Little Cedar Creek RV Park & Campground is listed as a campground at 6140 E Peach Rd in Ridgeway, South Carolina, carrying a 4.5 rating across 190 reviews in the source record. It sits in the America/New_York timezone and appears in mapping data under a dedicated place entry, which is often how travelers driving through the region first come across it. Because the record carries both warm praise and pointed complaints, this review treats the visitor feedback as a spread of individual experiences rather than a single verdict.
Several reviewers frame the property as a simple, quiet stop rather than a full-service resort. One visitor described using it as an overnight layover while driving between Florida and Ohio, and another described a quick stop on the way back from Buffalo to Florida. That framing — a place to park, sleep and move on — recurs across the comments, and it shapes much of what follows.
Little Cedar Creek RV Park & Campground at a Glance
As the source columns describe it, Little Cedar Creek RV Park & Campground is categorized simply as a campground. Its address and vicinity fields both resolve to 6140 E Peach Rd, Ridgeway, SC 29130, and it can be reached by phone at +1 803-309-1973, with a website listed at littlecedarcreekcampground.com for anyone who wants to check details directly. The listing records a rating of 4.5 from 190 reviews, which places it in generally favorable territory even though the individual comments vary sharply.
The attributes attached to the place are modest and practical. The payments field indicates cash only, the parking field notes on-site parking, and the pets field states that dogs are allowed. Under activities, the listing allows RV camping and notes that a camping fee applies. The accessibility fields mark a wheelchair-accessible car park, a wheelchair-accessible entrance and a wheelchair-accessible toilet. Price level is recorded as zero, and the amenities field in the source contains only coded references rather than named facilities, so no specific amenity list can be confirmed from it.
What Do Visitors Like About Little Cedar Creek RV Park & Campground?
Across the fifteen reviews captured in the source, sentiment splits rather than converges. Seven read as positive, three as mixed and five as sharply critical, which is a useful contrast to the 4.5 rating and 190 review count shown in the listing. The positive reviews tend to praise quiet nights, friendly staff and straightforward full hookups; the critical ones centre on a refundable electric deposit for long-term stays, a booking mix-up, compact lots and inconsistent facilities. Reviewers who stayed briefly for a single night were generally the most satisfied, while those who stayed longer were the most likely to describe problems.
1. Quiet nights and easy overnight stops
The most consistent positive thread is quiet. A reviewer who stopped for one night while driving from Florida to Ohio described the campground as nice, quiet and safe and close to I-77, adding that they had a full hookup, a gravel pull-through site and a picnic table at the site. Another described a convenient small campground used for a quick overnight stop, noting it was close enough to the interstate but far enough that the highway could not be heard. A third wrote that their single night was very quiet and peaceful, and another called it a quiet and relaxing stop.
Visitors also described the setting itself in favorable terms. One reviewer mentioned a pleasant walk around the pond and the surrounding area, while another wrote about enjoying the walking trails and simply being in the woods. A reviewer travelling with a seven-year-old and a newborn reported no complaints and mentioned that a playground was available at the time of their stay.
2. Friendly, welcoming staff
Staff warmth comes up repeatedly, often by name. A reviewer credited Shelly with being welcoming and wonderful, and another wrote that Shelly was very friendly and helpful on arrival. A one-night visitor described the owners and managers as super friendly and helpful, and a camper with a new site said the owners were helpful and caring and made them feel welcomed and at ease.
A reviewer who checked in during a cold weekend described the reception as warm and nice, and another noted that the lady in the office was super nice and helpful. Long-term neighbours drew comment too: one guest said the longer-term residents were quiet and nice, and another described the camp hosts as very welcoming and the long-term campers as very friendly.
3. Deposits and long-term stays
The heaviest criticism concerns a refundable electric deposit reported at $200 for long-term stays. One reviewer said they left in February and were still waiting six months later, describing repeated calls in which they were told the owner would be informed or that refunds had been mailed. A second reviewer said they left three months earlier and had not received the deposit back, and mentioned being given an explanation involving a death in the owner's family. A third, who stayed in November, said the refund had not arrived two months later.
These are individual accounts and the source does not include an official deposit policy, so the terms cannot be confirmed from the listed data. What the record does show is that this subject dominates the negative reviews and that reviewers describe it as a recurring pattern rather than a one-off.
4. Booking and check-in friction
Reservation handling drew complaints from two directions. One reviewer said they called to book, were confirmed, then received a call the day before asking about arrival, and were ultimately told the campground did not have a site for the date needed after a date mix-up; they also noted there is no online reservation system. Another described calling a number left on the office door, finding the person pleasant, but deciding to look elsewhere after being quoted $70 cash for the night.
In contrast, a different reviewer described a check-in experience as interesting but the stay itself as very nice, and a short-stay guest mentioned being checked in by a very nice lady. Price references in the reviews vary — $40, $50 and $70 cash per night appear in different accounts — which suggests rates quoted to visitors have not been uniform, though the source includes no official rate card.
5. Facilities: clean but limited
Bathroom comments are mixed. One reviewer said there was only one bathroom and shower but that it was clean with plenty of hot water, and another described the restrooms and common areas as clean. A long-stay guest, however, said the bathrooms were locked, which meant walking back to the RV when using the laundry, and described the laundry as old and expensive. Another reviewer stated flatly that the campground had no picnic tables, fire rings or bath houses, which conflicts with the reviewer who reported a picnic table at their site and with those who used the showers.
It should be noted that the amenity field in the source record contains only coded identifiers, not readable facility names, so no amenity list can be verified from the listing itself. A reviewer also noted there was no camp store, adding that the nearest small town offered only a dollar store, which served their needs.
6. Site conditions and neighbouring units
Lots drew criticism from longer-staying guests. One reviewer described the lots as super compact and called their own site dangerous because of a large hole, saying they were unsteady on their feet and felt scared. Another described a roughly three-foot-deep hole near a neighbouring water hookup. Both reviewers also raised concerns about a neighbouring unit they believed was operating a puppy mill, and one added that dog waste was present around the grounds.
On the positive side, a reviewer praised site number three for shade, a patio and a fire ring, another called their site more than adequate, and a guest with dogs appreciated the field available for them. Another reviewer observed that although many long-term campers stay at the campground, it is not junky and remains quiet. These accounts are individual impressions, and conditions at any given site are not established by the source data.