1 host = 1 credit looks like a problem, similar to how it can be hard to build up ratio on well established private torrent trackers. The distribution of credits will not be even with many hosts building up credits for some nebulous future trip. How do those actually travelling around earn credits past the first 3 complimentary?
Bonus point systems or just ignoring ratio solved this from my pov for trackers, the 1 to 1 ratio stood out as something that would need a solution long term.
It seems so obviously flawed that I'm wondering if that isn't a key part of the value proposition. Boondockers and more recently Vanly already provide a very similar service (RV/Van parking on private property), but aren't limited to California and don't have the pseudo-barter system requirement.
I'm wondering, is there some sort of California-specific tax/zoning loophole that allows this but doesn't allow nightly rentals ala Vanly or Boondockers? It's the only way that this makes sense to me.
How were they ultimately resolved? It seems like they created a hyperlocal currency (or time bank[1]) but then ran into market problems of supply and demand, and a bunch of people analyzed it and proposed solutions, but it was unclear what ultimately happened.
Plus, at a measly 20 families right now, all in DC, it's unclear whether this model would work for bigger or more heterogenous groups. Probably at a smaller scale, the expectation of reciprocity alone would be enough; at larger scales, "financiers" would probably try to game the system and skew exchange rates. In my (limited) experience, this sort of thing only works when a group is both small enough and homogenous enough that the primary driver is community and mutual respect, not any real sort of economic game theory. At that scale members don't tend to hyper-optimize for individual "wealth" over collective gain (yet).
So it's not free to camp, we'll end up with centralised mega hosters (seedboxes in the tracker analogy) and in practice travelers will be too small time to actually be able earn any credits
Its also ripe for abuse; create dummy accounts that use their free stays to give a host credit, then the host sells those credits for real money.
On a certain movie tracker some invite selling scum would join via the signup process that used to exist on reddit, cheat a bunch of upload on popular torrents, convert that upload into bonus points, launder the points to their main account through a forum contest where they also gave away BP to innocent users, and buy invites to sell for real $ with the laundered BP. Similarly the dummy camping accounts could make sure to mix in some legit hosts as their free stays by picking hosts that may not be around/able to verify the dummy account stayed at their location (because it didn't).
Agreed, I don’t like this at all. And everyone’s always giving something only just to get something. And it Hass to be monetize and quantized and socialized. Gross.
A big part of the fun for me is being completely alone, practicing map reading, and faffing around as I find my own way. So I Google the name of the forest and the phrase "district map" to identify the ranger district(s) I'm interested in, Google the district name with the phrase "dispersed camping" to read the rules, and then stare at a topo map with an MVUM overlay to decide spots to look. I find this process often identifies better sites (by my preferences at least) than I see online and online listings are not infrequently wrong about the rules. The process from turning on to the first dirt road to camping takes maybe 20 minutes if I'm in a hurry or an hour if I'm optimizing for the perfect spot. If I forgot to refill my water container and need to find a stream that's an extra .1-2hours depending on season and region.
If I wanted the actual right answer I'd call a ranger.
(The reason I Google is because the USFS and to a lesser extent BLM have awful intra-site navigation. I don't bother asking Google to restrict to the domain because the right usfs page will be at the top anyway. MVUM stands for Motor Vehicle Use Map and indicates where I can drive and, if applicable, which roads I can pull off to camp. Remember that following the MVUM is necessary but not sufficient, you also need to check the dispersed camping section of the appropriate website. You can get MVUM pdfs by googling place + "MVUM" but I prefer the MVUM layer in the app CalTopo)
I love paying $100 annually to get something "for free".
Jokes aside, I think this concept is cool and I'm not even upset that there is a membership fee to keep people engaged and to support the software component that coordinates this. But $100 per year? This feels like $50 per year TOPS! Really I feel like this should be closer to $20 per year.
I think it is going to be tough to get people to pay $100 subscription and then ask them to play host, just to earn the opportunity to get what is essentially free overnight parking at a 1:1 ratio of you providing it to others.
I joined Boondockers Welcome back in 2018 when it was $30 per year. Totally worth it even if I was just going to camp one time (which most new users will do).
But this? This is a money grab (as was boondockers welcome) but $100 is a HUGE money grab. I think the owner of this just expected to put this page out and get rich. The submitter didn't even reply to a single person. Total scam I hope no one "signed up".
It's an absolutely lovely idea in theory, but I can see a small proportion of bad-faith actors absolutely ruining the experience for the rest. For example, how do you get overstaying guests to leave, what happens if there's suddenly a deluge of visitors on a holiday weekend and how do you say "you, not you"?
Looks really interesting! I guess the big disappointment for me was that it's actually a $100 annual subscription. I thought from your title that it would be free.
As an active host on Couchsurfing, I want to thank you and your former teammates for one of the best initiatives ever.
I've been hosting people from all over the world for some time now, and I really like the community! It's bringing me so much joy to host a world traveler from Poland one day, and a transgender Iranian guy on a bicycle trip the next day.
You’re the one doing all the important work! I joined at kind of a bad time for the company, and I’ve been an active user for longer than I was an employee.
Last time I checked the app for events, it pushed you to pay for verification (blue badge a la twitter) so that you'd appear more trustworthy to others.
$100/yr to join a club of fellow California homeowners / home renters who love to camp and are willing to reciprocally allow stays at their home is not bad. Especially if that $100 is used to pre vet users who will behave in a way that will garner 4-5 star reviews consistently.
For anyone looking for actually free, no strings attached (and no subscription) camping, check https://freecampsites.net/ instead. It's a community wiki of free camp sites, usually on federal lands of various sorts (National Forests and BLM lands often have primitive campsites with fire rings and not much else). It's great for travel around national parks, especially. But please do leave no trace, pack out what you bring in.
Edit: I should add that much of federally protected lands are free to camp on, within certain limits that I can't remember offhand. Things like no more than X days within a month, must be further than Y from a street or river, may or may not need a fire permit, etc. Even if undocumented and unlabeled on a map, you can typically just pull off the road and camp alongside, perfectly legally. It's part of their intended use, though that's never really made clear to the public.
What this website provides isn't the land itself (which is paid for by taxpayers) but curation, so you can easily find places with a good view, cell reception, fire rings, minimal traffic and whatnot. A lot of national lands aren't exactly desirable to camp on even if you're totally within your rights to do so.
Freecampsites.net is fantastic (minus the UI which leaves a lot to be desired, and can be problematic on mobile). I used it extensively over the past two months as I roadtripped across Colorado/Utah/Arizona/Nevada. It has a neat trip planner feature where you put your route and it will show you all the places along the route where you can camp.
It's not a complete source of information since it's community submitted, so I often cross-reference these other two sites:
It's important to read the reviews of each campsite, since sometimes they will say things like "road is inaccessible without a high clearance vehicle" or "now private land; camping is no longer possible".
Also, make sure you pick a few nice places and jot down their coordinates BEFORE you get there. In my experience, most BLM land doesn't have the best (if any) cell service, so YMMV.
You can camp for free in all unimproved areas of US national forests that aren't designated wilderness areas or otherwise designated as off limits for dispersed camping. This is something like 98% of the forests. The exact rules can vary a bit from place to place, so always check with the ranger station in that area (don't rely on the website!) for anything special.
You usually need to have a permit if you're parking your car at a trailhead, though.
But in general, the rules are:
Leave no trace. This means: no litter, bury all your poop (but no toilet paper) in holes at least 6 inches deep, use spots that have already been used for camping before when possible, etc.
Don't damage anything.
Don't cut live trees or other plants.
You can collect and burn all the firewood you want, but you cannot take any out of the forest.
Generally speaking, do not use fireworks or firearms.
Fires must be completely extinguished if there is no person around. Completely extinguished means that you can stick your hand into the ashes without discomfort.
Store your food in a way that prevents animals from getting to it. Do not feed any animals, not even squirrels or birds.
No camping within 100 feet of any water sources, trails, or improved campgrounds.
You cannot stay in the same area (I think, but I'm not sure, that "the same area" means within 50 miles) for more than 14 days within a 31 day period.
Do not build any structures.
If you leave your campsite unattended for more than 72 hours, the forest service deems it abandoned and may disposed of everything in it.
No amplified sounds (music players, PA systems, etc).
Also, for most of the "don't do this" rules, there is an implied "without a permit". For instance, you can remove wood from the forest if you have a permit to do so.
In the White Mountain National Forest, unimproved camping is 200 feet from water sources and trails, 1/4 mile from roads. If you have OnX (not sure if Gaia supports this, worth checking), you can drop a pin on the road and create a radius to get an idea of how far you need to go.
I have boondocked in my truck in turnaround/parking areas on little traveled forest roads and never had an issue, but the rangers have been known to knock on windows at the really busy trailheads (really really busy, since covid) as people are known to sleep in their cars to get an alpine start and sometimes they'll overflow into the shoulders of the road.
Why no camping in wilderness areas, though? They tend to be some of the best places to go -- if you're prepared with proper gear. I think camping is allowed in the majority of it, though some areas may require permits? https://wilderness.net/learn-about-wilderness/regulations.ph...
Designated wilderness areas are ones that are particularly fragile, or are particularly popular. You can actually camp in them, but you need a permit to do so.
Most actual wilderness areas are not Designated Wilderness Areas. It's a special category. If you're unsure of the area you intend to be in, call the ranger station in that area. They're really very nice, and are eager to help people enjoy the forests.
I live in a national forest. At least here you're right. But I assumed OP just meant it's not smart. If you go into the national forest around me and a warden or ranger finds you shooting a gun you will be charged for poaching.
Yes, this is why I said "generally". Discharging firearms is on the Forest Services list of generally prohibited actions, but it's pretty easy to be able to do so legally. Have a hunting license for something that is in season, for instance.
As a rule of thumb, if you're shooting guns in the NF and aren't engaged in legitimate, licensed hunting, you will be suspected of poaching.
This is also a thing that can vary a lot, depending on the specific area you're in.
Discharge is generally allowed, with common-sense exceptions. You cant shoot in campgrounds, developed recreation areas, and within 150 yards of roads.
It is very common to go to the forest to simpty target shoot, no permit or license required. There is no real concern about being suspected of poaching unless you hiking around shooting a gun in a game season.
Yup. Honestly, the chances of being caught is very low. National forests are very large and mostly uninhabited. Most federal NF employees are not LEOs and won't bother you even if they do find you. But it's still best to be safe and legal, poaching charges are not a joke and I'd rather not be risking my rights.
Thats not my experience. It is extremally common for people to simply go out target shooting -NF is one of the best places to do it. More people probably go shooting there than actual hunting.
If you are poaching, or creeping around in cammo shooting a gun, you will be suspected of poaching. Otherwise people really shoulnd't be concerned about simply shooting. It's hard to imagine a plausible scenario where someone is mistaken for poaching but isn't.
If you are sitting around camp or in a meadow with a target, no ranger will charge you. If you are hiking around with a gun sporadically shooting targets like trees, probably, but nobody actually does that.
There is some confusion around what is considered poaching. You dont have to shoot an animal or even have gun to be charged.
Maybe it depends on the forest? Where I live everyone with a pulse has at least a few dozen acres (cheap land, tax rate comes out to like $0.50/acre) of land and our forest is very thick. Plus we have a lot high demand game here (elk, black bear, cougar, etc), plentiful deer, and an extremely low employment rate/income. Lotta locals live exclusively on deer.
Our game warden is cool and would probably let you off but our NF guys are wound a bit tight and like to grill you for even being in the woods walking your dog or something.
This is one of the reasons that you should call the local ranger station. The baseline rule is that campfires are allowed -- but (especially in the last few years) it's not unusual for fires to be restricted during the dry months.
Always call to be certain that you are aware of special restrictions like this.
I think in 20 years of hiking, I've managed to reach a ranger station by phone maybe... twice...? despite trying many times. It's really unfortunate that most stations aren't staffed for hours optimal for recreationists (as in weekends and holidays, especially, but also mornings/evenings). They're not exactly easy to get ahold of :(
That's not the rangers' faults; supporting public recreation is but a small part of their job duties. It's just how the government operates them. They're mixed-use government agencies, not necessarily (or at least not only) tourist information centers. But it does make them often hard to reach. They are super helpful when you do manage to get a person on the line though.
I'd say the West in general, not just the Southwest. By that I mean most of the West Coast (California, Washington, Oregon) has abundant federal lands. Some of the adjacent states do too. Alaska as well. It goes east a bit. Colorado has a bunch. It's more the Midwest and east of there that doesn't have much of them. (edit: actually there are some near the Great Lakes too!)
In general, you're most likely to run into free camping on USFS or BLM land, which also tend to be mixed-used (as in not reserved for recreation, but also used for forestry or ranching etc.).
> I'd say the West in general, not just the Southwest. By that I mean most of the West Coast (California, Washington, Oregon) has abundant federal lands. Some of the adjacent states do too.
Pretty much every state West of (or split by) the Contintental Divide, not just the Pacific Coast states and some of the adjacent ones.
Thanks for the clarification! I wasn't born here and US geographical terms still confuse me (like why is the "Midwest" not called the "Mideast" when it's clearly east of center?). I had to look up what the Continental Divide is... useful term to know!
We’re so lucky out here in the west. Practically infinite access to nature. Contrast this to Maine, which despite being enormous has next to nothing for public land.
True, but Maine (and NH/VT) have the distinction of having implicit/legal trespass. So if you are in the know on where there are large tracts of unposted private land managed for logging (not talking about the North Maine Woods, which is amazing - and vast - but requires a fee to enter) you can have really great experiences in wilderness-ish places.
VA/WV has the George Washington National Forest, Mt Rogers National Recreational Area, Shenandoah National Park, multiple Wilderness areas (Dolly Sods, etc). Abundant state parks with a mix of established campgrounds and backcountry camping.
We don’t have the huge swaths of BLM land. But outdoor access is still pretty great (at least from the DC/Mid-Atlantic urban corridor).
Those come with significantly more restrictions though, so it’s not useful to point those out there in the context of places where you can camp with few restrictions.
Depends on what restrictions you mean. The biggest here is vehicle access - BLM lands tend to have lots of service roads/gravel that are open for van-lifers. Around here, it's a lot more backcountry backpacking. But the land is still largely open to the public.
Public lands even in the west get more restrictions in the places where too many people start ruining them. It really all comes back to population density, and that shouldn't surprise anyone: nature is easier to access in less populated places.
That's not true. New England has limited free public land but most of the country has national forests, state forests, and other public land. Some states, like Nebraska, even have free campgrounds in some small towns.
There's a lot of free camping out there, you just have to look for it.
Not sure if this is true in other states. In Alaska you are allowed to camp on State of Alaska land for 7 days in one location. Often state land is within a few miles of a community. State Parks on the other hand often cost a few bucks a night.
This is very common in the western states (I don' t know about the others). In general, the rules for state forests are similar to the rules for the national forests -- but there can be significant differences.
Fortunately, while the NF websites tend to be poorly updated (which is why you shouldn't rely on them), the state forest websites are much more reliable for current information.
What this website provides is (and I am sorry to say this to the folk that put hard work into making this happen) lowered friction to camping. And a large number of folks do not understand LNT (see also: Instagram spots) and will be extremely destructive.
I love camping. I think it's an amazing resource. I also think it's a net negative if it ever gets popular.
The site has a public lands focus, and unfortunately most of our federal public lands are in the West :( That said, if you filter by "hiking", you can eliminate the parking lots (which are useful for roadtrips but not for enjoying the outdoors, obviously).
Lol, I know, I really struggled with "should I even mention it... they can already get pretty crowded..."
But at the end of the day people are going to find these sooner or later, and if people (especially technologists with resources and connections) can learn to love the outdoors more, maybe there will be a trickle-up effect for government and representatives to manage them more for recreational uses? One can hope.
I'd rather gently welcome people into the outdoors community and encourage best practices (LNT, etc.) than try to exclude them and make it all elitist. It's our public lands, after all.
Everything you wrote is bang on - please, please, PLEASE:
Leave no trace. Haul out your garbage. Don't shoot, shit, or camp within 100 yards of streams, creeks, or rivers. Don't make fire rings where they already exist. Abide by fire restrictions that might vary by county. Stay on existing, marked hiking and motor vehicle trails.
As a resident of the West (which has huge swaths of "public" land) I am so tired of folks coming to "camp" on public land and just absolutely trashing the place. We're losing access to land because people can't be bothered to dig proper cat holes for their shit, pick up their trash, and they're just setting up semi-permanent #vanlife outposts. All these great free spots are getting overrun by people who have no common sense and slowly by slowly they're turning into paid, reservable spots.
Someone once mentioned "Leave it nicer than you found it" as a life philosophy, maybe in relation to Japan? I'm not sure anymore.
I've taken to that, like when going for a forest walk, even if I pick up literally one tiny plastic wrapper, that's still leaving the forest better than I found it. Of course, pristine is pristine, but if there is trash, go for that good feeling and consider an easy thing to do that would improve the situation by any amount!
Thoreau, in Walden, on borrowing an axe: "The owner of the axe, as he released his hold on it, said that it was the apple of his eye; but I returned it sharper than I received it."
A high school English teacher used this passage to impress upon us this same philosophy of "leave it nicer than you found it" (in particular, I remember him telling us that our parents leave us in his care and he saw it as his job to "return us sharper than we were received") and it's one of those rare moments that made such a deep impression on me I remember it often even decades later.
Yes, this. I take LNT very seriously, and when I am in an area where someone didn't, it's still on me to clean it up. If I don't, then I'm leaving a trace (not one that I caused, but a trace nonetheless).
Also, how many of those tiny plastic wrappers accidentally fell from someone's backpack side pocket or similar? You have to do a bit of "leave it nicer than I found it in terms of things I'm aware of" just to break even.
I picked up 4 pieces of trash today on the Fernwood nature trail in Ohiopyle, PA yesterday. It was every piece I saw on the whole loop trail, except one candy wrapper far under a bush right when we were leaving. I think i have to get that last piece tomorrow!
Though I've never questioned why that wasn't the case in primary or tertiary education here, so maybe it's also not that normal for us. It's somewhere between annoying and a punishment, not seen as taking care of your own stuff, maybe that's different in Japan / elsewhere in general.
At work I feel weird about cleaning personnel, as though we consultants are above vacuuming the place every once in a while and such (and they leave wiped desks dirtier than they found them, typically wiping my clean-to-the-eye desk with a dusty rag).
Also, you leave out (which the comment you mentioned does) - please respect local rules. For instance, in Death Valley, you can free camp most anywhere (refer to NPS guidelines) two miles off of a designated roadway.
Yes - 100%. There is zero excuse for not knowing/abiding by local rules/regulations. The USFS, BLM, and others have troves of information posted online.
A local area has gone to great lengths to put up signage stating that unlicensed off-highway vehicles are NOT ALLOWED to travel the main stretch of USFS fire road. So what are people doing? Screaming up and down that very road on unlicensed off-highway vehicles at 2/3x the posted speed limit. Shooting is supposed to be confined to specific areas with backstops - instead you've got dingbats firing off hundreds of rounds into valleys with NO BACKSTOP and they aren't even cleaning up their brass.
To add to all of this great info, to any prospective dispersed campers: please use high-quality, recent, ideally official maps of your choosing to ensure you're on the sort of land you think you are. Boundaries can change and notes on spots aren't always up to date. My area involves a mix of national park, national forest, DNR land, and private land, and I regularly see dispersed campers getting ticketed for unwittingly setting up on the wrong side of the (unmarked) park boundary. That's tame compared to what can happen if you're trespassing on private land.
The keyword (primarily for federal land) is MVUM. It stands for Motor Vehicle Use Map. It will be an awkward PDF. Green dotted will indicate trails you can drive on. If you can't pull off all trails to camp little dots will indicate where that's allowed.
BLM and USFS websites have horrible navigation. Just Google the name of the forest with "MVUM". You might also need to first Google forest name + district map and then Google MVUMs for the specific district.
Another option is the MVUM layer in CalTopo (the name comes from the fact it started as just CA, but it's national nowadays)
That's a really good point. Although not every agency produces good dispersed campsite maps, they typically do have at least boundary maps on their website.
Avenza (iOS/Android app) has done all the heavy lifting - you can download area maps and your position will be shown correctly on the map if you allow location services. Most of the BLM/USFS land I've been to recently produce compatible maps.
I’ve been going to DV for over 25 years at this point. Mostly backroads exploration. The moral of most of these tragedies is know what you are doing.
Even as late as the last couple of winters, idiots follow GPS guidance (Waze, google/Apple Maps) onto closed roads. Again, know your environment. If a major highway is closed, likely the minor side roads are as well.
I spent 10 days in death valley offroading. You aren't signing up for that if you stay on trails, even ones that are marked for 4x4s. We did 700 miles INSIDE death valley, yet all on real dirt trails. Would I leave an official trail in death valley? No. Is it perfectly safe as long as it's not 110+, even if you have a mechanical failure? Yes.
I've spent two weeks combined solo off trail just wandering Death Valley, and will say I could have gone much longer. There's a lot more water back there than people realize, and parts of the year are colder than they are hot. HOWEVER, as a close friend of a friend of the superintendent and someone privy to SAR details, I'm telling ya, even on trail (on road) it's just not a safe place for most people once it's over 95° or so. Forget 110°! Many people suck at decision-making, and even more so once warm and suffering electrolyte imbalances. The Germans were some of _many_ to perish in Deva.
If you've got water and shade, someone knows where you are, you don't have any underlying health problems, and you're not exerting yourself, then any dry heat on earth is survivable. The saddest thing about cases like the Germans in Death Valley is how most of the mistakes were made before they even entered the park, and how easily they could have been fixed.
No, in a lot of areas when you are dispersed camping you are allowed to make fire rings. You could be camping 20 miles deep into the woods. There will not magically be a fire ring there for you. However, if there does happen to be a fire ring close by, use that one and not create a new one.
I like the stupidly literal interpretation that you should not make a fire ring exactly in the same spot as an existing fire ring, but that any other spot, even abutting an existing fire ring, is permitted.
Fire risk is just too high, even if rings exist. Use a camp stove. If you really want a fire pit, go to a non-dispersed/non-backcountry campground that has nice large fire pits in cleared areas (still not zero risk, but less risk than some of the janky small rings I’ve come across).
So it's kinda like Couchsurfing.com and Warmshowers, but expensive ($100/yr) and only for vanlifers? Interesting.
I like the community peer to peer model, but it kinda feels exploitative to put an expensive business layer on top of it. What does the $100/yr provide that Couchsurfing's $30/yr doesn't, aside from a feeling of exclusivity? Or is that the point, to weed out poor vanlifers and allow only rich vacationers to swap hosting with each other?
Couchsurfing's downfall was lack of money (and incredibly poor use of funds) that led to the sale to the bizarre monetizing and "creepy engagement" scheme that ruined it. I would pay $300/yr if it would restore the Couchsurfing community and original site.
If this $100 site led to the kind of community we used to have, it's a bargain. But it's not clear yet whether they will foster a community.
They killed the useful forums, made the login page a "dashboard" so useless you had to bookmark other pages to remember how to get to them, made a bunch of unrelated sections nobody wanted, increased font sizes so you couldn't fit much on the page and thus finding useful information got worse, ignored feature requests, refused all offers of volunteer tech work, introduced a "chat with random people nearby" that led to 30 dudes trying to hook up with the only female in town, and added fees to verify or send couch requests. All of which led to an exodus of any of the active users to random Facebook groups. Now the site is mainly for people to try and hook up while traveling, there's no community to teach people to act hospitably, profiles are garbage, and few people host anyone but the opposite sex. There are still some good people who use it the right way, but way more who don't. It's arduous, inconvenient and sketchy now.
Is there any real hope left to save it and bring back the community? Is it too late? I wish I paid more attention :/ Had I known this was happening I would've done more... seems like people tried, to no avail? It's really sad.
It was such a fantastic resource and I really wish I could still host (my partner's not too into it... maybe I'll try to convince her if there's any more community left TO host).
It's exploitative at any price. Someone is bearing the cost of maintaining a physical campsite to offer something out of goodwill. Charging people for access to it is scummy.
It's like those parking scams at stadiums. All the lots are full, but some dude in a reflective vest starts directing traffic into a private lot, collects $40 per car and disappears into the night. After the game, everyone finds their cars booted/ticketed.
Next up: a subscription service to borrow books for free.
Right, but it's arbitrage for something maintained at someone else's expense. If you're making money off of something supported by charity, you're being exploitative. Business as usual for the SV crowd, I guess.
Next Up: SoupFree, a subscription service that helps you score a $0 meal at the nearest soup kitchen.
"rich vacationers" ? Most American adults can afford $100/year.
Edit: I'll even add: most american adults spend $100 per month, not per year, on frivolous stuff. Fast food. Cable TV. Unnecessary high-end phones (instead of mid-range phones). All these people could definitely afford $100/year.
I think that's a pretty privileged viewpoint. That's $100/year of disposable income for maybe a parking spot where you want to go, maybe available when you want to go. That's definitely not a trivial dollar amount for something like that, especially when there are free alternatives (strip mall parking lots, rest stops, federal lands, moving between neighborhoods, etc.). Then there's the question of being able to offer a designated parking spot (hosting) in exchange for staying credits. Paid private parking, especially extra spots, is an absurd luxury in much of the country, for many people.
I knew many people -- climbers, travelers, dirtbaggers, backpackers -- who really wanted to see the public lands that they partially own but could not afford to travel in luxury, people who ate ramen and rice and beans for months just to be able to afford to see the lands. There are also people who live in campers and vans because they can't afford rent. That $100 could definitely go to better uses.
If $100 is nothing to you, perhaps you're the kind of traveler this website is targeting. It's definitely not for everyone. I've met many amazing people on Couchsurfing and Warmshowers, which (at the time) were totally free and still today are much cheaper. The vast majority of the people I hosted were very poor but very well traveled, with stories to tell and friendships across the world. Very few of the rich people I've met have had the same experiences to share. Hosting them was a privilege, and not something I would've wanted to charge them for even if I could. I also met very interesting hosts traveling the same way, because at the end day doing that becomes way more relational and way less transactional -- the opposite of luxury travel.
$100/year, $0.27/day is not in the realm of privilege. The groups you mention spend more than that a year to upgrade gear/etc. I call bollocks on this.
I think this is missing the point. It's not "Can I afford $100 for a year's worth of travel", it's that communities have been sharing hosting/staying for a long time already, for free or nearly free. Then suddenly a new company shows up, offers the same service, but now wants to charge hosts and guests $100/yr for doing the same thing as before. Why should they pay that? What does the new company offer?
FWIW, it is a genuine question, and depending on the answer could make the service actually very valuable. For example (only):
* If they manually vet each member not just with a basic ID check (ID.me etc.) but also with a background check and a Zoom interview, or otherwise improve community trust and relationships
* If they provide a built-in calendar/scheduling system and provide support for last-minute cancellations, rebookings, etc.
* If they provide vastly superior UX or support compared to Couchsurfing and Warmshowers
* If they provide support for international travelers, especially for accidents, medical issues, translations, whatever. But so far this seems to be within California only.
But from their website it's not clear that such value-adds are being done, so then the question is not whether $100/yr is affordable, it's what $100/yr gives you that $30/yr does not. If you're rich, that's not a big deal. If you're poor, that $70 a year DOES make a difference.
I didn't miss the point. The groups you mention spend significant sums on equipment each year. They probably also drink coffee from places like starbucks/etc. They have disposable income and $100/year is a pittance.
Your point of pre-existing free services is a whole different matter and has merits of it's own to discuss. I think, as someone pointed out, couchsurfing.org got kinda weird/shady. I was a member years ago and just stopped paying attention (I recall when there were mailing lists/news groups for such). I think money spent on verification makes sense these days.
Yeah, if I'm going to be honest, if you can't afford $100/yr you can't afford to host, so you're not going to be a contributor to their community. Looks like the filter is working.
Not only that but for many, paying $100 a year would bring a sense of security of choosing a legit service, service which could be very unsafe without a proper identification and that’s where the registrant’s payment could establish some traceability in case something goes bad. Paying $100 also puts a price on account abuse for registrants too. I don’t think paying for a service is a bad thing and don’t think it is expensive at all. Someone has to maintain the service, even if that’s a one dev shop. I don’t consider myself priviledged at all as I’m not in a very rosy financial situation and think twice or more before spending any dollar. Ok, I have food and shelter, I’m not dirt poor but do live paycheck to paycheck as modestly as I can. There’s an utopic idea of free community service but that requires someone to put work in, either volunteer or pay some.
I used to be very active on Couchsurfing and have hosted dozens of travelers -- to rave reviews, and much more often than I stayed. It doesn't cost me anything to share a couch (or a room, on the rare occasion I had a spare). What I'm objecting to is the website taking $100/yr -- for what? It's unclear -- on principle, when communities like it have existed for far cheaper and far longer. It seems to exploit both the hosts and the guests. I understand some overhead (especially when it comes to trust and safety) but it's not clear to me why that price point is necessary when alternatives can offer the same service for much less.
Probably in the "zero[0] marginal cost to owner" sense. They already paid for them; that cost has been sunk. If they aren't using them (and while I don't have citations to back this is, I'm confident that the majority of privately owned bathrooms are sitting idle and unused at least half of the day) why not let someone else?
[0] Yes, okay, fine, the marginal cost is not truly, literally zero: there'll be a few cents for water, a little wear and tear on the equipment, a few squares of toilet paper, a couple squirts of soap, etc. However, most people do not track their budgets that closely anyway, so it would be lost in the noise.
Or put another way, you pay at least $33/night for the right to park a van in one or more undisclosed locations in California for a maximum of three nights. Not sure how that compares with local campsites cost-wise, but it isn't quite free.
Any additional benefit you may be able to obtain is contingent upon other people wanting to park on your lawn for an equivalent number of nights first, which implies you're probably not in the can't afford a campsite bracket, is probably more hassle than paying for a campsite, and isn't much use if you're looking to stop for four nights somewhere in the near future...
Other sites charge less for the right to stay 365 days a year at thousands of actual photographed locations without being a California homeowner with parking space, and waive the fee if you host.
This has the feel of a site someone set up to gauge interest based on signups, rather than something that actually exists. I've never been quite sure how I feel about those: smart product testing or disingenuous bait-and-switch?
That's the new first step for startups: build a landing page, collect email addresses, only then start building a product. Hard to judge from the outside how much already exists (the first big image is a stock photo).
Because Warmshowers membership is $30, once and if they mentioned their service (with a tiny fraction of the users and sites) costs $100/year up front, even more people would leave.
It's all about delaying the unpopular bit as much as possible so people sigh and go "well I'm already most of the way through setting up an account..."
I've been doing this for the last couple years down here in Australia. Wrote some words over at https://ghuntley.com/freecamping/ about where to find spots etc.
I'm interested but $100/yr kind of sounds like a lot. Is it free to host? I wouldn't mind building up credits for a road trip later if I didn't have to pay. Also maybe a monthly price would make more sense as I tend to be on the road only for periods at a time. (or maybe even a per-booking fee?)
Anyways, yearly sub is kind of a non-starter for me though I like the concept.
It sounds like too little to avoid hosting people who don't have a place where host. Someone could pretend another non-host user is hosting them and both could use the credits to stay with actual hosts. Or they could host someone in the same place where they're staying that they don't own or rent.
it's california only and "every member is vetted". Clicking the sign up button gives you a form to write out an email telling them about yourself. I think it's a "small on purpose" kind of thing
I think it's a "doesn't actually exist yet" thing since it has no testimonials, no account creation process, no examples of possible sites, and really just a single page brochure with a "contact us" form.
It reminds me of a mooring exchange website I built 20 years ago, where boaters could freely exchange and/or temporarily use each other's moorings. I eventually pulled the plug because harbormasters were complaining about it and it was just consuming time (no monetization). Maybe I should try again with an annual fee ;)
These are further than 1h away or bunk beds in Hostels (which I wouldn't consider Hotel rooms). Source: I desperately tried to find a hotel there for next weekend.
I've never been to Yosemite, but the ones I checked by doing directions from there to "Yosemite National Park" showed as less than 1 hour on Google Maps
Camping inside the valley is very hard to find too. My personal reason is that I'll be hiking the John Muir Trail for 3 weeks - camping in the wilderness for 20 nights - on Monday and want to have one last night of relative comforts :)
I tried going to a cheap motel while travelling the other day. The cheapest I could get on a short notice was $80 after taxes and fees. The place had many Yelp reviews yet had the lowest possible score (1.0). I only found this out afterwards. I'd estimate ~50% of the pictures were pics of people's bed bug bites, ~30% were cockroach pictures (one of them was incredibly well-shot. Like they had a macro lens and everything) and the other 20% were misc pictures like mold on the walls and stuff. The place stank right away when I walked in. I ended up checking out the same night and sleeping in my car
If you're doing it full-time and you don't have anything to fall back on, you're eventually gonna stay at some crappy motel at least a handful of times. Hard to imagine two such stays are gonna end up being less than $100
I can't remember the last time I've camped at a place without AT LEAST a porta potty. Nobody wants people shitting everywhere and possibly spreading diseases in the soil
There should be a Show HN rule that the OP needs to participate in their thread. Lots of good questions being asked about the legitimacy of this product but the OP is nowhere in sight.
Vanagon owners already have a network app (VanAlert) that's free (donation encouraged). We use one another's driveways and tools, and watch out for stolen vans. That feels like "community." This venture feels entirely like something else, like someone trying to make cash off a different type of van/RV dweller. Cringe Not sure I'd partipate, even if I do have property near two national parks!
Put the credits on a blockchain. Allow hosts to accumulate and sell them. When you're in the VC meeting for this keep using the phrase "blockchain meets the road". Once the VCs run out of money to give you, make sure you give your company a big genesis block and buy some tokens with your personal money. PUMP! Profit. Selling the company before the house of cards comes down is a bonus if you can time it right.
$100 / year. Since the idea is that you need to host as many times as you camp, that means that you'd be limited to camping only half the year: gotta stay home to host for the other half. So you could only hope to use 180 days, so the honest advertisement would be "at least $0.55 per night, but probably quite a bit more".
I guess if you can host several people at once then maybe you could do better?
I've worked with a group that tried to allow houseless people to camp on their property. The main thing most people are looking for when homeless is safety. The most common story I hear when talking to houseless people is the "woman who just escaped an abusive relationship" story. Others have dear pets or are even pregnant. The place was literally just a parking lot but it felt safe and that meant a lot to a lot of people.
The city labelled it a campground and said it was illegal. We worked out a contract with the city to let us slowly move people and try to find somewhere else for each individual instead of violently kicking everyone out all at once. Despite the contract, cops tried showing up at 5am or other weird hours on multiple occasions to kick everyone out. One of us always had to be on call because the only thing that stopped them was housed people with cameras filming them doing illegal actions. Eventually they got through though and most people lost a lot of their belongings. Even IDs and wallets were taken making it impossible for folks to access other possible services
A service like this geared towards houseless people would certainly mean a lot but if it existed (and wanted to continue existing) it could not be this public. Some cities are better than others (Santa Clara has "safe parking places" e.g. but it's only a few dozen spots) but many of our laws (e.g. why a campground costs many thousands more in taxes to run than a motel) are specifically structured to prevent networks like that
Nice design. One big thing though, when making an MVP, make sure the Product is actually Minimally Viable, because if it's not, it's just deceiving, which starts you off in a position of negative trust with the prospect. Trust is difficult, sometimes impossible to earn earn back.
We've gone from SNL making a skit about "LIVING IN A VAN, DOWN BY THE RIVER" to people on instagram doing #vanlife influencer stuff about how trendy it is to live in a converted van.
#vanlife at least aspires to some level of tidy and conscientious housekeeping. Motivational speaker Matt Foley doesn’t have a string of solar-powered faerie lights adorning his collapsible breakfast nook. He has a clattering drift of beer cans that he can gather up around him for warmth.
call me cynical but there are two possibilities . one option is it turns into a business and the other into something exploitative like a hookup app (see Couchsurfing )
Because the title is misleading. It isn't costing 0 USD. If something costs money, be up front about it. Because a lot of people do not have much money to spend freely, and by saying 0 USD you signal to them, only to get them disappointed later. Its a low blow, really.
On the other hand, if a service is expensive, you can be reasonably sure certain types of people will not use such service. Which increases the likelihood of meeting peers of your class. Good for friendship and mating purposes.
Case in point: I have fond memories of going to Playa Montroig as a young kid. One rule there was absolute silence after a certain hour. If violated repeatedly, one could get kicked from the site.
Who is the target market here? The members would all be people who own property near popular vacation sites, which presumably well-off people with disposable income. But those people are not looking to travel and then stay in their cars in a stranger's driveway. They can afford hotels and vacation house rentals.
This seems like the worst of both worlds. People who don't care about the price can afford better accommodations. People trying to travel on a budget won't have properties worth using as a host and can't even participate.
I would guess this maybe targets people wealthy enough to own both property near a popular vacation site and an RV, but who want to travel to other popular vacation sites that don't have nearby RV hookups.
It would arguably make sense as an AirBNB for driveways, as in let the hosts and the travelers be different people with very different demographics, but requiring all users to be both doesn't make any sense.
If you can afford it, a gym membership to Anytime Fitness is a great fit. Most locations of any gym, usually 24 hours, private bathrooms with wifi and outlets, place to shower, and hey you can even work out if you're into that
The website says "It's like having a friend-of-a-friend to crash with wherever you go, even on a powder day."
I don't know about you, but I have no idea what a "powder day" is. I assumed it meant skiing/snowboarding (ie, powder snow), but the first google result is urbandictionary about snorting drugs.
Bonus point systems or just ignoring ratio solved this from my pov for trackers, the 1 to 1 ratio stood out as something that would need a solution long term.