docj @ Sep 6 2014, 09:20 AM) [snapback]38198[/snapback]

My statement wasn't clear; I don't have an issue with listing Elks Clubs that have an actual "RV parking area" that has hookups. It's the clubs that don't have anything but a parking lot that I think should be omitted. If we're not going to list businesses that allow RVers to park in their lot (Walmart, Cabella, Home Depot, etc) then what makes Elks any different?




I agree, and I'll throw in another type of place that many times has RV parking, but not an actual park/campground--casinos. We have several of those listed and I don't think they should be. Although, there are those that do have a nice campground, and they should be listed. I did not know how Harvest Host operated, but based on your explanation, I would say these should not be listed here.

 

QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Sep 6 2014, 10:43 AM) [snapback]38199[/snapback]

I did not know how Harvest Host operated, but based on your explanation, I would say these should not be listed here.



To provide more clarity on Harvest Hosts, it's a loose affiliation of small wineries that permit you to park on their property (although usually only on specified days or in certain months). The cost is ~$40/yr and there's no cost for parking but the idea is that you'll come in to taste some wines and maybe buy something. I put it in the category of a Cracker Barrel that charges you for the right to park there.

 

Hi Tireman9,

Well the reviews do cover Military Parks where most folks can't qualify to stay. So I'd guess that reviews of membership only parks would be welcomed--so long as it is made clear that you must be a member to use them.


QUOTE(Tireman9 @ Sep 5 2014, 06:56 PM) [snapback]38191[/snapback]



Still wondering if ParkReviews wants or does not want posts on Membership only locations.

 

QUOTE(Tireman9 @ Sep 5 2014, 06:56 PM) [snapback]38191[/snapback]

I realize that many ignore the "guidelines" of not setting up and "camping" which will in some cases result in everyone loosing the privilege. What I was thinking of was a simple post on XYZ does or does not allows overnight stay as of ABC date. The parking lot has or does not have level areas.

Still wondering if ParkReviews wants or does not want posts on Membership only locations.
Harvest Host does not want specific locations made public but I would think just naming the town would let those of us that are members to easily cross reference our membership guide listing to learn more about a specific location.
Example might read
Roseburg, OR Winery. Rating 8. Level gravel parking. Good WiFi, Very Friendly hosts

or

Beaverton, OR Farm, Rating 2, Closed for season on Aug 30. No phone answer message. Guide listing incorrect.


If they were to be listed, I believe that the addresses, amenities, number of sites and contact information should be listed, just like it is for every other park that has reviews posted here. If it is an RV park, which is what is reviewed here, they shouldn't get special privileges to have posted only the information they want. I mean, I am sure there are some RV parks that would like to have some of the information about them not posted. (starting with bad reviews)

 

QUOTE(pianotuna @ Sep 6 2014, 12:43 PM) [snapback]38201[/snapback]

Hi Tireman9,

Well the reviews do cover Military Parks where most folks can't qualify to stay. So I'd guess that reviews of membership only parks would be welcomed--so long as it is made clear that you must be a member to use them.




I don't have a problem with membership parks like Thousand Trails, Elks or any of the others including military only if they are a real park (and I know that some of the things that make it a real park could be debated), but Walmarts and apparently this Harvest Host are not what I would consider a park/campground.

 

RVPR has lots of "no hookups" campground listed run by the National Forest Service, BLM, etc. But at least these are campgrounds designated as places that RVers and campers are welcome to stay. Even if they don't have hookups at the sites there are usually other amenities including potable water, bathrooms (even if they are pit toilets), dump stations, etc. IMHO there's a big difference between those and a parking lot on which "RVs can park in that corner."

I'm far less concerned about the membership aspect of a place than I am whether or not this is a "real place to stay" or simply a parking lot or field that will tolerate our presence. However, I would like to have "flags" set for all the major membership type parks so I could de-select them when I do a search. I hate to read through reviews of a place only to discover it is, for example, a TT park I have no interest in. I think the default search configuration should be without any membership parks and it should be up to the user to select those of interest to him/her.

 

QUOTE(docj @ Sep 6 2014, 10:20 AM) [snapback]38198[/snapback]

My statement wasn't clear; I don't have an issue with listing Elks Clubs that have an actual "RV parking area" that has hookups. It's the clubs that don't have anything but a parking lot that I think should be omitted. If we're not going to list businesses that allow RVers to park in their lot (Walmart, Cabella, Home Depot, etc) then what makes Elks any different?


No argument there, Joel. I completely agree that the locations with no actual RV facilities should not be listed.

 

QUOTE(NYDutch @ Sep 6 2014, 05:33 PM) [snapback]38205[/snapback]

No argument there, Joel. I completely agree that the locations with no actual RV facilities should not be listed.




X2. Walmart and other similar temporary "parking lot" stopovers are not RV parks by any stretch. The name of this site should accurately reflect its goals and purpose - namely to report reviews of RV parks - not parking lots.

I'd reject any and all reviews of these types of paved parking lots.

You wouldn't stoop so low as to even consider doing this .......would you?

 

I would not want to see reviews of Walmarts etc. They are nice enough to allow overnight parking, but it is not intended to be an RV park....although there are a few places I have stayed that made Walmart sound like an upgrade. "Yes we had a great stay at the Walmart- kids enjoyed the swimming pool...that is till security asked us to put the pool and BBQ back with the others...We did so the next morning when we unplugged the trailer from our 20 amp site by the coke machine and took off". I've reviewed free city campgrounds however and like to see them listed, even if fairly basic.

 

QUOTE(NYDutch @ Sep 6 2014, 05:33 PM) [snapback]38205[/snapback]

No argument there, Joel. I completely agree that the locations with no actual RV facilities should not be listed.




X2. Walmart and other similar temporary "parking lot" stopovers are not RV parks by any stretch. The name of this site should accurately reflect its goals and purpose - namely to report reviews of RV parks - not parking lots.

I'd reject any and all reviews of these types of paved parking lots.

You wouldn't stoop so low as to even consider doing this .......would you? Lol

 

Negative reviews about a systemic problem could be helpful. This would be things like next to a train track where you had a lot of noise at night. Having a beautiful water front site next to the retention pond would not be too helpful. We stopped counting Wal-Mart stops at 100.

 

This is an interesting discussion and I see how these parking lots are of interest to some and not others. In the future RV Park Reviews will have a system for "Points of Interest" which will be very flexible and allow for various types of data to be collected that might be of interest. Obviously some Points of Interest would be major attractions that draw folks from far and wide. The vision is that someone might type in the name of that attraction and then see a list of campgrounds nearby (listed by distance). This is important because you might want to go see something but no know the various towns nearby so the current system can be limited in finding the best nearby place to camp.

I also envision the Point of Interest system to be flexible and allow for other places that might be of interest to someone camping. It might be a a local attraction near a campground, it might be an RV repair shop, and Overnight Parking might possibly a type of Point of Interest.

Our comprehensive campground review system wouldn't make sense connected to these points of interest. Allowing users to share some basic data about them would. For example, some notes about a place and maybe a general 1-5 stars might be of interest.

 

QUOTE(Andy R @ Sep 7 2014, 04:31 PM) [snapback]38223[/snapback]

This is an interesting discussion and I see how these parking lots are of interest to some and not others. In the future RV Park Reviews will have a system for "Points of Interest" which will be very flexible and allow for various types of data to be collected that might be of interest. Obviously some Points of Interest would be major attractions that draw folks from far and wide. The vision is that someone might type in the name of that attraction and then see a list of campgrounds nearby (listed by distance). This is important because you might want to go see something but no know the various towns nearby so the current system can be limited in finding the best nearby place to camp.

I also envision the Point of Interest system to be flexible and allow for other places that might be of interest to someone camping. It might be a a local attraction near a campground, it might be an RV repair shop, and Overnight Parking might possibly a type of Point of Interest.

Our comprehensive campground review system wouldn't make sense connected to these points of interest. Allowing users to share some basic data about them would. For example, some notes about a place and maybe a general 1-5 stars might be of interest.




Andy, in my perfect world, the new rvparkreviews would include the database and reviews from this http://freecampgrounds.com

Then when conducting a search, the user could select a radio button to "include free camping sites". I think in most cases, people would not check this button, but it would be useful some of the time.

The interface for that site is difficult to use, since you can't search a specific location, just scroll through listings by state, so it would be a huge improvement to have that information available here.