I'm wondering what the accepted - if there is one - definition of destination park may be. I ask because I just read a review of a park in which I'd stayed for 2+ months this summer described as not being one. Yet, the reviewer gave a very good rating of 8. Hmmm. The rater has had 18 other reviews, so I respect his opinion, but.... To me, a destination park is one in which, regardless of amenities, I'd be happy to spend at least two weeks continuously and be able to enjoy both the park, which I'd use as a base, and the surrounding area. This particular park has constantly received high ratings and is located in a high volumn tourist area, the Oregon coast.

I realize that it's different strokes for different folks and was wondering how others might feel about the topic. If I'm willing to stay at a park for only one or two nights, that's not a destination park for me, that's an overnighter. To me, there's a big difference.

Perhaps I am off base here, but to me a "destination" park is one with amenities that would satisfy all recreation needs on the grounds. In other words a park with pools, playgrounds, recreation rooms, activities, with perhaps a recreation lake or amusement park adjacent. Kind of like a cruise ship with no water. A barometer for me would be whether a person could stay there on vacation without a towd and not need other private transportation during their stay. Disney World's Fort Wilderness would be, to me, a destination park.

We stay at several places for more than a month, at what I call "working person" rv parks. There are typically few amentities except a laundry room. As such, people do not vacation there they temporarily live there. Perhaps someone else has a better definition.

Interesting and 180 different from my thoughts. I can see how you would interpret it thusly and your comment about staying there without a TOAD is one I hadn't thought of. I don't think you're off base at all and perhaps more would agree with your interpretation than mine.

My preference for a "destination" park does NOT include all the amenities. Perhaps that's because a park with many amenities is one that generally would have a family atmosphere and I prefer a place where there are few or no children. Perhaps that's where the difference and distinction lies. Give me a nice place where there are many places to sightsee within 100 miles and I'm a happy man.

Already been discussed - Destination Parks?

Thanks Happiest Camper for citing the previous thread on this topic. Otherwise, I would have added a comment to this thread on my definition of "destination park". That would have been sadly funny considering the fact that I started that previous thread and made several posts during its several month life from late 2009 to early 2010.

Put simply, the whole purpose of your trip is to go to this park, stay there, and enjoy all it has to offer. The previous thread as numerous other "definitions".

I think of a destination park as one located at a destination location. We recently stated as Yellowstone and that was definably a destination. It had all the amenities most of which we didn't use. The park itself was why we were there. Why play miniature golf when the best nature has to offer is right there. We also stayed a the Winnebago Factory camping, which is basically a parking lot with water and electricity (free if you have a Winnebago). It was a wonderful destination as the factory tour was marvelous and the films and museums were so interesting. Some folks like to go to the parks and stay there all day and that is great for them. We use the park as a place to leave the RV while we are out exploring America. Some of the most interesting places we have been have been discovered by accident or chance.

As a park owner and member of the Texas Association of Campground Owners, we have discussed and defined this issue over time. Simply put, a destination park is a park that is the reason for the trip. It is where you are going, not a place where you stay on the way to your destination (commonly referred to as overnight parks). You may be going to your destination park to enjoy the park itself or the amenities within the park, or you may be going to enjoy the amenities, activities, or attractions in the surrounding area, or a combination of both. Either way, a stay at a destination park is generally for several days or a week or more, while stays at non destination parks are generally one or two days.

As a destination park, most people who come here do so to enjoy the sightseeing and things to do in the area. We do get a few overnighters and are pleased to have them, but 90% or more of our business is from families who come out for a weekend, a week long mini-vacation, or who spend the Winters with us for one to six months to enjoy the moderate Winter climate as well as the activities in the area, in particular, a nearby championship golf course that offers super Winter membership packages to our Winter Texans.

I hope this helps this thread.

Doug

I've owned a space in a park called 'Memory Gardens' for many years.
I've never used it and hopefully won't, too soon.

You lost me. Are you talking about a cemetery plot? And you mentioned this because?

FMCA member's call this the final trip. The show is over.

I'm not a FMCA member, so I did not understand what B. Kidd was referring to. Thanks for the explanation.

Thanks for your input.

So now I'm curious if your TACO group has also discussed what makes a place a "resort." There seems to be a lot of leeway with that term.

Resort I think means they charge more or try to sell you a membership. I have been in some that sure are not up scale and not on the level with some state, Federal and some privet parks I have been to for a lot less money.

I all ways though of a destination park as the one I stay at before heading home.Like where you turn around at to start working your way back home.

I have no idea what criteria some places use to call themselves "resorts". This year, we stayed in three places that had "resort" in their name. One could have marginally be called a resort. The other two....feh. A small swimming pool and a rusting playset does not a resort make. Methinks some park owners have delusions of...uh....adequacy.

I thought it was pretty funny.

That Memory Gardens is really boondocking.

Hi again Tex,

Yes as a group, we've cussed, discussed and recussed this issue, but have never reached a definition that everyone could or would abide by. As an RVer for for over 30 years, I have stayed in parks that call themselves resorts that are not not as nice as our park, and vice versa. Some owners just seem to think that calling their parks resorts will bring them more business. I believe the opposite - that having people arrive and be pleasantly surprised is much better for our long term business trend than having people be disappointed upon arrival because of overstated facilities and amenities.

Regardless of whether you call it a park or resort, to me the important thing is to be fair and accurate in all advertising and not misrepresent what what is there. We still will have people arrive and be disappointed because there site may not look exactly like their favorite site pictured on the brochure or website. I'm sorry, but with 100 sites, no one is going to take the lousiest photo available to use for advertising, and all sites will never be identical. We do take reservations by site number, and believe it or not, the nicest sites go first.

Again, thanks for letting i my 2 cents worth.

Doug