>>2419869>limit accessibilityMissing the point.
Accessibility is not the issue.
Lack of accessibility grades is.
Carcamping (picrel): have only 1 site, everyone goes there. Have 1 developed campground and then a bunch of "primitive" sites (picrel), 90% of people zoo it up in the campground sites, while the primitive sites are freely available and dispersed enough to be isolated.
Dispersed backpacking: one main trail, everyone on it. Lots of side trails, mostly isolated. There's always somewhere to set up by yourself.
Graded levels of accessibility make it so people will mostly stick to their grade. I see this constantly.
Anywhere I've had issues it's been because they spent all their money on one site/ground and restricted access to the rest totally "for the birds" or some envirotard reason.
Accessibility in national forests just gives me that many more options and makes site restriction that much less a problem.
Most people here are complaining about [really nice spot by city] nobody knew about 20 years ago now has been knownified and they're butthurt they have to go to [slightly less nice spot] instead, because nostalgia/lazy or something.
>>2420190No and no.
>>2420199Tankie begone. Stick to the factories.
>>2420232public parks...
>>2420283Exactly. BLM/NFS lands are the graded accessibility I'm talking about (also picrel). Normies all go to the parks.
I stayed at picrel, 1mi by a very popular out-tourist destination and major campground, for a few days, saw 2 people.
I had the site to myself, along with maybe 1000ft in all directions.
Almost zero trash, I picked up a few wrappers I found.
