Originally Posted by
Machka
There are hiker/biker sites in the Canadian Rockies. Rowan and I have stayed in one or two along the Icefield Parkway.
1. It makes no difference. I prefer to stay in the nicest possible site available in a campground. If that's a hiker/biker site, great. If not, that's good too. The only benefit of hiker/biker sites is the food storage facilities (lockers etc.) in case of bears.
2. No. Because it makes no difference.
3. The availability of hiker/biker sites wouldn't make a particular route more appealing. The appeal lies in what there is to see and do along the way.
4. Absolutely we would use one. And we have ... frequently. In fact, many times we'll even select the powered sites over the unpowered tent sites. We've paid up to about $30/night for a site.
5. For your purposes, your best bet would be to attempt to encourage campgrounds to set them up in and around the Canadian Rockies because the food storage facilities (lockers etc.) are handy. But some campgrounds already have them, as I mentioned.
6. The Canadian Rockies. The Rhine Route in Germany.
7. The Canadian Rockies. Much of Europe. Pretty much all of Australia. The parts of Japan we've visited.
I guess it depends on the size of the group biking. I was with some folks for a short while and we decided to share a site together, and it came out less than the $5/person of the hiker/biker site, and just as big. Some on the PCH were incredibly nice, and others weren't great, but none were really bad. At least not for me.
For me, having hiker biker sites makes a difference in terms of cost. Seems strange that I would pay as much for an entire site than a family with a car and 5 other people. In Canada it's about $20US for the site, which is still alright, and I guess that's what I'm trying to gauge. Paying less I would imagine would attract more people, but I suppose those averse to paying even $20 might have the same opinion for $5 and avoid that as well.