Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Recreation.gov

recreation.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 205 posts

Re: Recreation.gov

#121

Post by Spooky23 »

brailsafe wrote: post #93
ben174 wrote: post #16

I worked in the bot defense space for quite some time, and it’s insane how much of the bot efforts were dedicated to getting camping spots. I’m happy to see this being recognized because I had many summers ruined because I couldn’t just get my old favorite camp spot.

Hang on. Is this hyperbole or are you saying you've actually had not one, but multiple summers ruined just because you could get a particular spot? Seems like too rigid a definition of a summer to enjoy the very nature of summer.

People take this stuff seriously, and some spots in parks are truly magical, especially if you can get 2-3 adjacent spots for extended family.

Long ago, I ran part of the backend systems for a contractor that had a variety of state and other parks. One set of islands on a lake in particular were very important to a number of people for various reasons.

Specific weekends were in particularly high demand, and people discovered gaps in the booking and rescheduling policies that would allow them to reserve the spot at a different time, then do multiple re-books. IIRC, they would spend about $500 in re-booking fees and would have to coordinate re-booking in multiple specific, inconvenient time windows. (Part of it involved a window where the phone system would accept changes before the online system)

Somebody figured it out, and it escalated to the point where the legislature was investigating it and one of the VPs had to testify to a committee.

Re: Recreation.gov

#122

Post by Spooky23 »

dx034 wrote: post #78
mceachen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that would be fair and reasonable.

Probably because it would increase cost (programming the system, administering it) and they're severely underfunded?

They are not underfunded. This is a $200M Booz Allen contract.

Re: Recreation.gov

#123

Post by bluntfang »

peller wrote: post #100
bitexploder wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience many of the best camp sites I have been to have been in federal forest land on forest roads. The tougher the road the better (limits traffic). I have found some amazing places in Colorado that you could never reserve and they don’t exist as official camp sites. You find a good spot and you camp. Camp grounds with packed in sites are... good for some things. I acknowledge this is a problem for some hi…

I've had this experience out west too. But anecdotally at least, these spots can be harder to find on the east coast.

there's a network of national forests that sprawl the east coast where I've never had an issue finding a mostly secluded campsites close to water and beautiful terrain.

Re: Recreation.gov

#124

Post by rory096 »

tingletech wrote: post #64
xxpor wrote: post #29

Lol at the copyright notice at the bottom. I notice the app is made by Booz Allen Hamilton. It's a shame we have to farm this stuff out to contractors and not use the USDS or 18F.

How can a federal government site be copyrighted? And, copyrighted by a domain name nonetheless. I worked on a project once with the national park service. Their Office of General Council or whatever its called didn't want to agree to make their metadata on https://npgallery.nps.gov available to use with a CC0 license for use in https://dp.la/ . Sure, the images might not have been taken by federal employees, but why…

Work done by private entities under contract to the government is copyrightable.

Re: Recreation.gov

#125

Post by Kye »

majos wrote: post #112
almog wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for people who follow the LNT protocol, and perhaps even carry other people trash, the next step I suggest is to destroy bushcrafters' "shelters". They disrupt soil, more often than not made out of live cut trees (and hinder wood decomposing when not) and 9 out of 10 times, will come with beer cans/tp scattered around and it's illegal to 'build' them on public land. If you happen to see one, destroy it, you'll be…

Not knowing anything about this topic, I’m curious about why this comment is downvoted.

They might be reactive downvotes over the domain name.

Re: Recreation.gov

#126

Post by afpx »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #8

Recreation.gov has been around for years and it doesn't seem to have been updated substantially recently. It's a great resource and I hope people use it to visit US wildlife areas, but I am curious why it has been submitted.

I don’t know why it's posted, but Booz Allen won a contract a few years ago to take it over. It makes boatloads of cash, like literally hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. Because of that, there was a long procedural battle for control of it between Booz and the incumbent, which kept the new site from going live. But, because of its profitability, it’s one of those types of government contracts that you could ride out for an entire career.

Re: Recreation.gov

#128

Post by TheHypnotist »

brailsafe wrote: post #93
ben174 wrote: post #16

I worked in the bot defense space for quite some time, and it’s insane how much of the bot efforts were dedicated to getting camping spots. I’m happy to see this being recognized because I had many summers ruined because I couldn’t just get my old favorite camp spot.

Hang on. Is this hyperbole or are you saying you've actually had not one, but multiple summers ruined just because you could get a particular spot? Seems like too rigid a definition of a summer to enjoy the very nature of summer.

I'm more interested in bots hogging camping spaces. Why? What's the purpose?

Edit: This seems to explain it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21625871

Re: Recreation.gov

#129

Post by ilikehurdles »

dogecoinbase wrote: post #9
throwaway5752 wrote: post #8

Recreation.gov has been around for years and it doesn't seem to have been updated substantially recently. It's a great resource and I hope people use it to visit US wildlife areas, but I am curious why it has been submitted.

My hypothesis was that a lot of folks (myself included) have started going hiking/etc on Black Friday instead of participating in the commercial aspects of the day? Anyways, I upvoted. Our parks/wilderness are one of the really great things about America.

Outside of southern states, a lot of us are well past the hiking/camping season this time of year, except for folks well experienced and equipped for winter recreation or just heading to local city parks.

Re: Recreation.gov

#130

Post by Jamwinner »

almog wrote: post #104
droidno9 wrote: post #84

Front and center of any website to outdoor activities should include some education about Leave No Trace ( https://lnt.org/ ). It's an absolutely laudable effort to get more people outdoors. However, people new to the outdoors aren't very cognizant of the kind of footprint they leave behind, not to mention the *holes who intentionally throw trash at public parks like they're in their own backyards. For the former typ…

And for people who follow the LNT protocol, and perhaps even carry other people trash, the next step I suggest is to destroy bushcrafters' "shelters". They disrupt soil, more often than not made out of live cut trees (and hinder wood decomposing when not) and 9 out of 10 times, will come with beer cans/tp scattered around and it's illegal to 'build' them on public land. If you happen to see one, destroy it, you'll be…

Hear hear. The number of 'survival cosplayers' vs actual campers has shifted is a bad way recently.

It is illegl to build a structure, bury food, etc on public land. You wanna be a prepper, buy your own damn land. Stop destroying ours.

P.s. kick over some carins too.

Post reply on HN