I think the exploitation part is the key, definitely. Costs money, no (or little) redeeming cultural or historical value.

I have to say that I think the Winchester Mystery House in SJ is bordering on tourist trap status. It costs a mint to take a tour and the tours aren't that good - the only think that keeps it from full tourist trap status in my book is that the house and the story of that family are so incredibly interesting and such a fixture in the history of SJ.

I think that Pier 39 in SF and South Street Seaport in NYC are pretty similar - once there was something historically significant, now there are just shops and marginal restaurants. It doesn't actually cost anything to go to either though, so I don't know if they can really be classified as traps.

Dictionary defitions are places to start and people should be confined to a standardized phrase. Some definitions change while others expand or contract.

Should we call the the Spanish Steps and the Leaning Tower wastes of precious time. But then again there is the old adage "Time is money."

And yes November South Street Seaport is a waste of time or tourist trap no matter how you want to describe it.

I don't think that the fact that something is famous makes it a tourist trap. I for one, really enjoyed seeing the Trevi Fountain in Rome, and the Leaning Tower of Pisa, why? For the simple reason that I was with great company, and we all had heaps of fun at those places. They have become wonderful memories of laughter, wacky pictures, throwing coins and giggling because the second coin was a wish to fall in love, when none of us wanted to....that's why I loved seeing those places, because of who I saw them with!

One might say that Disneyland Los Angeles is a tourist trap, and I would agree, but does that mean you shouldn't go there....no way! My brothers and I had such a fun time there, even though we were all teens. We will always have the memories of waiting an hour to get a photo with Tinkerbell ( very funny, hilarious in fact having a photo featuring dainty little "Tinkerbell" and two big, strapping, teenage boys ), and the fear we all felt before riding the California Screamin' roller coaster! So even though Disneyland is definitely a tourist trap, so long as you go there with good company ( I mean I'm sure it would be absolutely priceless to see the face of a small child enjoying themself there too ) and really enjoy yourself, what's the big issue!

A place is what YOU make it, not what the other two thousand people around you make it. They are all having their own fun, exploring places and seeing famous locations, if you aren't enjoying it, then that is your problem, not theirs. Every single person visiting say, the Trevi Fountain, has just as much right to be there as you, and if you didn't go and be a part of the "tourist crowds", you would just miss out on soooooo much! It's personal choice, if you don't like crowds, by all means, avoid them, but don't expect to have such a great time, because lots of things worth seeing are out there being seen by everyone, and every single person who is there seeing them is just a regular person, who has every right to see everything that you are seeing.

Growing up in New York there were things we never did because my father would classify them as "touristy". The ones I remember the most are going up the Empire State Building and riding in a horse-drawn buggy in Central Park. I felt deprived as a kid that I couldn't be a tourist and do those things.

one person's tourist trap is another person's "must see".
à chacun son goût!

I tend to stay away from restaurants with a menu in seven languages.

<i>"Exploitation is the key"</i>

And I agree. A trap is a trap. Certainly a mouse knows what a trap is.

If you're an art history buff like I am, visiting and viewing a piece of antiquity is no different than visiting a work of art in a museum. Architecture, for me, is just as fascinating as a fine painting. Just because many tourists go to Pisa to see the Leaning Tower doesn't make the experience a trap. Same with Rome's Colosseum, Trevi Fountain, the Forum, the Vatican, Florence's David, the Uffizi, Piazza San Marco in Venice, etc., etc. You may not fall in love with a piece of antiquity, or had the same thrill as someone else, or want to see it again, but the viewing experience is not designed to exploit you.

<i>"I tend to stay away from restaurants with a menu in seven languages."</i>

Seven languages, perhaps, but I would never ignore a menu written in English, French, and Italian.

RE: Las Vegas

Las Vegas is a different kind of trap. Call it an honest trap. They don't hide the fact that the odds of winning are not in your favor and everyone knows there are no clocks in the room so you never think it's too late to gamble.

Any arrangement whereby the tourist has little alternative but to pursue the activity suggested. For example, a bus tour which stops in the middle of nowhere at a [fill in the blank] 'factory.' Now, many people might enjoy the demonstrations of whatever offered at said factory; they might even enjoy shopping, if at inflated prices, at said factory. But if, due to the location and circumstances, there are no alternatives available to those who don't wish to participate - that is a trap, in my view.

From the Lonely Planet guide to the Yucatan, in a description of how to reach the Templo de las Columnas at Kabah (a Mayan ruin on the Ruta Puuc ): “… watch out for the ‘tourist trap’ on the way – a person-sized hole in the middle of the pathway.”

That counts for me!

"no alternatives available to those who don't wish to participate - that is a trap, in my view."

I was on a boat tour of the Hamburg harbor last week.
I knew it would be in German and although I only have only a beginner's course in the language, I braved it.
Of course, I did not understand more than a few words.
The guide did not stop talking for the whole hour, I was ready to jump overboard half way through.
Not a tourist trap - just a tourist trapped!

Enjoying the responses . . .

I'm more tourist than traveler and I don't mind saying so. I do want to generally see many of the "touristy" sites as well as those that are not so touristy.

Though "touristy" can have a negative meaning, particularly on this board, I think it is important to distinguish touristy from tourist trap (as many have done above).

Am going to AMS for the first time and would like to see the Anne Frank house. Is this considered touristy?

I think you've got it right Indy Dad. "Touristy" seems to have a pejorative meaning here and I'm not sure why. I travel a lot and I enjoy seeing some of the same historical "touristy" things that others see. That's one of the points of traveling, isn't it.

I think of a tourist trap being the souvenir shops or restaurants that surround the tourist sights. Most of these restaurants would not be visited by locals and generally you can see why. The food's overpriced, service is lousy and you never seem to get what you pay for. Even though I knew better, we ate at one of the restaurants in Monaco near the palace and it was a typical tourist trap. They can't wait to get you off the street and into the place and then everything is downhill from there. In this instance both the food and the service were awful - another lesson learned. Visit the sights, but eat where the locals eat.

The Anne Frank house is definitely not a trap, in fact I can't think of anything in Amsterdam that is. Museums, canal trips, pedalos, flower market, herring stalls - it's all good. Maybe if you went on a cheese tour you would be trapped.

This is a good example of a Tourist Trap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPKi1_rVuVU

$-)

"I tend to stay away from restaurants with a menu in seven languages."

It's when the menu comes as pictures of the food

I agree with AnthonyGA. Moreover, I believe the back of a TAXI cab to be the biggest tourist trap of all.

I think Place du Tertre in Montmartre qualifies as a tourist trap. When we were there in May, our companions were feeling tired and very thirsty. They wanted to sit and have a drink at one of the outdoor bars on the outside of the square. I told them it was not a good idea, but they insisted.

"I want a very large beer.", my buddy said to the waiter. I followed suit, and we were served quite a big stein of lager. It went down well, as we fended off the chaps who wanted to cut our silhouettes of our ladies.

When the bill came, the beers were €20 each!

Tourist trap!

"It's when the menu comes as pictures of the food"

I was having dinner in a good Paris restaurant four days ago. The menu was in French only, although they probably have copies in English somewhere . Next to me were sitting two Japanese women who showed pictures of the food ( from some kind of a guide book) to the waitress . I only stayed long enough to see they had ordered pâté for the appetizer .
One took photographs of the food.
Perhaps, there is a hidden demand for menus with pictures !

Some places called tourist traps are worth seeing because of their beauty, history, uniqueness.
Gordes, Les Baux, Carcasonne, Pont du gard, come to mind.

Lots of Vietnamese restaurants around here have pictures of the food on their menus. I've never found it to be a sign of bad food.

In Brussels, the Rue de Bucheres (sp?) near the Grand Place qualifies as a touris trap IMO. Touts trying to get you into their restaurants with high pressure tactics, and I have heard lots of stories of bait and switch at these places.