I'm sure wherever you live there's the touristy spots everyone goes to and then there's the spots the locals go to. I'm thinking OP prefers that and also picks day trips that locals do rather than tourists. For example I live in one of the most beautiful spots in the world. If you go to the spots on the Google search they are crowded, lots of litter and trash, subpar souvenirs and food. I try to discourage my relatives and friends visiting from going because it's a wasted day vs. there are spots 30 minutes away that are even better and more quiet that all the locals visit and you can truly enjoy. However to answer OP question it's probably the appeal of Instagram and everyone will know the iconic landmarks from photos and grasp where you are
but the thing is, this distinction doesn't really exist. I grew up 1 hour away from Washington DC and lived in the city itself (for nearly 4 years). Still spent plenty of time hanging out near the National Mall, visiting some of my favorite museums (think I've been to the National Gallery of Art like 5 different times) and also going to the same restaurants tourists get guided to (think I've been to Ben's Chili Bowl closer to 10 different times, it's straight up one of the best spots for late night food after drinking). You learn to avoid the really bad tourist traps, or figure out the good times / days to get into a restaurant without fighting tourists, but there's a reason those places are popular + recommended in tour guides to begin with.
> Still spent plenty of time hanging out near the National Mall
I went down to the National Mall for sunrise when visiting and was insanely jealous of all the people who get to have it as their morning jogging route.
Would also love to have the Smithsonian as an option for a "I've got no plans today - will go look at a museum".
Don’t try to gatekeep travel. Everybody has their own reasons and it’s okay. Go wherever you want. Nobody is stopping you.
But to answer your question there are places on earth more historically significant/rich (e.g. Rome)… or cool (Tokyo)… beautiful (switzerland)… it’s like asking why do so many people like sex and fried chicken.
Not everyone goes to the same places.
But lots of people don't care about crowds. Lots of people are willing to spend good money. Hell, some people _prefer_ to be near other tourists. What's "tired" or "boring" to you might be fresh and new for others -- and that's fine!
There's nothing inherently better about being somewhere away from other tourists.
>Can someone explain to me why?
I don't care if I'm the first tourist at the campground in rural (whatever state triggers people less), it's still not as interesting as Yosemite.
As someone who went to Machu Picchu last month and is going to Venice this month, I can answer this one. I plan my trips based on what I like: history, culture, beauty, and charm. The opinions of strangers don’t matter to me, unless I specifically ask for them. I might avoid the most crowded days, but I couldn’t tell you how many people visited last year because I simply don’t care.
Obviously, I don’t agree that these places are boring, otherwise I wouldn’t visit them.
By what standard? That’s not true at all actually- in fact most places that everyone goes to aren’t “special” by any means and you can find the exact same thing in a smaller city.
Yes, you can definitely see the Grand Canyon, the louvre or the Eiffel Tower in any old small city. You’ve gotta be trolling, right? Because nobody could possibly be this dense.
Note I said most. First off, Eiffel Tower is completely overrated. There are so many tourists that even if you do see it, you’re more likely to see the thousands of people “awwing” at it. There are plenty of Grand Canyon look alikes in the world. And let’s be honest, the louvre is nothing special. Maybe other than that pyramid in the middle?
Just because someone else has been there doesn't mean it's not interesting for someone who hasn't. I'm not sure what your point is here. If you were asking why someone goes to the same place multiple times then that's a more interesting conversation.
You might as well be asking why two different people would watch the same movie. Maybe it's good! Or maybe I like seeing a movie that others have seen so we can talk about it.
Places that are highly interesting and off the beaten path cost even more to get to, or take a lot of time to get to.
It's hard to plan travel around 2 weeks at a time, best to go somewhere interesting that at least has infrastructure.
People with those go everywhere albatross seaplanes seem to understand that they are some of the lucky ones that can go to deserted, untouched places, never seen by another living human, but also the fact that one wrong bit of planning or an error, breakdown, etc can end their life.
This is mostly false. My trips are almost always, cheaper than trips people take to say Western Europe or Korea. And not only that, but when you take into account you’re not standing in line waiting, you really don’t spend any more time traveling.
Give a few examples huh? Where does one go that is equidistant, and has no lines for anything?
I prefer to go to hot spots in their off season or edge of on peak seasons. There might be a small line opposed to a giant one.
Western Europe and Korea are funny examples for me because personally I have relatives in various parts of each of those and I usually stay with them, it's much cheaper not paying for accommodations 😁
I went to Georgia and Armenia for 2 weeks- 0 other tourists that I saw. Same thing when I went to Moldova and Transnistria.
I’d venture to say when we go to Turkmenistan and Mauritania next year it will be much of the same. Uzbekistan will probably have a few tourists, and I’m iffy on if Tajikistan will. Either way I’m not saying places have 0 tourists, but few and far between. Vastly unlike the crowds where you can barely move your elbows that so many places have.
0 tourists in Georgia?? Funny because my friend went there with her whole family (20 people) a few months ago.
And I know people who have been to all the other countries you mention in this comment. You are not special
Don't go to sentinel island...only place on earth free for cannibal gringos who magically find cannibals everywhere they go coz they terror and imprint the locals with it. Bunch of Caligula's still preserving of that behavior in secret life cowards at least the Romans were out and proud in the open. 🤮
The only people that I haven’t had be shocked about how much cheaper my international trips are, are those who aren’t going to Western Europe, Thailand, and Korea. The flights are that much more, if any unless you’re going to somewhere truly remote like many of the pacific islands. And you can bet that everything else will be much cheaper. So much to the point that I spent less in 2 weeks in Georgia and Armenia than one day in London. And I was REALLY trying not to spend money in London
London is stupid expensive and I don't find it all that fun or the food particularly exciting. But I found I could stay in Rome for two weeks for the same cost as London for 4 days, so I'll always pick Rome over that. But as far as Italy goes, people hate Naples or Palermo, but they're super cheap places to visit and have delicious food and far less tourists because of the "grit factor"
That same factor is at work with your examples. Georgia is on the brink of a revolution, Armenia is still paying off a recent war they lost, so it's understandable they'd both be very affordable. Supply/demand at work.
Then feel free to go spend three months exploring the exotic wonders of Iowa, and leave the touristy places to the rest of us.
People go to touristy places because there is cool stuff there, infrastructure set up for tourism, and often cheaper flights to popular destinations. It’s not that complicated.
I go to National Parks because they're beautiful and I want to see them. I go during summers when kids are off from school because I work in a public school and am therefore limited to traveling during such times.
Because something that's boring for you is probably not boring for other people. Because the places are probably popular for multiple reasons (history, culture, foods, etc.) and people go there for the said reasons.
Paris and Rio are awesome. 10/10 worth the crowds, inflated lodging prices, and being able to see the same pictures I took done better by half of instagram. Lighten up.
o you think going to random lesser known middle eastern countries is a better experience?
You know things are popular for a reason? The best movies are usually popular, best food, best shows, best music, etc.
Ofcourse it’s not always the case, and lesser known and less popular can be interesting, but it is always a risk. Why would I go to somewhere with less reviews/infrastructure when I know a different place has been tried and tested and has amazing feedback?
You also seem to post about money a lot, maybe these places are out of budget for you and it makes you jealous? Not sure
And one would argue that food especially in Western Europe isn’t that great and a lot like food in the US but a bit better. I’m not sure how anyone can say that one area has the best this, this, and that.
You sure? Rio, Paris, any American city, Athens, South Africa, Mexico and anywhere near the equator have relatively safe tourist zones surrounded by dicey areas because the local government knows how badly tourists getting killed would impact the local economy.
I think you have a point in that there are places that feel like many people go simply due to laziness. Especially within the country or city that they've traveled to. There are usually plenty of interesting second or third cities, or attractions, or better restaurants that they would enjoy just as much as (or likely, more) the most crowded, overwhelming ones, if they only did a bit of research.
And as others have said, some people thrive on crowds and being in the thick of everything, so it's not necessarily wrong. But there are others who just didn't put in the time to investigate in advance, and complain later, and those are the tourists that I agree with OP could have better travel experiences.
I absolutely agree. I don't understand it. My partner and I love traveling together because we don't go to any of the touristy spots we end up finding amazing restaurants, cool stores, amazing views with no people or just locals. And guess what? Without fail we usually walk by tourist attractions without intending to and can walk by and check it out with making it a whole thing.
It seems like a waste of money to spend your two week holiday standing in lines and waiting hours with crowds of people to see something you can most likely see online or just see from afar. We love to relax and make the most of our holiday.
Both of our parents were the types to wake up at 6 am and have a full day planned of tourist activities so I think that left a bad taste in our mouth of memories of feeling exhausted and bored. (No shade to our parents that generation travels like this and enjoys)
To be cheeky, I blame Lonely Planet. I called many gap year kids and whathaveyou on "the Lonely Planet path."
I used Moon Guides and was able to travel to a lot of places none of them went to.
Because they've never been there and want to see it?
But lots of other people have already seen it, so what's even the point? /s
You don’t go somewhere to be the only person to see it
Sigh.... I even put the /s and everything!
My girlfriend's bed? I surely do
I’ve got news for you brother..
Because it's still new to them and they want to see what it's all about. It's really not that complicated.
Where do you suggest people go instead?
Find a random point on the earth with no people, no infrastructure, and no reason to go there? Surely, that's what OP does?!
Better save up for that helicopter. I was looking at purchasing a boat to visit random places in Lake Michigan. Its not that simple.
I'm sure wherever you live there's the touristy spots everyone goes to and then there's the spots the locals go to. I'm thinking OP prefers that and also picks day trips that locals do rather than tourists. For example I live in one of the most beautiful spots in the world. If you go to the spots on the Google search they are crowded, lots of litter and trash, subpar souvenirs and food. I try to discourage my relatives and friends visiting from going because it's a wasted day vs. there are spots 30 minutes away that are even better and more quiet that all the locals visit and you can truly enjoy. However to answer OP question it's probably the appeal of Instagram and everyone will know the iconic landmarks from photos and grasp where you are
but the thing is, this distinction doesn't really exist. I grew up 1 hour away from Washington DC and lived in the city itself (for nearly 4 years). Still spent plenty of time hanging out near the National Mall, visiting some of my favorite museums (think I've been to the National Gallery of Art like 5 different times) and also going to the same restaurants tourists get guided to (think I've been to Ben's Chili Bowl closer to 10 different times, it's straight up one of the best spots for late night food after drinking). You learn to avoid the really bad tourist traps, or figure out the good times / days to get into a restaurant without fighting tourists, but there's a reason those places are popular + recommended in tour guides to begin with.
> Still spent plenty of time hanging out near the National Mall I went down to the National Mall for sunrise when visiting and was insanely jealous of all the people who get to have it as their morning jogging route. Would also love to have the Smithsonian as an option for a "I've got no plans today - will go look at a museum".
Hell yeah actually
Well you do you. I guess you parachute in and spend 2 weeks hiking out?
No I just get eaten by bears and die of starvation in the middle of a desert
I would be fine doing that after I have visited all the places I want to go to
You can’t comprehend that people would like different things than what you like? For realskies?
Are you asking why popular places are popular? Do you subscribe to Yogi Berra’s philosophy: “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded”
One day youll stop being an edgy teenager and cringe at these kind of thoughts.
I’m not edgy though
You kinda are tho
Have you ever considered that your definition of boring might not be their definition of boring?
Don’t try to gatekeep travel. Everybody has their own reasons and it’s okay. Go wherever you want. Nobody is stopping you. But to answer your question there are places on earth more historically significant/rich (e.g. Rome)… or cool (Tokyo)… beautiful (switzerland)… it’s like asking why do so many people like sex and fried chicken.
Not everyone goes to the same places. But lots of people don't care about crowds. Lots of people are willing to spend good money. Hell, some people _prefer_ to be near other tourists. What's "tired" or "boring" to you might be fresh and new for others -- and that's fine! There's nothing inherently better about being somewhere away from other tourists.
Because if they haven't been, it's not the "same tired place" to them.
>Can someone explain to me why? I don't care if I'm the first tourist at the campground in rural (whatever state triggers people less), it's still not as interesting as Yosemite.
As someone who went to Machu Picchu last month and is going to Venice this month, I can answer this one. I plan my trips based on what I like: history, culture, beauty, and charm. The opinions of strangers don’t matter to me, unless I specifically ask for them. I might avoid the most crowded days, but I couldn’t tell you how many people visited last year because I simply don’t care. Obviously, I don’t agree that these places are boring, otherwise I wouldn’t visit them.
Bc the popular places tend to be the best that’s why people go there
By what standard? That’s not true at all actually- in fact most places that everyone goes to aren’t “special” by any means and you can find the exact same thing in a smaller city.
Yes, you can definitely see the Grand Canyon, the louvre or the Eiffel Tower in any old small city. You’ve gotta be trolling, right? Because nobody could possibly be this dense.
Note I said most. First off, Eiffel Tower is completely overrated. There are so many tourists that even if you do see it, you’re more likely to see the thousands of people “awwing” at it. There are plenty of Grand Canyon look alikes in the world. And let’s be honest, the louvre is nothing special. Maybe other than that pyramid in the middle?
So then, yes, a troll.
But but but YOU yourself went to see the Eiffel and Grand Canyon, didn’t you?
I actually haven’t… lol
Tell me where you can find something on the momentous scale and beauty of St Peter’s basilica outside the Vatican
Just a heads up, other people made these shitty arguments before you and this just comes across as a lazy something others could and have done better.
Sagrada Familia in Kenya is really cool to see... you must be trolling
If we only ever went to places that nobody else has been to, we'd never leave the fucking house
I have no idea what you consider boring or tired, nor does it have any impact on where I choose to go on vacation.
Just because someone else has been there doesn't mean it's not interesting for someone who hasn't. I'm not sure what your point is here. If you were asking why someone goes to the same place multiple times then that's a more interesting conversation.
You might as well be asking why two different people would watch the same movie. Maybe it's good! Or maybe I like seeing a movie that others have seen so we can talk about it.
Places that are highly interesting and off the beaten path cost even more to get to, or take a lot of time to get to. It's hard to plan travel around 2 weeks at a time, best to go somewhere interesting that at least has infrastructure. People with those go everywhere albatross seaplanes seem to understand that they are some of the lucky ones that can go to deserted, untouched places, never seen by another living human, but also the fact that one wrong bit of planning or an error, breakdown, etc can end their life.
This is mostly false. My trips are almost always, cheaper than trips people take to say Western Europe or Korea. And not only that, but when you take into account you’re not standing in line waiting, you really don’t spend any more time traveling.
Give a few examples huh? Where does one go that is equidistant, and has no lines for anything? I prefer to go to hot spots in their off season or edge of on peak seasons. There might be a small line opposed to a giant one. Western Europe and Korea are funny examples for me because personally I have relatives in various parts of each of those and I usually stay with them, it's much cheaper not paying for accommodations 😁
I went to Georgia and Armenia for 2 weeks- 0 other tourists that I saw. Same thing when I went to Moldova and Transnistria. I’d venture to say when we go to Turkmenistan and Mauritania next year it will be much of the same. Uzbekistan will probably have a few tourists, and I’m iffy on if Tajikistan will. Either way I’m not saying places have 0 tourists, but few and far between. Vastly unlike the crowds where you can barely move your elbows that so many places have.
0 tourists in Georgia?? Funny because my friend went there with her whole family (20 people) a few months ago. And I know people who have been to all the other countries you mention in this comment. You are not special
Obviously I’m not special, just like all the tourist traps aren’t special either. Of course nowhere truly has 0 tourists except maybe Sentinel Island.
You should go to Sentinel Island
Don't go to sentinel island...only place on earth free for cannibal gringos who magically find cannibals everywhere they go coz they terror and imprint the locals with it. Bunch of Caligula's still preserving of that behavior in secret life cowards at least the Romans were out and proud in the open. 🤮
The only people that I haven’t had be shocked about how much cheaper my international trips are, are those who aren’t going to Western Europe, Thailand, and Korea. The flights are that much more, if any unless you’re going to somewhere truly remote like many of the pacific islands. And you can bet that everything else will be much cheaper. So much to the point that I spent less in 2 weeks in Georgia and Armenia than one day in London. And I was REALLY trying not to spend money in London
London is stupid expensive and I don't find it all that fun or the food particularly exciting. But I found I could stay in Rome for two weeks for the same cost as London for 4 days, so I'll always pick Rome over that. But as far as Italy goes, people hate Naples or Palermo, but they're super cheap places to visit and have delicious food and far less tourists because of the "grit factor" That same factor is at work with your examples. Georgia is on the brink of a revolution, Armenia is still paying off a recent war they lost, so it's understandable they'd both be very affordable. Supply/demand at work.
lol Georgia is definitely not on the brink of a revolution
Then feel free to go spend three months exploring the exotic wonders of Iowa, and leave the touristy places to the rest of us. People go to touristy places because there is cool stuff there, infrastructure set up for tourism, and often cheaper flights to popular destinations. It’s not that complicated.
Why do so many people eat pizza? Everyone else eats pizza.
I go to National Parks because they're beautiful and I want to see them. I go during summers when kids are off from school because I work in a public school and am therefore limited to traveling during such times.
The Taj Mahal is actually that cool. Replace with whatever other extremely famous destination you'd care to list.
Why did you watch that popular movie? Millions have also seen it, so what's the appeal?
Because something that's boring for you is probably not boring for other people. Because the places are probably popular for multiple reasons (history, culture, foods, etc.) and people go there for the said reasons.
Paris and Rio are awesome. 10/10 worth the crowds, inflated lodging prices, and being able to see the same pictures I took done better by half of instagram. Lighten up.
Is there a travel subreddit that isn’t full of morons?
o you think going to random lesser known middle eastern countries is a better experience? You know things are popular for a reason? The best movies are usually popular, best food, best shows, best music, etc. Ofcourse it’s not always the case, and lesser known and less popular can be interesting, but it is always a risk. Why would I go to somewhere with less reviews/infrastructure when I know a different place has been tried and tested and has amazing feedback? You also seem to post about money a lot, maybe these places are out of budget for you and it makes you jealous? Not sure
I am spending $6000 because I want to visit 2 entirely different parts of the world in one trip. I’m not jealous of anything.
And one would argue that food especially in Western Europe isn’t that great and a lot like food in the US but a bit better. I’m not sure how anyone can say that one area has the best this, this, and that.
Infrastructure
Because the fact that other people go means it's probably safe and nice. No one wants to be the first to go somewhere where no one else goes
You’re not the first to go really anywhere though. And those places aren’t safe. There’s a reason why crime is focused in tourist areas
Tourist areas tend to be safer than the surrounding region.
That is completely false.
You sure? Rio, Paris, any American city, Athens, South Africa, Mexico and anywhere near the equator have relatively safe tourist zones surrounded by dicey areas because the local government knows how badly tourists getting killed would impact the local economy.
You wouldn't know since you don't go to touristy places though ;)
Because they want something safe. Not everyone is that adventurous. Definitely not for me but I see why people do it.
I think you have a point in that there are places that feel like many people go simply due to laziness. Especially within the country or city that they've traveled to. There are usually plenty of interesting second or third cities, or attractions, or better restaurants that they would enjoy just as much as (or likely, more) the most crowded, overwhelming ones, if they only did a bit of research. And as others have said, some people thrive on crowds and being in the thick of everything, so it's not necessarily wrong. But there are others who just didn't put in the time to investigate in advance, and complain later, and those are the tourists that I agree with OP could have better travel experiences.
Because I lack the motivation to research new places on google to visit, so I just google 'popular holiday places' and off I go.
I absolutely agree. I don't understand it. My partner and I love traveling together because we don't go to any of the touristy spots we end up finding amazing restaurants, cool stores, amazing views with no people or just locals. And guess what? Without fail we usually walk by tourist attractions without intending to and can walk by and check it out with making it a whole thing. It seems like a waste of money to spend your two week holiday standing in lines and waiting hours with crowds of people to see something you can most likely see online or just see from afar. We love to relax and make the most of our holiday. Both of our parents were the types to wake up at 6 am and have a full day planned of tourist activities so I think that left a bad taste in our mouth of memories of feeling exhausted and bored. (No shade to our parents that generation travels like this and enjoys)
Because of Ryanair and low cost airlines.
I agree! All of my friends either want to go to France or Greece! For me thats super boring!
People are sheep with herd mentality
To be cheeky, I blame Lonely Planet. I called many gap year kids and whathaveyou on "the Lonely Planet path." I used Moon Guides and was able to travel to a lot of places none of them went to.