Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

The topic of which tourguide book comes up from time to time on rte. On our
first trip to Europe I took three of the most popular books and used all of
them.
On the second we took two and the only time I used one, was when I had
difficulty finding lodging if Bratislava.
On our third and fourth, I took two and never used them at all. What was
the difference? Greater faccility with the WWW and availabillity of
internet cafes.

Is there any function of a guide book that is not better served by some
other technology.

I am addressing this to this News Group that is to say web users.

--
"These are the times that try men's souls." Tom Paine

Stagshrine

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

"Stagshrine" <[email protected]> writes:

    > The topic of which tourguide book comes up from time to time on rte. On our
    > first trip to Europe I took three of the most popular books and used all of
    > them.
    > On the second we took two and the only time I used one, was when I had
    > difficulty finding lodging if Bratislava.
    > On our third and fourth, I took two and never used them at all. What was
    > the difference? Greater faccility with the WWW and availabillity of
    > internet cafes.
    >
    > Is there any function of a guide book that is not better served by some
    > other technology.

Being in my pocket, for starters. I've just been for a long weekend
in Barcelona, using _Le guide du routard_, and I must say the guide
was one of the better EUR 11.90 I've spent in my touriste career.
Specifically:

* I found a hotel with single rooms for EUR 30.00: I couldn't find
anything remotely comparable on the web.

* The restaurant recommendations were selective, opinionated and
accurate.

* There was a section on the regional cuisine, and a brief menu guide
(and mini-phrasebook section, of which I used slightly more than
none).

* The stuff on the attractions was good, too: they mark them with 1 to
3 routard symbols.

* I didn't waste any of my short holiday in (or looking for) interweb
cafes.

* It is small and light: it spent the whole time in my pocket.

Frankly, websites for touristes have impressed me very little over the
years, and surfing around this time did not show them to have
improved. And the Internet won't fit in my pocket.

    > I am addressing this to this News Group that is to say web users.

Usenet still isn't the Web, of course.

Des

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:20:44 GMT, "Stagshrine" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >The topic of which tourguide book comes up from time to time on rte. On our
    >first trip to Europe I took three of the most popular books and used all of
    >them.
    >On the second we took two and the only time I used one, was when I had
    >difficulty finding lodging if Bratislava.
    >On our third and fourth, I took two and never used them at all. What was
    >the difference? Greater faccility with the WWW and availabillity of
    >internet cafes.
    >Is there any function of a guide book that is not better served by some
    >other technology.
    >I am addressing this to this News Group that is to say web users.

Guidebooks have the advantage of portability and the disadvantage of
weight!

On a recent tour-management assignment to Austria I used the Michelin
Green Guide, the Baedeker, the Phaidon Cultural Guide, an old Fodor's,
several books on Austrian history, internet research and emailing
relevant tourist offices for information and most importantly detailed
maps

These I cobbled together to give information sheets for tour
partcipants. But I didn't lug any books around with me.

I guess it all depends on what information you want. Try finding
hotel/tourist info using Google, and you get inundated with cheap deal
websites and it sometimes takes ages to actually find the tourist
information office site or the site of the hotel in which you're
interested.

Some tourist info sites are about promoting attractions and are short
on detail, some give a lot more background info.

As well as guidebooks, I find it useful to read travel literature as
well - if there's an author I trust, it's good to see a country
through his/her eyes. IMHO anyway.

I do the same kind of research for my own trips to places, but when
I'm there I often say "sod it" and go where the fancy takes me so I
can discover new things for myself.

So a variety of answers to the question!

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

Stagshrine wrote:
    > The topic of which tourguide book comes up from time to time on rte.
On our
    > first trip to Europe I took three of the most popular books and used
all of
    > them.
    > On the second we took two and the only time I used one, was when I
had
    > difficulty finding lodging if Bratislava.
    > On our third and fourth, I took two and never used them at all. What
was
    > the difference? Greater faccility with the WWW and availabillity of
    > internet cafes.
    > Is there any function of a guide book that is not better served by
some
    > other technology.
    > I am addressing this to this News Group that is to say web users.


I tend to use guide books, while traveling, mostly on trains or in
hotel rooms. It's not that they are a substitute for the internet,
but they are vastly more convienent, while traveling. Last year we
considered going to an internet cafe to get some hurricane info, but
it was typically closed when we went by. I ended up buying a
newspaper.

Using the internet for almost anything requires a certain amount
of vetting. Not the kind of thing I like to do on travel.

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:20:44 GMT, "Stagshrine"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >I am addressing this to this News Group that is to say web users.

Newsgroups and the web are completely different things.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

Following up to Stagshrine

    >Is there any function of a guide book that is not better served by some
    >other technology.

If by other technology you mean the web, I find it rubbish for
hotels, swamped by agents. I also tend to carry restaurant and
pub guides with a track record and read a general guide book
before I even consider booking to go to a place. I reckon I have
at least three times more guide books than places I have been.
Books also have editors and get checked to some extent, web pages
are sometimes made by loons.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:51:26 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Stagshrine
    >>Is there any function of a guide book that is not better served by some
    >>other technology.
    >If by other technology you mean the web, I find it rubbish for
    >hotels,

??? We make all our hotel bookings via Internet. It takes time but we
save lots.

    >swamped by agents. I also tend to carry restaurant and
    >pub guides with a track record and read a general guide book
    >before I even consider booking to go to a place. I reckon I have
    >at least three times more guide books than places I have been.
    >Books also have editors and get checked to some extent, web pages
    >are sometimes made by loons.

So are some guide books.
--
Martin

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

The Reids wrote:
    > Following up to Stagshrine
    > >Is there any function of a guide book that is not better served by
some
    > >other technology.
    > If by other technology you mean the web, I find it rubbish for
    > hotels, swamped by agents.


Well..... I'd agree that for every 10 sites that claim to
be carrying some variation of "cheap", there is only one
that truly delivers. And unfortunately it is never the
SAME one twice. About the time I think I've found one, it
turns out to be only for that city, that year. But I
have found good "deals" practically everywhere I've gone.
Rome and Dublin are probably the two glowing exceptions.
Even at that it does allow me the tools to make extremely
informed decisions about where it will be and to some
extent the quality/condition of the facility. (It takes
some reading between the lines).

    > I also tend to carry restaurant and
    > pub guides with a track record and read a general guide book
    > before I even consider booking to go to a place. I reckon I have
    > at least three times more guide books than places I have been.
    > Books also have editors and get checked to some extent, web pages
    > are sometimes made by loons.

Actually, the weakest aspect of guidebooks for me is restaurant
selection. Especially in major cities, things change so fast
in that industry that the books can't be printed fast enough.
Ultimately there is virtually no substitute for walking up
to the door and looking at a menu. I'd admit that the web
isn't particularly an improvement. About the only thing is that
SOME places put their menues there, but it is not universal and
it can even be an abbreviated menu.

Newsgroups can help here a bit, you can at least get fairly
current suggestions. The correlation to your own tastes can
be poor, but that's true of almost any medium.

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

Stagshrine wrote:
<The topic of which tourguide book comes up from time to time on rte.
On our
<first trip to Europe I took three of the most popular books and used
all of
<them.
<On the second we took two and the only time I used one, was when I had

<difficulty finding lodging if Bratislava.
<On our third and fourth, I took two and never used them at all. What
was
<the difference? Greater faccility with the WWW and availabillity of
<internet cafes.
<Is there any function of a guide book that is not better served by
some
<other technology.

What I sometimes find amazing is comparing the guidebook's
recommendations with my actual experience. I therefore wouldn't trust
a lot of guidebooks' recommendations on hotels and restaurants (many
absolutely delightful aren't even mentioned and a lot of mediocre ones
are). I rather see these places in person before making a choice, and
in a restaurant, if you can see the actual food before deciding to eat
there, that is best. What I personally would use a guidebook for is
good information about things to see (I know of many nice places not
even mentioned, while the same old places are mentioned over and over
again). I think that the Michelin green guides do a good job of this,
although now I've started not even doing this.

As to using the internet, I find much of it worthless. Look up Las
Vegas hotels for booking one. You will end up with over a hundred
sites, but there are probably only a handful of actual businesses that
go by multiple names. This travel group sometimes offers good advice,
especially about train travel in Germany and cheapest fares as a few
people seem to be experts in this area.

George

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

I should mention one more thing. Contacting the local tourist offices
is an excellent way to obtain good information on sights and lodging.
The Scotland publications by the regional offices are excellent. They
show all approved accommodations from camping to trailers, to houses
and apartments, in some cases even lighthouses. They show pictures of
the place, list its amenties and cost. You can often stay in one of
their listed apartments for a week for the cost of tewo nights in a
hotel. They've also acepted credit card payment from us when the
actual renter had no ability to do this. Another booklet will have the
local attractions with photos and also list the commercial aspects of
the place. Both will also have local advertisements including car
rental details. Really, almost all you will need to visit a place.
Also, they have pertinent guidebooks, etc. for sale.

George

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

Following up to nitram

    >>If by other technology you mean the web, I find it rubbish for
    >>hotels,
    >??? We make all our hotel bookings via Internet. It takes time but we
    >save lots.

So do I, if I can get to the hotel sites for the agencies.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

Following up to [email protected]

    >Ultimately there is virtually no substitute for walking up
    >to the door and looking at a menu.

that and smell!
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

    > I should mention one more thing. Contacting the local tourist offices
    > is an excellent way to obtain good information on sights and lodging.
    > The Scotland publications by the regional offices are excellent. They
    > show all approved accommodations from camping to trailers, to houses
    > and apartments, in some cases even lighthouses.

"Approved" means they paid the tourist board. There are many very
good hotels and B&Bs that either don't bribe them or don't meet
their bizarre "quality" standards so don't get listed. (The Ceilidh
Place in Ullapool being about the highest-profile).

For example, the tourist board will not list any accommodation that
doesn't have a TV in each bedroom. For many visitors getting away
from TV is part of the holiday experience.

I'd rather sidestep them and just use Google as a tourist board.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

Jack Campin wrote:
    >"Approved" means they paid the tourist board. There are many very
    >good hotels and B&Bs that either don't bribe them or don't meet
    >their bizarre "quality" standards so don't get listed. (The Ceilidh
    >Place in Ullapool being about the highest-profile).

I don't know if they have to pay the tourist board or not, but they
certainly must have to ask the tourist board to approve them. I'm sure
it just doesn't come automatically. As to bizarre quality standards, I
really don't think they have them. A large variety of different types
of places are listed. And they do inspect the places because some will
be listed as 'waiting for approval'.

<For example, the tourist board will not list any accommodation that
<doesn't have a TV in each bedroom. For many visitors getting away
<from TV is part of the holiday experience.

This is definitely not true. The floor of the large house we rented
for a week in Lerwick had one TV in the living room, and none in the
other rooms including the (at least two) bedrooms. But it did have a
washer and dryer and dishwasher. Very convenient, and all for about
US$115/week.
And getting away from TV is very simple, just don't turn it on.

<I'd rather sidestep them and just use Google as a tourist board.

Then you're missing a lot of inexpensive, interesting places to stay,
and a nice easy quick source of valuable information obtainable free by
simply just requesting it. And how easy is it to find a large listing
of self-catering apartments in an area by Google?

George

Re: Which is the best tour guide? None?
 

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:31:40 +0000, Jack Campin - bogus address
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >> I should mention one more thing. Contacting the local tourist offices
    >> is an excellent way to obtain good information on sights and lodging.
    >> The Scotland publications by the regional offices are excellent. They
    >> show all approved accommodations from camping to trailers, to houses
    >> and apartments, in some cases even lighthouses.
    >"Approved" means they paid the tourist board. There are many very
    >good hotels and B&Bs that either don't bribe them or don't meet
    >their bizarre "quality" standards so don't get listed. (The Ceilidh
    >Place in Ullapool being about the highest-profile).
    >For example, the tourist board will not list any accommodation that
    >doesn't have a TV in each bedroom. For many visitors getting away
    >from TV is part of the holiday experience.
    >I'd rather sidestep them and just use Google as a tourist board.

I believe that regional tourist boards in England have outsourced
accommodation checking (and much else besides) - they have become
marketing bodies rather than "hands-on" organisations and are funded
by the English Tourism Council for what are called "Strategic
Marketing Campaigns" (eg "Re-branding the West Country" <groan>).
Regional tourist boards (in England at least) may disappear and be
subsumed into Regional Development Agencies.

Despite the above, I would urge caution in booking non-approved
accommodation. In (for example) Dover, there are a number of
non-approved hotels on the approach road to the ferry port, and some
of them are bloody awful as I know to my cost. At least approved
accommodation should have some minimum standards of cleanliness.

I'm not saying that there aren't good non-approved places - but buyer
beware!
Keith, Bristol, UK

DE-MUNG for email replies.