# How large is not suitable?



## ceejayt (Nov 25, 2005)

We have a 30 foot van. I like to use the iCampsites app and the search facility on this site. I do find that many of the sites are marked as not suitable for large RVs and yet after a phone call there doesn't seem to be a problem. 

Do we need to start being more precise perhaps? Perhaps there should be an up to 20/30/ more than 30 categorisation?


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

Hi Ceejay,

Our van is the same size as yours and our experience re campsite pitch size stipulations has been exactly the same as yours and we always ring now to check for ourselves. We have found that despite what websites such as the CC, the CCC and icampsites may say, we have never experienced any difficulties getting a pitch when we have telephoned the campsite direct and I can honestly say we have never been turned away yet! 

We adopt the same rule for when we wish to visit towns and villages and want to find somewhere big enough to park our van for a few hours. We usually google the contact details of the local council in charge of the area we are planning to visit and we then ring them to speak to someone in the car parks dept. Generally, the person we speak to will direct us to somewhere where they say we are ok to park our van but I always take their name as a reference, just in case we should ever encounter a problem with an over-zealous car/coach park attendant! Should we ever get questioned, I can at least advise the attendant that we acted on the advice of the local council and we can then give him/her the name of the person who we spoke to!

Sue


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

Our new van is 7.36 and I noticed that the CC say not suitable for over 7 metre

I think its definitely time that large is more precisely defined, especially as they more often than not they can accommodate them

Maybe its a hangover from caravan lengths and has not been revised to meet the growing motor home trend

It is a pain having to phone up all the time to check
Good idea Sue, but means you must have internet connection if you are already on the move

Aldra


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

aldra said:


> Our new van is 7.36 and I noticed that the CC say not suitable for over 7 metre
> 
> Aldra


But, as it is the CC they are possibly talking about caravan lengths. Caravans are always quoted as body length and not shipping length. So it is possibly suitable for 8.3metres when the drawbar is taken into consideration.
Gerry


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

aldra said:


> Our new van is 7.36 and I noticed that the CC say not suitable for over 7 metre
> 
> I think its definitely time that large is more precisely defined, especially as they more often than not they can accommodate them
> 
> ...


I agree it's a right pain having to ring campsites to check if they actually CAN accommodate us and you are quite right, you cannot always get Internet connection on the move but sadly, until they all list accurate information, it is the only way to find this information out. The same goes for parking too - and again, until the UK realises the need for dedicated parking bays for motorhomes, we have no choice but to plan ahead and ring the authorities in charge of that area to ascertain if they can accommodate us in any of their car parks! :roll:

Who knows .... Maybe if we all keep ringing the campsites and the local councils to request information about pitch sizes and parking, it may make them all realise the need for more accurate information and better parking provisions??? :wink:

Sue


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Large*

Hi

Defining "large" may also create more problems though.

For example, I have a similar sized van to the opening poster, but a TAG axle. I would guess that one of the two motorhomes will have a better turning circle than the other, so the actual pitch size may not be as important, more the approach to pitches etc. On my recent stay in Antibes, the pitch was 40 feet long, but getting onto it, driving around a 90 degree corner on a narrow road etc, was not the best. A different type of van may have performed better or worse.

I have said it before on here that I believe I can manoeuvre a 40 foot coach (single year axle) into tighter spots than I can move this van (tag axle)

Russell


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

I agree, Russell

But what does "not suitable for large motor homes" mean

over 6ft,7ft or 8ft??????

more phoning to check

Aldra


----------



## MicknPat (Jul 18, 2005)

Several years ago knowing that we intended to buy a large American Motor home I asked Nuke if a symbol or additional information could be added to new entries into the MHF map data base to help not only myself but also other large motor home owners to identify a suitable site without having to phone.

Yes calling the site and asking is easy in the UK but what about European sites where the site reception staff may not speak English, plus the cost of the call 8O 

So the suitable or un-suitable tick box was added.

However some time later on reviewing some of the new entries with pictures some members were ticking the un-suitable box when the pictures clearly showed that the site could easily accommodate Billy Smarts Circus (shown ones age now ) let alone a large motor home.

The tread started and a debate commenced on the fact that some members with smaller motor homes were not confident to decide if a site they had visited and were adding to the data base could accommodate large motor homes 

Whether a site can accommodate a large motor home lets use the largest size permitted in law, 39ft, depends on several items.

1. Does the site have 40 ft long pitches?

2. Are the sites internal roads wide enough?

3. Can the pitch area be it grass, gravel, tarmac, or concrete take 10 ton +?
4. Is the entrance wide enough?

5. Any low or over hanging trees?

6. Any problems to the approach to the site?

Every time I log into MHF I first check out the new entries to the map data base, since its update the suitable/un-suitable facility appears to have been removed, so now I just rely on any photographs that the member has kindly added together with the information section in which the member could easily just add 'not suitable for large RV's because................................

Mick


----------



## Bubblehead (Mar 5, 2007)

We have an Elegance 821g, which is a tad under 9m. We always point out that the wheel base is only about 6m and we have a 2m rear overhang which can go over grass at the rear of the pitch. We therefore only need about a 7m pitch but with plenty of room at the rear for the overhang.


----------



## SpeedyDux (Jul 13, 2007)

This isn't just about pitch sizes. The other factor that needs to be considered especially in the case of RVs which are over 7 tonne MTPLM is the designed load capacity of the campsite roads. These roads may have been specified originally and constructed just to take light traffic such as caravan outfits. It is a civil engineering issue. As motorhomes get increasingly long and heavy the campsite owners might have good reason to worry. 

Unless the foundations / roadbase of the campsite roads were specified at the outset to allow high axle loadings, repeated use by heavy vehicles such as RVs will eventually cause the roads and drains to subside requiring very costly repairs. In my experience damage to roads and drains is also potentially a major risk for campsites when they have static mobile homes delivered on large trucks and unloaded by crane. 

SD


----------



## BritStops (Mar 3, 2011)

Thanks ceejayt - this is an issue that we at Brit Stops have been wrestling with recently, so I'm keen to see what the MHF "hive mind" can bring to bear on the matter!

In our guide we currently use a symbol denoting a 3500kg+ motorhome to show "large" motorhomes are accepted.

I chose 3500kg as this seemed to be the understood tipping point where the size of a motorhome flipped from "standard" to "large" .

The thing is, many of our hosts really only want to know the length of the vehicle, so in effect the symbol means "motorhomes over 30ft" as that's how I ended up explaining "large" motorhomes to them.

Also, to further confuse the issue, I now realise some shorter motorhomes can also weigh over 3500kg. :roll:

So, my current thinking is to change to a symbol that denotes "motorhomes over 30ft", which would cover the longer motorhomes (which I guess would also be over 3500kg). Weight is less likely to be an issue as the requirements for hosts state that the site should be firm.

I did think of using two or three size categories, but decided against, in the interests of keeping the registration form for hosts as simple as possible, so as not do discourage them when they come to sign up!

Steve


----------



## MicknPat (Jul 18, 2005)

SpeedyDux said:


> This isn't just about pitch sizes. The other factor that needs to be considered especially in the case of RVs which are over 7 tonne MTPLM is the designed load capacity of the campsite roads. These roads may have been specified originally and constructed just to take light traffic such as caravan outfits. It is a civil engineering issue. As motorhomes get increasingly long and heavy the campsite owners might have good reason to worry.
> 
> Unless the foundations / roadbase of the campsite roads were specified at the outset to allow high axle loadings, repeated use by heavy vehicles such as RVs will eventually cause the roads and drains to subside requiring very costly repairs. In my experience damage to roads and drains is also potentially a major risk for campsites when they have static mobile homes delivered on large trucks and unloaded by crane.
> 
> SD


SD, I fully agree as indicated by my last post, not only the vehicles you mention may have to access a site but also, depending on layout, refuge collection, tanker to empty septic tank, lpg tanker,fire engine, but just how much weight and visitations by say a 10 ton MH would it take to cause damage

Mick :?:


----------



## MicknPat (Jul 18, 2005)

Steve, How about using images like these? No weights required the image says it all or even take it a little further and have the 'Normal' MH image and the RV image with a red diagonal line across indicating NOT suitable?

A site with an RV image will obviously take ALL. 

















Mick


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Using 11m.+ RVs over many years I found it was always better to just turn up and when refused entry inform the site we were the same size as most caravan combinations.
Usually we were then accommodated. I would also lie a little about the actual length.

Ray.


----------



## BritStops (Mar 3, 2011)

MicknPat said:


> Steve, How about using these images.


Now that's not a bad idea at all! Sometimes the simple answer is the most difficult to find when you've been looking at the question for too long!

Thanks, Mick!


----------



## Hezbez (Feb 7, 2009)

We were turned away from a C&CC site because we were too big........at 6.3 metres 8O


----------



## MicknPat (Jul 18, 2005)

raynipper said:


> Using 11m.+ RVs over many years I found it was always better to just turn up and when refused entry inform the site we were the same size as most caravan combinations.
> Usually we were then accommodated. I would also lie a little about the actual length.
> 
> Ray.


Ray, I to would be a little tempted to not give the correct length of our RV to a site for the following reasons.

In our caravanning days we used the Caravan Club site Black Horse Farm many times when en-route to France, in those days our 4x4 & twin axle outfits length was 12.8m longer that our RV.

I saw RVs towing Smart cars on trailers enter and use this site and several times to reduce disturbing other campers when we have left early for the ferry I have parked on a pitch without uncoupling.

However the Caravan Club now show the maximum outfit length for this site as 10.1m 8O

Mick


----------



## ceejayt (Nov 25, 2005)

Great feedback all round. BTW, I joined BritStops (which is a brilliant idea and I wish it every success) and see the same issue with the entries as highlighted. There are probably no places in BritStops that would refuse my van particularly as we would be likely to be spending money in the pub etc.

Of all the comments the one about using images seems like a fantastic idea to me. I also think that 30 feet is a good cut off point because that is about the size the largest European van goes to so i wonder if you need 3 images - campervan, european A Class and American RV.

If all of us when putting reviews into the database could give a little more thought before not ticking the 'Not suitable' box that would also be useful. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to change that original entry which is something I would do as and when we stayed anywhere that had been 'crossed off'.

I have been refused on the phone at two or three CC sites but we don't use them much anyway as we prefer CLs. Generally the CL issue is just one of how wet the grass is and able to take the weight of the vehicle. The CL owner just likes to have the cash.


----------



## AndrewandShirley (Oct 13, 2007)

Hi All

Please do not resort to lying about the length of you m/h.

We work as camp site staff and if someone says they have a 28ft m/h then that is what we allow for. If they then turn up with a 32ft m/h then we may not have anything to offer so may have to refuse.

It is really best to call the site direct to confirm, most of us will try to accomodate you.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

ceejayt said:


> If all of us when putting reviews into the database could give a little more thought before not ticking the 'Not suitable' box that would also be useful.


I think you've got things a little confused there.

The question asked on the input form is:

*Suitable for RVs/Large MHs over 30Ft long:*

If you leave that field blank, it defaults to "Not Suitable". If you think about it, that's the only logical option.

Most motorhomers own M/Hs which are less than 30' long so when they enter campsites into our database they don't always feel competent to state categorically that the site is suitable for "large" 'vans. Consequently they either leave the field blank or tick the "NO" option, either of which results in the entry showing a negative response for "Suitable for 30'+". If the default was the opposite we'd be in danger of getting complaints from owners of large 'vans that our database said the site was suitable but they were turned away - or even worse got stuck on the access road.

There isn't really an easy answer to this problem, the fact of life is that if you choose to drive a "large" M/H or RV then you need to plan a little more carefully that those with more modest sized 'vans. Contacting individual sites before arriving is the only option in most cases.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

gaspode said:


> If you leave that field blank, it defaults to "Not Suitable". If you think about it, that's the only logical option.


Wouldn't the better solution be to have three options - Suitable, Not Suitable and Not known? If none are selected, then it would be treated as a Not Known.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

peribro said:


> Wouldn't the better solution be to have three options - Suitable, Not Suitable and Not known? If none are selected, then it would be treated as a Not Known.


That might be theoretically possible but what would be impossible would be to re-allocate all the existing 8000+ existing entries to the correct category, we simply don't know which of the negative entries would need to be changed to "Not Known". In my opinion the best way to interpret the "30ft" field is to assume that a negative entry means "not known" and a positive entry means "probably". You simply can't rely on the subjective opinion of another member when it comes to whether a large 'van can be accepted by any particular site. Some time ago after a campaign by RV owners, Nuke added a "endorsed by RV owner" field which is probably slightly more reliable but so few RV owners complete this field that it's almost irrelevent. Only 356 sites in the database have been endorsed, many of them by non-RV owners. 8O


----------



## Jented (Jan 12, 2010)

Hi.
There is one particular site in Yorkshire,who ask for the length of your unit,when booking,they have pitches for 2 large units,but when they are taken,thats it,the other pitches are to small,so it would still pay to ring ahead,even if the advert says "suitable".
This is one time,when size DOES!! matter.Lol. We were on a Castels site in Normandy,a Scottish couple with a tag axle hobby and twin axle trailer,( Smart Sports,and large M.cycle) and us with twin axle c/van +4x4,managed quiet easily to back onto our pitches,leaving the whole lot hitched up and still had room front and back,it was off season,so we had the use of the bays opposite to manouver,in high season,i think it would have been impossible due to the trees,and other pitches having units on them. In the twin axle days,we rang ahead abroad,as we did not want to be confused with "Travellers".
Ted.
PS. This may or may not help. Whilst in S/Germany,some "Travellers" arrived just before the closing of the site,and were let in. It seems in Germany,at a certain time (Just before closing),a site cannot turn away touring people if they have the space.
I was told this by some campers on the site,so if anyone knows if this is true or not, i would like to know,also,if you have a big unit and need a place,if true,there is your loophole,have fun. 
Gearjammer


----------



## ceejayt (Nov 25, 2005)

gaspode said:


> ceejayt said:
> 
> 
> > If all of us when putting reviews into the database could give a little more thought before not ticking the 'Not suitable' box that would also be useful.
> ...


Surely that is not the only logical conclusion? If the field is left blank then the result is ' unknown'. This would be a far better result than a default 'no' do you not think?


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Jented said:


> There is one particular site in Yorkshire,who ask for the length of your unit,when booking,they have pitches for 2 large units,but when they are taken,thats it,the other pitches are to small,so it would still pay to ring ahead,even if the advert says "suitable".


That's a very good point and simply reinforces the fact that the only way to be certain is to contact the site, whatever any database or website says.


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

Gaspode what you say makes absolute sense and I know we shall continue to ring in advance. :thumbright:

I've just had a thought ????????? If those of us who own larger vehicles ever get refused a campsite pitch due to our length/weight etc and we then find ourselves in the position where we've no place to lgally stay for the night, then surely we have little alternative but to 'wildcamp'? If, we are then approached by either the police or someone from the local authorities and instructed to move on our way, they cannot really in all fairness penalise us or be intolerant if we explain that the local campsites have all turned us away due to our length/weight? and so unfortunately, we cannot find anywhere locally to stay! Let's face it - we've got to sleep somewhere, as otherwise we'd be a danger on the roads if we continued to drive whilst suffering from fatigue due to sleep deprivation???? :wink:

Sue xxx


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Some time ago this worked for us near St. Tropez Sue with a 35ft. RV.

We had been parked in a large layby at Beauvalon Plage beside the beach with no camping signs in four languages.

After a few days Plod came along and said for us to move into a site. As it was August I pointed out there just was no room. Plod said you go tomorrow.
This went on for 15 days and we got quite friendly with Plod. They eventually turned up one morning and said there was now space in the campsite at Port Grimmond. We moved.

Ray.


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

Hi Ray,

Brilliant! :thumbright: 

I wish I'd have thought of doing similar when we visited Northumberland and we were wildcamping at various spots in the area. We were told by someone in authority (can't recall his title) that we were not permitted to stay overnight in one place we were overnighting in (even though there were no signs saying we couldn't) we didn't argue though as we prefer to just find pastures new rather than rock the boat and argue our point but it was out of season and there were no campsites open in that area at the time!

These places want visitors to come all year round to bring in revenue for the local businesses etc but sadly, as is typical of the UK tourist destinations, they do not provide any facilities for the motorhoming fraternity! Where are we expected to go or park? 

I get quite miffed about this as we pay our road taxes like anyone else, yet we receive no reductions for some of the restrictions we encounter. I mean; we are frowned upon if we want to park on the streets, take up parking bays or drive down country lanes and fellow road users seem determined to get passed us no matter how risky their overtaking manouveres may be! 

Aargh - it is so very annoying!!!! :roll: 

Sue


----------



## ceejayt (Nov 25, 2005)

gaspode said:


> peribro said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't the better solution be to have three options - Suitable, Not Suitable and Not known? If none are selected, then it would be treated as a Not Known.
> ...


Another alternative since clearly so many (probably the majority) are unknown, would be to reset the field to 'unknown' and then over time this could be updated more accurately perhaps/

Just a thought


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Hi Sue.
The pics were pre digital age and you can just see our old Dodge Champoin alongside the Gulf of St. Trop. Ray.


----------



## MicknPat (Jul 18, 2005)

AndrewandShirley said:


> Please do not resort to lying about the length of you m/h.


Hi Andrew & Shirley, on who's camp grounds do you work, CC, C&CC or independent?

Yes you are 100% right and it would be stupid to book a 30ft MH when it is 39ft, the sites I'm talking about are those who for reasons yet to be divulged why a site lowers its max outfit size say to 30ft even though 36ft RV's have previously stayed there?


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

raynipper said:


> Hi Sue.
> The pics were pre digital age and you can just see our old Dodge Champoin alongside the Gulf of St. Trop. Ray.


Ooh very nice ...... aw those were the days!!!!!! 

Happy memories I'll bet? 

Sue


----------



## MicknPat (Jul 18, 2005)

gaspode said:


> Some time ago after a campaign by RV owners, Nuke added a "endorsed by RV owner" field which is probably slightly more reliable but so few RV owners complete this field that it's almost irrelevent. Only 356 sites in the database have been endorsed, many of them by non-RV owners. 8O


Gaspode, A well known phrase comes to mind, about leading a horse to water.......................

Many years ago an RVer and author of a guide for RV sites once told me that some RV owners can be very selfish and keep their favourite sites to themselves which not may be in the site owners best interest and could cause them to go out of business due to lack of visitors.

Mick


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

There is a simple way around all this - submit a site review.

Whenever you guys with large 'vans use a site that's in the MHF database, just add a review to that site letting everyone else know about what size 'vans it will accommodate.

When that review is submitted it has to be approved by the campsite database staff and at that time we can also amend the original entry to reflect your experience and reset the "over 30ft" field to the correct seting at the same time.

If the site isn't in the database just add it with suitable comments about the suitability for large 'vans.


----------



## Jented (Jan 12, 2010)

Hi.
People do not want to go away for a holiday,or weekend,and sit looking out at the side of a unit the size of a single decker bus,perhaps this is why some site owners would rather not have them on site. This is just an observation,there are more problems,the bigger the unit becomes,side roads etc,Sonesta and the majority of bigger home owners accept this,and plan ahead,all you electronic whiz kids should have no trouble with,dongles,i phones,GPS,etc,to make the phone and or computor work well enough to ring ahead. 
Big is not allways beautifull,it maybe to me,but if i elaborate,i will get a clout from Jennifer,LOL.
Ted.
PS. If units get much bigger,they will soon have to have a movement order from the Police LOL.


----------



## MicknPat (Jul 18, 2005)

Gaspode, Sounds a good idea in theory, but first I don't think the map data base search facility works on reviews and second when you buy a paper you look at the front page first not the 4th or 5th.

A review is a good way at giving ones opinion on the site but *correct basic information* needs to be on the main entry, surely :?:

Mick


----------



## ceejayt (Nov 25, 2005)

MicknPat said:


> Gaspode, Sounds a good idea in theory, but first I don't think the map data base search facility works on reviews and second when you buy a paper you look at the front page first not the 4th or 5th.
> 
> A review is a good way at giving ones opinion on the site but *correct basic information* needs to be on the main entry, surely :?:
> 
> Mick


Took the words right out of my mouth. A reset to unknown would be much better. I do make a point of adding reviews whenever I can for precisely this reason.

Thanks

C


----------



## ceejayt (Nov 25, 2005)

MicknPat said:


> Gaspode, Sounds a good idea in theory, but first I don't think the map data base search facility works on reviews and second when you buy a paper you look at the front page first not the 4th or 5th.
> 
> A review is a good way at giving ones opinion on the site but *correct basic information* needs to be on the main entry, surely :?:
> 
> Mick


In fact, just to add to the note about the search facility - certainly on the iCampsites app it doesn't let you filter results by 'suiatble for large RVs' If you take this option it just gives you a list of evry campsite that is suitable for RVs not just those ones close by to where you want to search.

One for the wish list?


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

MicknPat said:


> Gaspode, Sounds a good idea in theory, but first I don't think the map data base search facility works on reviews and second when you buy a paper you look at the front page first not the 4th or 5th.
> :?:
> 
> Mick


May just be me, but I think you misunderstood what Gaspode was saying. Whenever you write a review, it's checked by the mods...so if you put in a review that the site *is* suitable & it had previously been marked as unsuitable, they'll amend the original entry?


----------



## ceejayt (Nov 25, 2005)

Rosbotham said:


> MicknPat said:
> 
> 
> > Gaspode, Sounds a good idea in theory, but first I don't think the map data base search facility works on reviews and second when you buy a paper you look at the front page first not the 4th or 5th.
> ...


I work in the computer industry and the more human intervention you have the more likely it won't happen plus, if the data is poor, always best to wipe it and start again.

Just my two pennorth


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

...but the point is there's human intervention on _every_ submission as the mods always validate reviews - so no extra one. Seems a pragmatic approach to me, versus starting from scratch.


----------

