BootsnAll Travel Community

I'd agree that partially the reason some of these countries are not visited is because of guidebooks. I know, for one, that Albania, Montenegro, and Bosnia (and maybe a couple others) are not in the Let's Go guidebooks for Europe (although Greece, Croatia and others were). They were excluded because they were deemed unsafe. After traveling by using a guidebook for the rest of Europe, it was incredibly difficult to go to winging it in these countries. Not that I minded - I absolutely loved it. It was a sense of adventure you don't get when following a guidebook. But, I must admit, while I was in Albania I saw maybe 2 other tourists the entire time (and they were at the trainstation). So, perhaps, the choice of which countries to include or not include in these guidebooks has a big influence on the amount of travelers? That, and of course, the sense of danger this seems to imply in these countries.

I think people who define travel as an interest and seek out independent travel opportunities are a minority of people who travel. Lots of people who travel (and make up statistics for which countries get tourists or not) go for their vacation and just looking for a different type of experience. I think lots of people just associate beaches and western Europe with vacation and that's it ... it's not like they consider Bangladesh and Macedonia and then decide not to go - they just never think to go in the first place.

And ... so be it. I don't think it's necessary to be insulting or condescending about people's choices. For those who like countries where there are fewer tourists...it seems like it would be a good thing that there aren't a whole lot of package tourists there or whatever.

quote:

The main problems with Russia is that it has no tourist infrastructure worth mentioning, and no one wants to learn Cyrillic characters before going there.

First part: WHAT? There is some sort of accommodation in the most god-forsaken town in Russia. That's my experience anyhow. Most towns have a left-over hotel (bunker) from the Soviet era. If not, there are Turbazas and these days even private accommodation. And if worst comes to worst, there are quite often rooms at the train station (forgot the name for those). Most of the time, they are not even half as bad as it sounds.
Russia is the last country I'd think of if talking about 'lack of tourist infrastructure'.

Second part: As I said: pure laziness. I thought it was fascinating to learn the Cyrillic alphabet. Yeah, it did my head in during the first few days. But it's a week's effort really. If you can't deal with that,...well...

Viaggero: I know the feeling of no tourists around very well. And I prefer it to the circuit by far. Not sure how you approach the locals - or how approachable you are for them (and I don't mean to attack you with this statement), but some of the best experiences I have ever made while traveling were in countries with very few tourists. I believe, that if other tourists are around, we tend to shut the actual destination out. We look at locals as if they were zoo animals: we observe, amuse ourselves and converse about it. But we don't get involved. If there are no foreigners around, the only choice you have is getting involved. And to me, that is what it is all about.

By the way, I don't mean to say that my way is better than anybody's. I'm just stating my personal opinion and the experiences I have made concerning this subject. Hell, I have followed the circuit at times as well. It's fun. But to me it feels like a holiday - the other mode feels like 'traveling'. To me.

I visited Rennell in the Solomon Islands. I was told that they only get about a dozen people each year which come there to visit, even though it is a World Heritage Area.

I noticed that there was some dissing of Nigeria in this thread. I really enjoyed northern Nigeria and would gladly go back there. If you ever get over that way, go to the Wiki Wiki Warm Springs. It's a very enchanting place with a jungly warm pool and nice camping. I enjoyed visiting Kano as well, though there were problems with water supply at the hostel. Of course, I really wouldn't want to hang out in Lagos, I keep hearing about people getting mugged there. Nigeria is a big enough place you can find some nice spots to visit.

Basically I think the reason people don't go to these spots is that they are hard to get to and like was said above, there's not much tourist infrastructure or even word of mouth about them. Several of the places mentioned are on my list of places to go, but since I pretty much want to go everywhere, I suppose that's not saying much.

Why is 'no beaches' such a powerful arguement against places? I guess I'll never understand why people are so drawn to them.

In my opinion, guidebooks really do decide where people go, stay, and eat. There's nothing wrong with that. It's good to be around other travelers sometimes, but other times it's great be all by yourself. A healthy mix of both is what I go for. A few days in Budapest makes you long for remote areas of the Romanian countryside and vice versa.

(Hi seraphim!)

The Faulkland Islands/Islas Malvinas.

Only heard of for the first time & hardly since during "the conflict" b/n the UK & Argentina. When living in Argentina last summer, met a few travelers that had been & LOVED it. They acknowledged that getting there is a bit of a challenge (restrictions on flights ex-Argentina, etc.) but it's quiet, peaceful, beautiful, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by elAdi:
Viaggero: I know the feeling of no tourists around very well. And I prefer it to the circuit by far. Not sure how you approach the locals - or how approachable you are for them (and I don't mean to attack you with this statement), but some of the best experiences I have ever made while traveling were in countries with very few tourists. I believe, that if other tourists are around, we tend to shut the actual destination out. We look at locals as if they were zoo animals: we observe, amuse ourselves and converse about it. But we don't get involved. If there are no foreigners around, the only choice you have is getting involved. And to me, that is what it is all about.

Good point. That's also why I often prefer to travel solo. I don't think I would've enjoyed Russia as much as I did if there had constantly been other foreigners around. Still, it was nice to meet them ocassionally, especially when I met a Dutch couple in Ulan Ude and could speak my native language again after more than a month.

This reminds me how in Sana'a, Yemen, they always made me a very nice breakfast with the yummiest bread ever, except for the one day there was also a German tour group staying there, then we all got stale French-style bread. I think this proves how you'll never get a "real" experience of a country when your with a large group.

Russia may not have hostels and guesthouses on every street, but as ElAdi said it's not like hotels are that hard to find. One time in Nikolaevsk-na-Amure the only hotel was fully booked, but they sent me to the student dorm and even though they didn't really have any room, they did let me stay there, they wouldn't have let me sleep on the streets or anything like that.

If people were really that unwilling to learn a different alphabet, why are there so many tourists in Greece? It's not like Cyrillic is any harder to learn than Greek.

Hi Lofton glad to see you here. I don't understand either why people travel half the way around the world to go to the beach, if I want to go to the beach I don't feel the need to leave the country. And btw I did go to the beach in Russia.

quote:

Originally posted by elAdi:

quote:

The main problems with Russia is that it has no tourist infrastructure worth mentioning, and no one wants to learn Cyrillic characters before going there.

First part: WHAT? There is some sort of accommodation in the most god-forsaken town in Russia. That's my experience anyhow. Most towns have a left-over hotel (bunker) from the Soviet era. If not, there are Turbazas and these days even private accommodation. And if worst comes to worst, there are quite often rooms at the train station.

Russia is the last country I'd think of if talking about 'lack of tourist infrastructure'.

It's all relative. I've stayed in my share of Soviet-era concrete eyesores, train stations, apartments too. But ask the average Joe who has two weeks to get away, and is willing to push the envelope by going abroad, and the inventory of accommodations doesn't measure up to what is considered 'tourist infrastructure'.

I agree--if you want to go somewhere, you work with what's available on the ground (and your budget). But right now Russia (and the non-Baltic NIS) is all top and bottom end, and very little middle.

Most of Russia certainly seems to be off the traveller's radar. I'm going to the city of Chelyabinsk this summer (Russia's 7th biggest city with over 1 million inhabitants) yet Bootsnall has precisely nothing to say about it. Until now that is!

I think what it boils down to is that most people are not adventurous. They'd rather go somewhere where the trail has already been blazed - even on the "ultimate resource for the independent traveller"

I'm living in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It's hardly off the beaten path, but there are relatively few tourists here. On one hand, it's good because I really am forced to learn and use Portuguese. Also, when I go out, I sometimes receive special treatment because a lot of Brazilians really like to meet foreigners and I am the only foreigner in the vicinity(and I love that there is very little anti-American sentiment here....most Brazlians I have met dream of visiting NYC and Miami). On the other hand, I miss being around people who know my references, who I can be all sarcastic and slangy with. That's natural and nothing to be ashamed about. Also, when I am in places like Thailand or Vietnam, I find I meet people from all over the world. Of course, it is cool to have encounters with the locals. But in Thailand, I have met people from Sweden, Hungary, Israel, Canada, Japan. I love that!

I am all in favour of conversing with the locals - but often the main obstacle to that is the language barrier. Your experience depnds a lot on whether you speak the native language.

So ironically it can be easier to meet locals in well travelled countries - because in those places more locals can speak english.

Let me give Tunisia as an example, the beach resorts are very touristic and lots of locals there speak English. But the rest of the country away from the beaches English is very scarce - most Tunisians only speak French and Arabic. I have a basic grasp of French, I know enough vocabulary to get by - but not enough to have an in-depth conversation with someone. Travelling around (away from the resorts) I met a lot of friendly and helpful people but - due to the language barrier - I couldn't really connect with them.

Let me take Central America as another example. I don't speak Spanish... and most locals don't speak English. But while I was there I took a couple of group tours. Through the guides I was able to meet a number of local people and interract with them. In Mexico for instance one guide took me to the Mayan church in Chamula. While I was talking to the guide a Mayan shamen came over to us. My guide introduced the shamen as his god-father, we shook hands and exchanged pleasantries. There is no way I would have had these interactions if I was travelling alone.

I also like those group day tours. I used to avoid them, thinking they were only for Madge and Roy from Omaha. But I took one in Kuala Lumpur and I met some very nice Malaysians visiting KL from other parts of the country. In Vietnam, my group tour to one of the temples near Hanoi had a young Vietnamese lady from HMC who took the tour to practice her English. In Brazil, some of the tours are conducted tri-lingually, so you might meet Brazilians, Argentines, and Canadians.
Maybe it's just me, but I sometimes think "travelers"--in their attempts to avoid being an uncool "tourist" at all costs--inadvertently miss out on so much.