Battle Of The Travel Guides...

[phildwyer]

i can't abide the LP books. they just seem generally disapproving of anything 'fun'.

They *always* say that if you're caught with any amount of any drug you will go to prison for a million years.

 

[Bonfirelight]

i went for the last option but i'd like to opt out of the cunt part

i just never take travel guides. no doubt i miss loads of cool stuff, but point me toward the beach and the town/city centre and im happy enough.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Used to work for lonley planet when there were only five of us in the UK so they get my vote.

Never read guide books, they are for hippys.

 

[Belushi]

I've always found LP to be completely uninspired, lacking in history and cultural content and penny pinching to the extreme.

Well they are Australian

 

[maya]

satire can be just as good

check out

"MOLVANIA - A LAND UNTOUCHED BY MODERN DENTISTRY"

*geographical contrasts:
..."from its rocky, semi-barren hills to its rocky, semi-barren plains..."

*exotic religion:
..."baltic-orthodox, only religion which allows smoking in the church..."

 

[marty21]

we tend to use rough guide for a general feel for the place we're visiting, and timeout if we're going to a city...i used to get free timeout guides as i knew someone who was the picture editor there, but she left and now I have to buy them

 

[maya]

Never read guide books, they are for hippys.

but it's a bit better to be safe than sorry, when some irritated rhino gallops towards your first class kenyan sandwich
when you stand outside matumbo's gas, kiosk and grill,...non?

 

[zenie]

Not that I've actually been far but i tend to just wing it and have a look on the net before I go anywhere.

 

[TeeJay]

Ironically I have often got the most out of places when I haven't had a guide book (lost it, somewhere 'not in the book, met people, gone awol, random wandering etc). Things can be more surprising, less disappointing and you spend more time looking around you, talking to people and taking things in. I like maps tho' and often will get a cheap local one and head off to a random point just to see what is there.

 

[phildwyer]

I like maps tho' and often will get a cheap local one and head off to a random point just to see what is there.

I do this too, but without the map. I just walk in a particular direction and see what is there. It works better on the bus though.

 

[ruffneck23]

Good thread , and very apt , im off to india in a few months and ust got the rough guide which i find pretty informative , any other ideas please

 

[Fingers]

In south America we took one of each LP and Footprints). both were good in different ways, when we wanted to get away from teh traveller scene we would choose a hostel in the footprints guide, though footprint's map of la paz was appaling.

Tis funny that all the aussies take the british footprints guide and all the brits take the aussie LP guide

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

I know most people seem to prefer Rough Guide, but I still say Lonely Planet is better. They have better pictures, for one thing

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

but it's a bit better to be safe than sorry, when some irritated rhino gallops towards your first class kenyan sandwich
when you stand outside matumbo's gas, kiosk and grill,...non?

Nah, You gotta keep it real man.

 

[Idaho]

Lonely Planet was the thing 20 years ago - but the days of the little yellow bible are long gone. I tend to go to one place and stay put these days rather than roaming about - so any guidebook with a map will do. I will have usually booked accomodation in advance and don't most of the research. When the kids are older then I will no doubt go back to guide books and such decandances.

 

[wiskey]

when we went to spain last week i took back the rough guide derv bought (because it was printed nearly two years ago and was essentially out of date) and bought the Cadogan Guide to Spain which turned out to be very helpful and easy to read.

wiskers

 

[rutabowa]

I know most people seem to prefer Rough Guide, but I still say Lonely Planet is better. They have better pictures, for one thing

check out Rough Guides redesign!
(damn i was really trying to resist posting)

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I know most people seem to prefer Rough Guide, but I still say Lonely Planet is better. They have better pictures, for one thing

Both have shit maps to be fair.

In fact when I went to St Petersburg I had a LP, my friend had a Rough Guide. Together they made one good guide book. Rough Guide had the better history I have to admit, but I dunno, I don't get on with their formatting at all.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

The lonley planet Japan guide is tourist fucking bollocks and the phrase book is a joke. No, I mean a joke, not just rubbish, it's attempting to be funny but it's just useless.