How many of you venture into new cities and see parts and areas that are NOT recommended by the guidebooks?

Me, I went to Brixton, where my friends said to go, but where the guidebooks said NOT to go.....and I liked it....reminded me of some areas in my home city where I grew up.

If you have traveled to the more risque areas of a city, did you like it? Would you have done it again? Or did you dislike it?

If you follow rick steves, he says not to bother with the latin quarter in Paris, which in my opinion is ridiculous as it's one of my favorite areas in the city. I think the operative word in 'guidebook' is 'guide' - it's not law. The beaten path is often beaten because some treat travel as a planned event complete with hourly itinerary, rather than an exploratory experience.

I've never read a passage in my guidebooks that say Don't do xxx or don't go to a certain place. I love wandering so I've probably been on some of those areas where guidebooks might say that.

Many guidebooks will hint at places that may not be safe for tourists or they will say there is not much there to see, etc.

What guidebook told you not to go to Brixton?

The book I had is a very popular one and said that Brixton was good for a market they have on the weekends, but that it was a bit dangerous and should be avoided at night.

Generally, I follow my own nose. You get the feeling for a place to know whether you should be there or not... I think I would only avoid area's that I had been advised about in multiple books / websites. There's nothing wrong with Brixton, but I guess there are better places to spend limited time in London

Funny thing is that the people in Brixton were very welcoming and I had my first really good conversation there in days! It was very refreshing...even had a very nice gent order me a few drinks....I felt somewhat odd leaving abruptly, but it was getting late and he looked a bit too...er....full of spirits.

I read a guide book that said Madame Tussaud's in London is overpriced and overrated, but I still wanted to see it so I went anyway. It is indeed expensive, but I enjoyed my visit so I have no regrets. Conversely, I have visited a few places on the recommendation of a guidebook and later I thought it wasn't worthwhile.

For the most part guidebooks give good information, but they are not the absolute gospel truth. A guidebook is merely the opinion of just one or a few people, and these people might not have the same tastes or priorities as you have. If someplace interests you, then do it. Then if you don't like it, at least you will have satisfied your curiosity.

We went to Invercargill on the south coast of the South Island of New Zealand. Whereas the rest of the SI was absolutely beautiful, the guidebook suggested it was uninteresting - and it was. Very nice meal at our hotel though.

I don't think I've read any guidebook that says not to go to certain places, either. Often they may not mention certain places that aren't considered of major tourist interest, but I think that's a normal thing for a guidebook to do -- concentrate on things they think will be of interest to most people and have something worth visiting.

I am not really interested in visiting nothing places that remind me of my home town when I travel -- I just don't have that kind of time to spend.

For cities I have visited for longer or more often, I often just pick new places to visit based on my reading of the place and interest, even when they aren't listed in guidebooks. Have I always loved these places? no

Some guidebooks definitely will note that some areas are seedy, unsafe, druggy, etc. which means that's the first place my seedy and druggy friends want to hit. I have to put my well-heeled Louboutin foot down and demand that at least our hotel or apartment is in a very bourgeois location where the well mannered locals are only doped up on pharmaceuticals that are subsidized by the state.

I have a strange relationship with guidebooks and a lot of times end up in places they say not to go simply because I stumble into them. I went to Morocco, which seemed like an almost bad idea according to the LP guide. Also, when I am in Barcelona, I live in the Raval, which is always this huge no-no. I have been bored and annoyed when traveling, and probably could have avoided some of that had I stuck strictly to the guidebooks, but really, I would rather be bored or annoyed abroad than content and bubbled at home.

Interesting thread..not a guide book but a friend in Lombardy advised us to not even think about going to Bari. But we did go there, driving to Bari from Naples (another place several Italians said not to go to..thank goodness we didn't listen to them). We had the most interesting time in Bari and one of the most fantastic seafood dinners at a restaurant on the beach north of Bari..thank goodness we didn't "listen" to all of the advice.

I'd never heard of Rick Steves before I started haunting this forum, but I'm getting the impression that it might be wise to buy his books just to know which of his recommendations should be avoided. I've already pencilled in a big question mark over the Cinque Terre. All Tuscany might have to follow.

Our guidebook advised not entering Boston Common at night. We ignored that when we saw what looked like half of Boston cutting through it.

Does Rick Steves really recommend against the Latin Quarter? If so, he's even worse than I remember.

The popular sentiment about Salerno is that it is to be avoided. But when I passed through it on my way to the Amalfi Coast, it had a great feel to it. I can imagine myself returning for a few days to uncover the hidden pleasures of Salerno.

From my limited experience, the places that are subtly cited as being possibly "unsafe" or "to be avoided" are often non-white (i.e. Black and Arab) neighborhoods. Looks like a racial code to me... but people say I'm paranoid.

I remember the "guide" here who told everyone that the Via Veneto "isn't the real Rome" and preferred the authenticity of the Spanish Steps. Of course, she was the same person who said she "feels intinidated by walking across large hotel lobbies" so figure it out.

Regarding the recommendations of 'experts', I lost my respect for the WHO (World Health Organization) after their reaction to the SARS business in Toronto in 2003. The WHO showed itself to be utterly ineffective in dealing with uncooperative governments (most notably China, which was the source of the problem in that instance.) Then, in a prime case of demonstrating that no honest deed goes unpunished, the WHO proceeded to ensure that the world overreacted to the case in Toronto, the government of which disclosed fully and honestly the full extent of their problem, and which turned out to be as limited as they and federal authorities claimed.

In many instances, it's what the (so-called) experts don't know about that can hurt you.