As we probably all know 99% of all the information on Wikicamps is by members contributions.
Adding campsites & listing the facilities/requirements etc. eg. no dogs allowed.
We've never added a campsite mainly because we have some favorites that we'd like to keep to ourselves.
We have changed things like TV reception at a campsite, when it shows NONE but there IS reception. We have a standard Winegard aerial.
The people that peeve us are the knobs that change every campsite that they stay at to SELF CONTAINED ONLY just because THEY happen to have a grey water tank fitted to their rig.
When you go to these places there are no regulations stating anything about SELF CONTAINED ONLY & there are sometimes people in tents camped there legally.
The same goes for NO DOGS, we've camped at many places with our dog & had a chat with the ranger who says dogs are fine on a leash. Obviously those contributors don't like dogs.
We've then changed the information about that campsite to DOGS ALLOWED.
The list goes on, some people class bore water as undrinkable just because it has a slight aftertaste.
We cant believe the twits that complain about traffic noise when about two cars per hour go past.
I'm just getting started, how about the drop kicks that complain about Corellas waking them up in the morning? The list goes on.
Has anyone else noticed how much misinformation is on Wikicamps?
Naturally there's a lot of good amongst the BS.
-- Edited by 86GTS on Saturday 19th of November 2022 07:53:26 AM
Regular Wikicamp users read a few reviews and it becomes obvious which reviewers tend to be a bit precious - Wikicamps would be the best value purchase we have ever made whilst caravanning.
__________________
Possum; AKA:- Ali El-Aziz Mohamed Gundawiathan
Sent from my imperial66 typewriter using carrier pigeon, message sticks and smoke signals.
We do use Wikicamps occasionally. It is our 'plan B'.
Rule of thumb is to begin looking for somewhere to camp early to mid afternoon. If this fails to turn up anything suitable that is when Wikicamps comes out. The reason is we like to camp alone when we can, & a listing in Wikicamps, just as with other camp spot databases/books is far more likely to have others camping there too.
That said, Wikicamps has been a real lifesaver on occasions. The most notable time being in the middle of Karlamilyi National Park, where a camp spot we were looking for was incorrectly marked on Hema maps, but Wikicamps had the precise location.Without it we would have turned back & missed a lovely spot (& the sighting of a Princess Parrot!). Quite amazed by Wikicamps on that occasion given it is one of the most remote spots we have been to. None of the usual NP signs, just a few tracks .
Like GTS we have added to/amended or commented on existing entries, but those we find that are not listed we keep to ourselves. Another favourite, directions given to us by locals when we stopped to work at Adels Grove as dishwashers for a couple of weeks, was a site described by them as a 'locals' camp, on the Gregory River. It was beautiful, but after someone added it to Wikicamps it has never been the same since.
Often we have found travelling slowly to no time schedule & engaging with locals face to face has turned up some wonderful spots not listed on Wikicamps et al. It may mean first staying either at a Wikicamps listed spot, or another, to then have the time to talk with the local folk. It is reminiscent of days gone by, pre-Wiki, pre CAW, pre Geowiki etc, when knowledge of camps was passed by word of mouth by folk who whilst talking to you sussed you out before giving out the info.
A good post, GTS but, can you tell me as a Wikicamps user but not a contributor, how to tell when the Wikicamps data for a campsite states, "Self-Contained" or "No dogs", that particular data is not true? Other than physically visiting the campsite, is there any way of determining beforehand that restrictions listed are incorrect?
Cheers,
Roy.
A good post, GTS but, can you tell me as a Wikicamps user but not a contributor, how to tell when the Wikicamps data for a campsite states, "Self-Contained" or "No dogs", that particular data is not true? Other than physically visiting the campsite, is there any way of determining beforehand that restrictions listed are incorrect? Cheers, Roy.
Not really, we've found the information to be incorrect after visiting the campsite.
By changing the incorrect information to the correct information I consider myself a contributor not just a user.
A good post, GTS but, can you tell me as a Wikicamps user but not a contributor, how to tell when the Wikicamps data for a campsite states, "Self-Contained" or "No dogs", that particular data is not true? Other than physically visiting the campsite, is there any way of determining beforehand that restrictions listed are incorrect? Cheers, Roy.
I look at where it is and if you see it is a rest area and gravel pit listed as "Self-Contained" or "No dogs", or my favourite "No Generators" is a giveaway. Dont take any notice of these. Mostly people trying to make themselves feel more important.
I look at where it is and if you see it is a rest area and gravel pit listed as "Self-Contained" or "No dogs", or my favourite "No Generators" is a giveaway. Dont take any notice of these. Mostly people trying to make themselves feel more important.
Spot on WindyHill, personally we only go by official signs at any location. Folks who post this incorrect information are more than like the ones who contribute to the "dribble" on the Wikicamps General Chat section
__________________
We acknowledge and pay our respects to the British and European Elders past and present, who introduced civil society and prosperity to Australia.
And above all else *NEVER* rely upon the land status information provided on Wikicamps, eg. "State Forest", "National Park" etc. For various legal reasons I am very careful to establish the legal status of land upon which I camp and Wikicamps is *frequently* wrong is this area.
To many this may not be a big deal but to others it is absolutely critical. Be warned.
__________________
"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken"
Oliver Cromwell, 3rd August 1650 - in a letter to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland
And above all else *NEVER* rely upon the land status information provided on Wikicamps, eg. "State Forest", "National Park" etc. For various legal reasons I am very careful to establish the legal status of land upon which I camp and Wikicamps is *frequently* wrong is this area.
To many this may not be a big deal but to others it is absolutely critical. Be warned.
Totally agree with this. We've also found quite a few land status mistakes on Wikicamps. We don't rely on Google Maps either.
86GTS & WindyHill,
Thanks for the replies.
"No dogs" or pets is easy enough to understand but is "Self Contained" defined legally and enforceable in OZ?
Cheers,
Roy
86GTS & WindyHill, Thanks for the replies. "No dogs" or pets is easy enough to understand but is "Self Contained" defined legally and enforceable in OZ? Cheers, Roy
We bush camp 90% of the time but over 12 years of traveling all over Australia we've rarely if ever seen a sign at a community travelers rest that says ''self contained only''.
Some camps on Wikicamps have amenities blocks, dump points & even sullage inlets but have ''self contained only'' listed.
I think it may refer to not peeing on a tree trunk in the dark after a few sherbets.
I always take that to mean you must have your own on-board shower and toilet.
In general I do not consider it means you must have a grey water tank unless that is separately specified. Unless there are a lot of caravans passing through a small area grey water will do no harm providing it's kept away from waterways.
__________________
"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken"
Oliver Cromwell, 3rd August 1650 - in a letter to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland
You cannot alter people's comments in the "Reviews" section but you may alter any of the data of the original site listing - and this is appropriate because people get things wrong or incomplete and sites change over time.
__________________
"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken"
Oliver Cromwell, 3rd August 1650 - in a letter to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland
You cannot alter people's comments in the "Reviews" section but you may alter any of the data of the original site listing - and this is appropriate because people get things wrong or incomplete and sites change over time.
That's the way it works.
Google maps works like that too, relying on people contributing info.
We've lived beside Port Phillip Bay in the same house for the past 40 years. Nearby is a beautiful little cove that was named by a famous pioneer resident more than 150 years ago.
It was correctly shown & named on Google maps up until a year ago when someone renamed it after a nearby street.
It was easy to change it back to the original name, so I did. I also requested that the shire erect a new sign to replace the wooden one that had rotted away.
