McKee80
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2017
- Messages
- 236
Hi,
I was hoping for some opinions more experienced than mine. I'm working on a pet coding project. I wanted to create a mapping website that marks backcountry campsites and has a little information about them.
I haven't been backpacking very long, but when I backpacked in Glacier this year, it got me to thinking about campsite use. Glacier requires that you stay in designated areas (2-6 pads holding 2 tents each, a food prep area, and a pit toilet). It seems to me that as far as LNT principles of campsite selection goes, durable/impacted surfaces takes priority over distance from water, distance from the trail, etc. For example, a couple of the tent pads in Glacier that I stayed in were no more than 60 feet from a lake. The places I've been locally and a trip to the Sierras felt a lot less remote and wild (even though I typically see less people than I did in Glacier) and my theory is that is because in Glacier, outside of the mandatory campsites, there are very very few traces of humans.
So, I thought it would be a good thing (maybe it isn't, I don't know) to let people planning a trip know where already impacted sites are located. That way, they have other options before plopping down in some vegetation. Especially if they can download waypoints into their GPS. When they are done hiking for the day, they can see what is around. Sometimes the last thing people want to do after hiking 8 hours is to hunt around for a campsite. I know when I was at Thousand Island Lake, I ran into a guy who showed me a site I never would have found and it was aweseome. Basically, the goal would be to make it easier for people to use impacted sites rather than creating new ones. That seems to be a guiding principle for at least some national parks and public land.
Am I missing something? I don't want to encourage something that is a bad idea. And I know everyone on here is more knowledgeable than I am, so any opinions are welcome!
Thanks,
Sean
I was hoping for some opinions more experienced than mine. I'm working on a pet coding project. I wanted to create a mapping website that marks backcountry campsites and has a little information about them.
I haven't been backpacking very long, but when I backpacked in Glacier this year, it got me to thinking about campsite use. Glacier requires that you stay in designated areas (2-6 pads holding 2 tents each, a food prep area, and a pit toilet). It seems to me that as far as LNT principles of campsite selection goes, durable/impacted surfaces takes priority over distance from water, distance from the trail, etc. For example, a couple of the tent pads in Glacier that I stayed in were no more than 60 feet from a lake. The places I've been locally and a trip to the Sierras felt a lot less remote and wild (even though I typically see less people than I did in Glacier) and my theory is that is because in Glacier, outside of the mandatory campsites, there are very very few traces of humans.
So, I thought it would be a good thing (maybe it isn't, I don't know) to let people planning a trip know where already impacted sites are located. That way, they have other options before plopping down in some vegetation. Especially if they can download waypoints into their GPS. When they are done hiking for the day, they can see what is around. Sometimes the last thing people want to do after hiking 8 hours is to hunt around for a campsite. I know when I was at Thousand Island Lake, I ran into a guy who showed me a site I never would have found and it was aweseome. Basically, the goal would be to make it easier for people to use impacted sites rather than creating new ones. That seems to be a guiding principle for at least some national parks and public land.
Am I missing something? I don't want to encourage something that is a bad idea. And I know everyone on here is more knowledgeable than I am, so any opinions are welcome!
Thanks,
Sean