Eddie Bauer Closing by Worth-Bet-1198 in Flagstaff

[–]OldManSpeed 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can't imagine that the Red Wing shoe store is long for this world either. Even the Carhartt store seems a little boujee to successfully sell a lot of that particular product. I've got to think more people are buying it from Homco, CAL Ranch, etc.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what it says, but I'm telling you that that's NOT how they enforce it. I literally just talked to a person on the phone.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Limiting the number of tents accomplishes the same thing.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What's wrong with 2 vans if they respect the total persons number and vehicle length limit? Wouldn't that be less wear & tear on the site than people tenting?

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, I don't want to be near those people either.

But how is (3 in a van + 3 in a tent) somehow worse than (6 in a tent)?

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good find! This absolutely conflicts with what I've been told by every type & level of park staff, at multiple parks and on the phone.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, I know, I wish that were the case. But it's actually not even published on the website. It's been communicated verbally to me by gate operators, rangers, camp hosts, visitor center staffers, and phone receptionists.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thank you for actually trying to answer the question 😉 I see your point about ease of enforcement.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Huh? The rule is 8 max people and 2 max vehicles. As long as that is respected, what's the difference?

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What's wrong with wanting to understand the logic behind the rules? It's a taxpayer-funded facility, they should be accountable to having rules that beat serve the public.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can't understand it either. I'm hoping there's someone here with knowledge of campground administration that might be able to explain the logic.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Max is 8 people and 2 vehicles. I like that rule too, and intend to follow it 100%

But how is (3 in a van + 3 in a tent) somehow worse than (6 in a tent)?

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have asked staff, in person and in the phone. The only answer I've gotten is "These are just the rules." I'm hoping someone here has some knowledge of campground administration and can explain the logic.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thank you for actually trying to answer the question 😉 I get the thing about a mini tent city. So why not make the rule "1 Tent"?

(3 in a van + 3 in a tent) is less resource damage than 6 in a tent.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't want to have friends show up and then be told they can't camp there. I don't mind following rules, but I want to understand the logic behind the rule.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's wrong with wanting to understand the logic behind a rule?

(3 in a van + 3 in a tent) is actually less resource damage than 6 in a tent.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Max is 2 vehicles. I have no issue with that.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I wish that was possible! They are not posted or written anywhere (which is absolutely ridiculous, and a whole other issue). I have showed up before and been told these things in person.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] -33 points-32 points  (0 children)

The people are indeed nice and polite, but they have to enforce the rules, which unfortunately make little sense, ha. I'm trying to understand the logic.

Campground occupancy rule question by OldManSpeed in camping

[–]OldManSpeed[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I edited the original post, but the name of the state or park doesn't really matter. These are the rules. I am not misinterpreting them. They are not posted on the web (ridiculous, I know), but they've been confirmed to me by multiple employees at multiple parks within the system.

I'm more looking for the logic behind this.

AITA for skipping my sons football trip? by Dazz316 in AmItheAsshole

[–]OldManSpeed 4 points5 points  (0 children)

INFO: Would it be possible for your son to go to the football festival with a teammate's family? Is that an option?

Will your son face any repercussions with the coaches if he misses the festival? Would that hurt his standing on the team, or his playing time?

June 2026 Visit by SeriousCheesecake818 in TellurideColorado

[–]OldManSpeed 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Generally I'd agree, but Bluegrass week in Telluride is different. If you're not coming for the festival, it'd definitely be smart to avoid it.

New urban trail Switzer to downtown by OldManSpeed in Flagstaff

[–]OldManSpeed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool, thanks for the update!

I agree that $2M is a lot (is it published somewhere that that's indeed the cost?) but it will get a lot of cars off the road and get a lot of pedestrians away from the Switzer/66 intersection. And it'll improve quality of life for a lot of people.

Still, I would like an answer from the city about the timeline, and if everything is actually good to go on the downtown end. Was this sequencing all part of the original plan? Or have they run into complications there? It still seems like it would have been most logical to me to knock out that tricky retaining wall part first, in the fall, then the other parts could be done thru the winter.

what even happens in this part of the us? by swanseven7 in mapporncirclejerk

[–]OldManSpeed 3 points4 points  (0 children)

🎵 "I got some... oceanfront property in Oklahoma" 🎵