Thursday, December 22, 2011

Lonely Planet vs. Rough Guides

I am definitely in the Lonely Planet camp. Every place we go (and some we don't) I make sure to get the Lonely Planet guide for. Sometimes not just for the country but for the region too. Not to mention those awesome coffee table and travel writing books. The forum isn't bad either. Since we don't buy many souvenirs, guidebooks act as a sort of memento from a trip. As they get marked up and worn out they remind us of where we've been, the mishaps we've had and how far we deviated from "the plan."
Starting at hotels in the Lonely Planet books has led us to some great places to stay and some amusing situations. Usually the one's in the book are full but there is a place next door, or a place owned by a cousin of a friend of a friend that has space available. Where would we be without LP in these cases? We almost never actually end up at the places in the book, but would never have met the hash smoking police officers in Chefchaouen or Franklin, the comedian/ tour guide, in Costa Rica had we not started with LP.
That being said, Rough Guides makes for a much better read. As an owner of Rough Guides "First Time Around the World", I can say that I am much more likely to read RG cover to cover than LP. Their snarky writing style and anecdotal stories make for great armchair travel and inspiration finding. If I had the money (and shelf space), I'd buy both!
My biggest complaint about Rough Guides is they don't give costs of hotels, food, etc. I know these things change quickly, but even LP's estimates give me a much better idea of what I am going to spend than $$ rankings or systems used by most other guides.

Check out our past trips!

No comments:

Post a Comment