indy_dad

Many people post questions with the phrase that they want to avoid "tourist traps." In my mind a trap would be something that the substance doesn't meet the hype and therefore the value (generally money but perhaps also time) isn't there. Blarney Stone? Madame Tussaud's? What about the free, but perhaps underwhelming Manneken Pis?

And to expand things a big further, even more folks say they don't want to do/see "touristy things." I assume that to mean popular guide book type items. [You know, these things are generally popular for a reason.] I always find that amusing as if people don't want to be associated with the commoners. Perhaps its just the crowd element, but maybe there's more to it.

Thoughts?

madamtrashheap

I'm with you on the notion of "being associated with commoners" by going to popular destinations - they are popular for a reason, usually because they are worth seeing.

I'm not a fan of the term "tourist trap" being used to describe anywhere that has become popular/well-known/crowded. As travel becomes more accessible, thus more people will travel to more places, ergo they become busier. The term is subjective of course, we all have different ideas of what constitutes being herded and fleeced and generally feeling like a sheep (in the tourism sense), but to label somewhere a tourist trap just because a lot of people visit a place/sight is passing over why people might want to see something. The Leaning Tower of Pisa, for example, could easily be labelled a tourist trap - lots of people, obligatory crap sellers, queues for everything, even souvenir tower lamps (which I secretly love!)- but it's something that many want to see, just once. It's a shame that many often fail to explore the other buildings on the Field of Miracles or even spend time at the other end of town (which is quite cool actually) and just know it as the Tower.

I once read (somewhere wise) that if people keep wanting to be the first to discover somewhere, then they are going to be disappointed on the most part as the days of being an explorer in the true sense are pretty much gone. The trick is to read a little more about somewhere and if it interest you, then go. No trip is a wasted trip, you always learn something, even if it's that you don't need to go back to somewhere again. I generally advise people that if they have never been to a country before, but want to do "non-touristy" things, that they should reconsider discounting everywhere popular as they will miss some good things too.

And as for the terms tourist vs traveller, where to be a traveller is to have a greater purpose than a mere tourist...phooey to that. If you travel outside your home area, you're a tourist. Be proud, just not loud and obnoxious!

Oh, and the Mannekin Pis isn't underwhelming in September when they have a beer festival in the small place in front of it and he pees free beer! Really!

cferrb

I would say that Pier 39 in San Francisco is a tourist trap. Hollywood and Highland in Los Angeles is a tourist trap. Fanuel Hall in Boston is a tourist trap. Most of Las Vegas is a very large tourist trap. I guess the definition of a tourist trap to me is a place whose purpose is to get visitors' money without particularly contributing to their knowledge of the the place that they are visiting.

alanRow

Typical tourist traps are where the locals would never go - so in London it would be the London Dungeons or Madame Tussauds but not the Tower of London or the British Museum.

chartley

I agree with AlanRow, but would add that a tourist trap is somewhere that is famous for being famous - like a celebrity. The best examples I can think of are the Trevi fountain or the Spanish Steps in Rome, which would be unremarkable except for the large number of people who gather there to look at them.

Even Trafalgar Square in London is a tourist trap, and is only worth visiting if an event is actually happening there.

indy_dad

The "locals would never go" definition is a little broad IMO. It is very easy for most locals to get complacent and not want to "deal with the crowds." Some miss some great sites right in their backyard!

Curious also, how do you judge where you would never go if you haven't been there to see for yourself?

lincasanova

To me a tourist trap involves an exaggerated payment to see an unimpressive sight not worth paying for and over-rated just to get you in and get your entrance fee.

Or a place where you are obligated to use some services somehow, in order to be comfortable or continue on your way, whereas a local would know how to get there, how to be comfortable without passing through these unnecessary services and vendors.

I wouldn't call anything a tourist trap unless it involved some type of unnecessary expense for me.. money or time, but the "trap" part.. mainly money and inconvenience.

quokka

Titisee in the Black Forest meets my definition of a tourist trap. For some reason, also judging from the questions in this and other forums, Titisee is the one and only place in the Black Forest people have ever heard of and that they want to visit as being "typical". The lake is quite nice but IMHO not that spectacular, probably famous because there are only two larger lakes within the whole Black Forest. The village has lost all charm it may have had in former times, almost every house hosts either a tack souvenir shop (think cuckoo clocks made in China and teddybears in Bavarian Lederhosen) or the kind of restaurant, or better eatery, where tour buses stop. Some hotels in between, and that's about it. I really wonder what this place is famous for.

Aduchamp1

Foreigners who complain loudly about anything and everything.
____________________

Some place where the locals contort their face or raise their eyebrows and say, "Have a wonderful time."

I live in NYC and try to offer advice on Fodor's. I will state my opinion once regarding a restaurant or sight, and if someone argues in return I now say nothing. Because if they want to go to an overpriced mediocre restaurant that is popular for whatever reason, that leaves one more table open in a good restaurant.

kenav

For me, a New Yorker, the South Street Seaport is a tourist trap. It actually used to be the area where fishermen would off load their catch and there were old bars around. And it has a great view and of course is an historic area in NYC. Had a great authentic feel. But a couple of decades ago it turned into a mall. With some restaurants. Who needs another mall? It is SO not a real NY feeling. Luckily it still has a great view. But I know of no one except tourists and some Wall Street types at lunch time, who go there.

One good thing to do though: Get on one of the boat rides. That's fun and can be exhilarating.

tarquin

I came away from the Capella Sansevero in Naples thinking "tourist trap." Highly touted and expensive (7 euro) for the ten minutes it took to see it. The ticket office next door was better maintained than the chapel. Nowhere else in Naples gave me that feeling.

AnthonyGA

For me, a tourist trap is a place in which local merchants take advantage of the unfamiliarity of tourists with the area in order to abuse them in some way, as with high prices, scams, deliberate attempts to persuade them to make poor choices, etc.

Places are not tourist traps unless people such as the above frequent them. An area with no local scammers or merchants taking advantage of tourists is not a tourist trap.

Sassafrass

Tarquin,

Did you see the sculptures of the veiled Christ and Despair in the Capella Sansevero? I thought they were incredible, amazing really, and would pay to see them again. I also feel that I want to pay a few dollars to help maintain a place like that so the work can possibly be preserved for the future.

TDudette

I agree with lincasanova.

Padraig

I often disagree with AnthonyGA, but not this time: I think he has given us a perfect definition.

ira

Hi mth,

>...to label somewhere a tourist trap just because a lot of people visit a place/sight is passing over why people might want to see something. <

Agreed.

When Christ sent a couple of his followers into Jerusalem to spy out the lay of the land, they reported back that it was "a tourist trap".

Santiago de Compostela has been a tourist trap for milllenia.
..................................................
AR points out,

>Typical tourist traps are where the locals would never go ...<
Such as, the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building in NYC.
..............................................
>the Trevi fountain or the Spanish Steps in Rome, which would be unremarkable except for the large number of people who gather there to look at them. <

I disagree. They are both quite striking, despite the mobs of people.
..................................................
Tar says,

>I came away from the Capella Sansevero in Naples thinking "tourist trap."<

Really? My wife and I spent about 20 min looking at "The Veiled Christ" alone.

PaulHahn

"tourist trap–noun
a place, as a restaurant, shop, or hotel, that exploits tourists by overcharging"

"Definition of TOURIST TRAP: a place that attracts and exploits tourists"

Exploitation is the key--Trevi Fountain doesn't cost anything, so while someone might not think it all that interesting, it's not a tourist trap by these definitions.

Michel_Paris

Perhaps Moulin Rouge in Paris? My understanding is that if you look around, you only see tourists.

Padraig

Michel_Paris wrote: "Perhaps Moulin Rouge in Paris? My understanding is that if you look around, you only see tourists."

Then you won't find anybody from this forum there: we are travellers (some of us are travelers).

BigRuss

Chartley's wrong. If there's no financial component it is not a tourist trap. The term requires the tourists to be financially gouged by the local businesses, the attraction itself, or whoever takes the tourist there. Thus, Madame Tussaud's and the London Dungeon are paradigm tourist traps but the Spanish Steps (it's a plaza and costs $0 to visit) and Trafalgar Square do not count.