User:DenisYurkin/Paper travel guides
|
WARNING: This article existed once in official namespace, but was deleted after a long VFD discussion. It was moved to the personal namespace of (WT-en) Denis Yurkin to attract more enthusiasts before making it back live. See the talk page for details |
Travel Guides[edit]
Traditional, paper travel guides may be considered competing with Wikivoyage, but normally they are not in most cases: we use both for different purposes and information. Still, as with hotels, restaurants and anything else in travelling, there are opinions and recommendations for guides.
On this page we highlight strengths and weaknesses--as well as target audience of different travel guide series.
Dorling Kindersley -- targeted primarily to families and travellers in 30s+; strong emphasis on cultural and historical background. Very visual and coloured, full of illustrations. Far less practical than Lonely Planet. Takes for granted that visitors can travel to virtually any distant area of the country--which isn't always possible even with a car.
Lonely Planet. Favourite among many backpackers and low-adventure outdoor travellers (i.e. not professionals in cayaking-rafting-climbing etc). Not really as strong in recommending restaurants and cafes, as it is in accommodation.
Also publishes special interest guides like on cycling, world food, watching wildlife etc. Recently made all(?) its accommodation reviews available on the site.
Rough Guide. Nearest competitor to Lonely Planet.
Fodor [1]
Frommer's
- Let's Go
Travel magazines[edit]
France: finding a good restaurant[edit]
(quoted as originally written by AnTeaX)
For the serious gourmand not satisfied with Wikivoyage's recommendations, plenty of guidebooks are available and deciding which one is best for you is a matter of personnal preference. The most talked about is the Guide Michelin commonly called the Guide rouge (Red Guide) for its red cover. Most of the articles written about the other guides compare them to the Michelin which is the recognized reference (even if attacked).
The Michelin guide includes maps of the main cities with the location of the establisments listed. The guide rates the better restaurants which are often quite expensive. It is not very useful for the backpacker even though it includes a selection of bargains. One can say that the concept of this guide is for people who are travelling to eat rather than for those who are looking for a place to eat while travelling.
The Guide du routard is originally intended for backpackers and includes a selection of eateries as well as real restaurants. It also lists places for those who want to splurge. It lacks location maps. The Lonely Planet is also intended for backpackers, it includes maps which are sometimes difficult to read. One definite advantage (at least in the Paris issue) is an index of the restaurants open on Sunday.
Other reliable guides include the Gault et Millau, the Bottin gourmand, the Champerard etc. Numerous sites are also available on the Internet but they have yet to establish a reputation for objectivity. Their main advantage is that they may provide updated information on closing days and times etc. or even if the place still exists.