The Tourist/Traveler Argument

Following up to Citizen Ted :

and a tour is a guided visit to a place.

Not at all. Unless you mean "guided" by a guidebook.
I can go on a tour of the UK on my own ... I have my own agenda and
timetable. It doesn't have to be organised before, or by anyone else. To me
it implies more organisation (at the minimum to have a relatively good idea
of where you want to go before you set out) that a traveler, who turns
travels more on a whim.
--
Tim C.

On 1 Jun 2006 20:01:42 -0700, wrote:

Look, the point isn't whether you like my shorthand definitions, but
whether there is a real distinction between those who favor the tour
bus experience and those who prefer to explore on their on.

Of course there's a distinction, some like to be in a tour bus, and
some like to be on their own...

Obviously,
I think there is and, clearly, a number of people agree. I didn't coin
"tourist vs. traveler" in this context, but if you're not happy with
it, then either come up with other terms or, better yet, address the
substance of the distinction.

Well there's no need to get words suitable for it, we're not going to
agree on a definition and inventing gurrurg and hurruurg for the two
groups would be pretty pointless, if you ever have an actual need to
clarify between the above distinction spell it out... I can't really
see it as something that comes up often though.

Jim.

You seem to equate "tourist" only with the guided tour "if it's
Tuesday...." type.

Others don't.

They are not the only type of tourist. There is a whole range of tourist.
A tourist is a person who tours, therefore visits more than one place (read
town region whatever) during their trip. That can be an organised
whirlwind one or a more sedate, self-planned, go as you care type.
--
Tim C.

Following up to (Jim Ley) :

I can't really see it as something that comes up often though.

except every other day on r.t.e.
--
Tim C.

As I've said before, if I travel for my own pleasure, I do so
independently, make my own arrangements and basically do my own thing.

However, I'll sometimes join a local half-day tour, so I can benefit
from the knowledge of a local guide, making note of places which I'd
like to visit on my own later on.

When I work on group tours, I see varying clientele with different
needs and expectations. Yes, there are those who expect to be
spoon-fed and have their bottoms wiped for them.

Then there are those who join a group tour mainly on price grounds.

I sometimes do special-interest tours, where a group (club or society)
decides to see some things they wouldn't normally get to see. Last one
of those was last year - a Wine Club - visited vineyards, wineries and
distilleries in the Mosel area. Group of medics, as it happens: highly
intelligent people, many well-travelled as individuals.

Then there are those who no longer have the energy to do their own
thing.

I don't think it's an either/or situation. Same with individual
"travellers" - some of those are pretty dumb and do exactly the same
as the stereotypical group tourist. OK they're using local public
transport and organising the logistics themselves, but take little
real interest in what they're seeing.

Each to their own.

Keith, Bristol, UK

Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com

This is a sp*mtrap, but I will get your mail!

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:59:36 +0200, Martin wrote:


We occasionally tack onto other people's guided tours if they sound
interesting. Some guides are superb, others are a waste of space.
We do always tip,even if we aren't part of the tour.

Do you always wear the regulation shorts and hiking boots?


Keith, Bristol, UK

Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com

This is a sp*mtrap, but I will get your mail!

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:22:24 -0700, Citizen Ted
wrote:


Though I was tempted to weigh in on the Cathy L thread (+1000 posts
and counting), PTravel made a very nice post about his definitions of
tourist and traveler. I'd like to break out that discussion.

From PTravel, paraphrased:

Traveler: independent minded soul equipped with a guidebook and a
sense of adventure.

Tourist: Someone who has overcome their xenophobia only enough to
permit riding around in an hermetically-sealed tour bus, with
occasional excursions outside to McDonalds or KFC.

Best words on the subject occured in this place.

"I am a traveller, you are a visitor, they sniff are tourists"

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.t...993838c9829e32
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:59:36 +0200, Martin wrote:


We occasionally tack onto other people's guided tours if they sound
interesting. Some guides are superb, others are a waste of space.
We do always tip,even if we aren't part of the tour.

When joining a local tour, or having a local guide to take my groups
around, I've had good guides by and large.

In fact, on last year's Danube cruise, they were all excellent,
whether in Austria, Slovakia or Hungary.

Training standards vary from country to country - in some the training
leads to a national qualification, in others it's local or regional.

I do see tours, though, where local guides are not employed on cost
grounds, leaving sometimes inexperienced tour-managers/tour-escorts to
do the guiding. That can be bad news!



Keith, Bristol, UK

Email: usenet[dot]20[dot]keefy[at]spamgourmet[dot]com

This is a sp*mtrap, but I will get your mail!

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:03:18 -0700, Citizen Ted
wrote:

The traveler may well visit points of interest, but they do so in
deference to the place. They learn the rudiments of the native tongue
and make efforts to pad lightly. Tourists, OTOH, bumble about with
their cheap cameras and look constantly over their shoulders to see if
the bus is still in view. As a result, the tourist experience is
shallow and insulting to the locals, while the traveler experience is
broad and harmonious with the locals.

Insulting to locals? In many places the locals are happy to do
business with day-trippers, as long as they **** off in the evening.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

wrote:

Look, the point isn't whether you like my shorthand definitions, but
whether there is a real distinction between those who favor the tour
bus experience and those who prefer to explore on their on.

Of course there is. This is so patently obvious that it isn't worth
debating. The real issue is whether a person visiting a foreign
destination independently is a traveler or a tourist. I'm with Barbara
Vaughan on this one: "A traveler is an deluded tourist."

but if you're not happy with it, then either come up with other terms
or, better yet, address the substance of the distinction.

When a person experiences another town/city/country in fixed increments
of time they're a tourist. I don't think exploring on one's own makes a
person anything other than an independent tourist.

Last summer, we rented apartments in Florence and Assisi during our
visits there. We shopped in the local markets for fixings for breakfast.
We used the services of the local laundry to get our clothes washed. I
talked to all the shopkeepers in very primitive, but serviceable
Italian. Do I imagine I'm a traveler simply because I patronized the
same retail services used by locals? Not even close! I was still a tourist!

Since I spent my days visiting museums, churches, and historic sites...
Since I spent my evenings eating out, including meals in
make-the-guidebook restaurants. Since my Italian isn't good enough to
hold a conversation at a level equivalent to a conversation in
English... Since I was holding airline tickets to return to the US in 16
days... I remained a tourist.

Karen Selwyn