I'm a bit of a hypocrite as I have been a main part of 'making' usable campsites in very rough or inhospitable areas of Howe Sound - as all the good locations have been privatized or otherwise taken looong ago.
This has meant making 'boat runs' thru unbelievably large boulder beaches, some trails to unobvious tentsite locations and work in levelling locations for tents and removal of danger trees. [grants and government approval]
It has also meant removing a fair bit of garbage and even removing a small garbage dump. And to my personal dismay, it has meant erecting signs to show where these sites are and what organizations were involved in the process. However as a consequence, these new sites are receiving much usage and therebye are influencing the delivering of more sites in the area. To me, this far outweighs the intervention concerns for these type of high usage, poor geographical situations.
however,
For sites that are not developed or likely to be developed, for wilderness 'experiences' [a loaded term that is often misunderstood: I don't mean wilderness actuality], we should NOT leave really obvious traces of our passing through - and that we should 'randomize' our setups as we move on to the next. The simple reason is that each new arriver then gets his/her own 'wilderness experience' or challenge to arrange the usable elements in their own fashion.
However the main reason we should NOT make semipermanent fixtures in our path is that
others get inspired to add a little more and a little more to that footprint - and if we're not careful that will [and has] really work to our disadvantage in the long run - that's if we care about those present sites for the future.
So I would strongly encourage minimal intervention and 'randomization' after usage of undeveloped sites.
**
big rant:
[And art in the landscape . . . . my stomach turns that nearly all public art gets continually dumped and dumped and dumped in the parks, greenspaces, and landscape - where as public art it absolutely doesn't belong and if good art, over shadows the gentle contemplation of the connected visual field and if bad, destroys any gentle contemplation. It's a cheap trick and a cheap method by the artist to get contrast for his work and a cheap method by society to not deal with public art where it belongs -
in public spaces for the public to contemplate and be confronted!]
sorry, rant over.
**
and specific to the point raised by jon and dave here's a proposed code of ethics that the bcmtna stewardship committe has come up with:
https://www.bcmarinetrails.org/how-to-help/code-of-ethics