Show HN: Van, truck or car camp for $0 a night
landcamp.org
landcamp.org
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.
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).
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-op
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).
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)
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.
Last I checked, there's a one-time $30 fee.
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".
They definitely aren’t getting rich pal.
By who? There's literally zero information that would make me trust this: who's running this, how's it backed up, what proof you have that this works.
But, cool idea. Love the reciprocity focus. Kind of like couchsurfing, but shinier?
It’s an MVP to capture interest. Simple As.
For $100 you can just pay for a place to park.
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.
When they blocked access for free users, my impression (after paying) was that very little of the community remained.
I happily pay 1.99 euros a month, if only for supporting the idea.
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.
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.
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.
It's a goddamn shit show.
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)
[0] https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hu...
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 think you mean that we should only use extant fire rings and not make new ones?
The sentence
> Don't make fire rings where they already exist
means both:
1. If there is an existing fire ring, do not re-use it. Make a new fire ring somewhere else instead; and
2. If there is an existing fire ring, please re-use it. Do not make a new fire ring somewhere else instead.
What they _meant_ was the second interpretation, and not the first one.
Besides, we're down to like, what, 4 days a year where the fire risk is low enough? Bring a camp stove and a LED candle :)
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).
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!
Kind of true for codebase too
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.
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).
I've never heard of this in US public schools.
Why? Alligators? I keep away abit because of the humidity. But I have never thought off it as a rule?
Also, if you camp near a water source, you may be unknowingly denying the local wildlife from accessing it.
Folks who've never shit in the woods before may have some trepidation about it. There's a classic book on the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Shit-Woods-4th-Environmentally/dp...
The Internet Archive has the 2nd edition:
https://archive.org/details/howtoshitinwoods00meye
Relatedly, assume all water sources are contaminated and filter before drinking. Giardia is no fun.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 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.
Always call to be certain that you are aware of special restrictions like this.
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.
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.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/visit/know-before-you-go/shooting#:~....
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.
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.
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.
If interesting, there was a related discussion about this (awareness vs overcrowding) a couple weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36481279
Here's a map: https://maps.usgs.gov/padusdataexplorer/#/public-access (edit: this map viewer isn't super clear, but go to the Public Access tab. You can zoom in and click on an area to see who manages it. Google it by name to look up specific rules & regulations). They encourage you to use it to find campsites: https://www.protectedlands.net/uses/pad-us-2-0-helps-rv-user...
There's a lot of different public land classifications, with different rules and administrators: https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained
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.).
Pretty much every state West of (or split by) the Contintental Divide, not just the Pacific Coast states and some of the adjacent ones.
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).
There's a lot of free camping out there, you just have to look for it.
What I call the greater west (all of the “West”, “Southwest”, and “Pacific Northwest”) are largely public, federal lands.
I love camping. I think it's an amazing resource. I also think it's a net negative if it ever gets popular.
Also, check the other threads in this topic... you can typically camp in National Forest lands, like in Wayne National Forest an hour out of Columbus: https://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/wayne/recreation/camping-ca...
Or Ohio also has a bunch of state forests with camping: https://ohiodnr.gov/go-and-do/plan-a-visit/find-a-property/f...
Hope you find something! If you do encounter a particularly great (or bad) one... add it to Freecampsites for us :)
https://freeroam.app/about is also a 501(c)3 though a bit newer
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?
I'm gonna go with "yes" purely based on the website's design.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
So the fee is really only if you want to be a guest. But then you need to host to earn credits to be a guest.
I don't think I've met a single millennial in the past year that cooks their own food. I'm worried for them.
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.
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).
Couldn't work for a vanlifer, only an RVer. Vanlifers don't have property where they can host.
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.
I see it as paying for a moderation/review system. It also acts as a filter that many might appreciate, helping identify "serious van-lifers only".
It reads to me like the first person to complain can boot the other person off the site.. hardly worth $100
Next Up: SoupFree, a subscription service that helps you score a $0 meal at the nearest soup kitchen.
1. Add the ability to buy credits. Hurts the "community" aspect, but gets around that problem and acts as a revenue stream.
2. "Joe Smith is a new host! Camp at his place for zero credits in exchange for writing a review!"
3. Just accept that people in undesirable locations don't get to use the tool.
https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html says signup pages and waiting lists are usually off-topic.
It's usually done without the actual company name or final "brand", so you wouldn't even know about it.
I guess these guys didn't get the memo, if this is actually a "demand gauging" website...
That accounts for 90% of silicon valley products.
... plus $100/year. Why is the annual fee mentioned near the bottom of the page?
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..."
boondocking, community-submitted tips https://boondocking.org/
camping, parks, hosting, for-profit https://www.campendium.com/
nature-loving free campers, 501c3 https://freeroam.app/
free campsites, community-submitted tips https://freecampsites.net/
rv camping membership https://harvesthosts.com/
very bougie/expensive hipster, van life membership and blockchain thing https://www.kift.com/
hosting, 3 stays free $100/year otherwise, CA only https://www.landcamp.org/
bicycle tourists https://www.warmshowers.org/
couchsurfing, social network https://www.couchsurfing.com/
airbnb for driveways basically, very expensive https://vanly.app/
Anyways, yearly sub is kind of a non-starter for me though I like the concept.
Sounds like it is... maybe?
> Membership is free if you only want to host (great traffic for businesses like breweries)
- $45/night Moderne Hostel (2-star, rating: 4.1)
- $65/night El Dorado Motel (2-star, rating: 4.0)
- $84/night Aladdin Inn (3-star, rating: 3.9)
- $78/night Country Inn Sonora (2-star, rating: 3.5)
... this is just from google maps. Someone more knowledgeable I'm sure could find even better deals
boondockers welcome was free for a long time before they introduced a fee. then they were $30 per year, and now $79.
What makes you better - a newer website, a shorter domain name? more chic graphics?
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
1. Slip and falls. 2. Forrest fires. 3. Trashing the place.
Why would restroom access be required for camping? That's not something normally associated with camping, is it? Is my idea of camping that far off?
What does that mean exactly? Or do I want to know...
I guess if you can host several people at once then maybe you could do better?
Nice design though.
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
This is Vanly where the barrier to entry on the platform is owning property in California.
I think https://freeroam.app/ or https://boondocking.org/ or https://www.campendium.com/ or https://www.boondockerswelcome.com/ or even the OP are much closer to "the van equivalent of couchsurfing"
Dominant case in point is the long discussion here over the $100 price point.
Is this a spill-over of the Open Source ideals many hold? That software, and by extension services should be gratis as well as libre?
People point out alternative (free) sites, and so on, as if the price matters. Or more accurately as if its the only thing that matters.
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.
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.
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.
Just my 2c but I would maybe change that.