Tommy Blomqvist:
Light pollution is a big problem to everyone that is keen on observing the sky at night.
In many cases it is not only the general pollution but also very local light disturbances that makes it harder.
It is difficult to measure the true light disturbance in one or more areas of the sky.
These LP-maps gives a clue to what to expect but there are many local variations.
It is first when we are getting around Bortle 3 or better this stops to be a problem.
In my case a usually do astrophoto from my Bortle 5 backyard and it works well even with OSC and only UV/IR-filter if I block from interfering light sources. But moving to my secondary Bortle 4 makes a huge difference.
But when it comes to visual observations I often feel like Bortle 4 or better is a necessity. Our eyes are not as good as the cameras and postprocessing isn't an option (as this isn't fishing we are talking about).
One other thing is that I think most people want to be able to see the stars and sky clear both directly and thru the scope when doing visual observations.
I know what you mean. I looked at an app that shows dark sky places i California (where I live) and there's a little tiny town on the Northern California coast that is listed as Bortle 2. It said there is even parking at the site. But when I zoomed in I realized the parking is right next to a 4-star hotel. So even though it's technically a Bortle 2 sky, the actual site most likely has a lot of artificial light that isn't included in the estimate of how dark it really is.
I'm excited about my beginner's journey into astrophotography and bought an Optolong L-Enhance filter, to help deal with LP but there's still that experience of standing under a totally dark sky that is irreplaceable by any technology. We obviously need "dark sky nature reserves" located in every state or province in every nation so that people can refresh their souls and psyches simply by looking up. It might contribute to making us better humans.
