Idle banter forum
how quickly can a location get ruined?
5th May, 2010
Messaging not enabled.
just wondering, since everyone says that as soon as its published in a lonely planet guide all the good things about a place can get destroyed. so, do you think if lonely planet etc says a place is isolated or whatever, that it will be the same 6 months later?
#1 Posted: 24/5/2010 - 21:18
Well, not all places mentioned to be isolated by LP get ruined. And not in six months anyway. In my opinion, this effect is more pronounced with single guest houses and restaurants etc. A guest house can sometimes really change a lot if it gets recommended by LP and starts receiving lots more guests.
#2 Posted: 24/5/2010 - 22:52
Usually if it's in LP, it's already on the map.
On the other hand whole provinces will only get a couple of paragraphs because they don't yet have a backpacker scene and no one will go there becaus it's "boring".
#3 Posted: 25/5/2010 - 10:10
quite a few guidebooks have done a pretty good job of turning most people off Oudomxay town in Laos.
#4 Posted: 25/5/2010 - 11:01
When people use LP to find isolated-yet-easily-accessible spots that nobody’s ever heard of, they usually fail to take into account the fact that millions of other travellers are in possession of the exact same information.
Stands to reason that if LP does a detailed write up raving about some unknown new gem of a place it’ll quickly be absolutely mobbed with people looking to escape the tourist hordes.
The trick is to look for succinct one line entries in LP along the lines of...
This remote spot totally devoid of tourists is VERY time consuming and uncomfortable to get to (ie we haven't been there either) and we strongly recommend you learn the local lingo before going.
Like Somsai says, if it’s in LP it’s also on a map. The reverse isn’t true but how many people use maps to find out where to go these days.
#5 Posted: 25/5/2010 - 16:04
5th May, 2010
Messaging not enabled.
argh thats so annoying. one of the things im actually most afraid of (except, obviously, murderers etc) is finding all these places just for them to be full of tourists
#6 Posted: 25/5/2010 - 21:38
My cure for seeing tourists is the electric razor.
#7 Posted: 26/5/2010 - 08:02
9th November, 2006
I rarely find places lacking tourists so when I do find a good spot, I tend to keep it to myself. I know its selfish. But what I dont wanna see is a quiet and peaceful place become another Khao Sanh Road or Vang Vieng.
#8 Posted: 31/5/2010 - 22:16
"quite a few guidebooks have done a pretty good job of turning most people off Oudomxay town in Laos."
. . . I think I might have done that too.
Seriously though - I agree with the idea above that looking out for words like "interesting" but "difficult to get to" is a good way to find something a little unspoiled.
For example - in Western Sichuan (China) the write up on Tagong Grassland, or the example of certain beaches on Phu Quoc (Ong Lang Beach/Thang Loi Resort for example) which are described as quite because they really are - and people who want to gather and party go to Long Beach while those looking for isolation go to the beach with fewer bungalows that is further afield.
#9 Posted: 1/6/2010 - 09:45
I agree that once it is in the LP its pretty much ruined.
I went to Palolem in Goa in 2004 and there were no tourists, only a few places to stay and i returned 9 months later and there were loads of people. It just wasnt the same, and all in the space of a few months!
#10 Posted: 2/6/2010 - 18:13
Add your reply
You need to be logged in to add a reply.
Not a member? you can join here.