Top Menu

Reversing the star system

One of the features of Nearly Wild Camping is the rating system we are going to use. We are going to take the conventional star system for tourist accommodation and turn it on it’s head. So in the middle of nowhere, with no facilities is going to be 5*!

I have been having a think today about how exactly this could work. I think it is going to be a mix of two different scales, one for how many facilities are available and the other for how remote it is, which will include how far away it is from buildings, how far it is from any shops or facilities and how remote it feels. It is going to be a bit subjective to decide where a site is on a scale and also a site could potentially come out at different stars on each scale, so there would have to be some rules on what you do in that situation. Averaging them wouldn’t help because if they were only one star apart then it would end up in the middle! Or maybe you are allowed to have half a star? Any suggestions gratefully received!

My thoughts so far for the Facilities scale are:

5* has no facilities at all

4* has access to drinking water

3* has a few facilities

2* has provision for all facilities, but not necessarily conventional options, eg. compost toilets and solar showers

1* has all the conventional facilities


The remoteness scale is a bit trickier, my initial try is:

5* is at least 500m from any buildings and they are not visible, it feels remote and is at least 2 miles from the shops

4* some buildings are visible, but they are not within 200m, it still feels remote and is at least a mile from any shops

3* still feels remote, but it s either near to habitation and the shops or is next to habitation but a long way from anything else

2* is near to habitation, but still feels separate, it is also not far from a shop

1* is next to buildings or habitation, a short distance from the shops and does not feel remote


I feel like remoteness is different to wildness. You can find wild patches in the middle of big urban conurbations, but to be remote you need to be far away from convenience facilities. What do you think? I would love your feedback on my ideas.

Comments are closed.