Defining 'must-see'

For me, a “must see” starts with what prompted me to want to visit that location to begin with, be it a landscape or historically important site or unique experience. Then, a must see shifts to once I’m there, what would I be so disappointed to miss if it didn’t happen. I love literary sites so author houses, settings of well loved books, unique local libraries all become priorities for me.

Will be interested to read others thoughts on this subject. For a lot of travelers a must see is a famous landmark or museum that makes a list, others it is a store or club or restaurant. Obviously there will be a lot of common must see sites for all of us but I’m intrigued to learn about the more individual or quirky must sees on your lists.

For our current trip to Spain we had three "must sees" - the Roman ruins in Merida (spectacular), the Alhambra in Granada and Picasso's "Guernica" in Madrid (sobering). But we tend to select a destination first (Spain) and then determine our "must sees" in that location. We missed a "must see" (Alhambra) due to illness (bronchitis) but have seen other unexpected things that we have enjoyed immensely. I am not sure if the Alhambra is enough of a "must see" for us to make a return trip.

When I saw your title, I immediately thought of the Eiffel Tower or the Colosseum type iconic sites that pop into mind when talking about traveling. There’s that awe moment when you’re finally there and see them in person.

“Must sees” that I will build an itinerary around, personally, are very different now. My solo trip last June in Italy was built around two festivals, a Stradivarius violin concert, and going back to spend more time in my favorite cathedral interior in Parma. I also had two smaller cities I had on my radar for several years, so I could say they could be defined as a “must see” for me.

When planning a trip, how do you separate your must-see’s from your if-I’ve-got-the time?. My trip’s itinerary is printed out on a 1-page Excel spreadsheet. Visually, it’s easy to separate the two. The “must see” spots are the first ones to be placed into an itinerary. Those sites or activities are in green blocks; the other “could do” options get filled in afterwards in white. I limit each day to one green because I both want to savor those moments or activities, plus I like a lot of flexibility and spontaneity during a trip.

Now, contrast my previous answer with my other trip last September where I brought my daughter to Italy for her first time in Europe. My only “must see” priority was seeing her expression, her awe, as she experienced those special places for the first time. Well, and I wanted to see the Paestum Greek ruins.

And the “must do” was enjoying all of those moments together in the sweetest way. It was a special trip in every way!

I'd say UNESCO does a fairly good job of defining and identifying "must see" sites, both natural and man made for their World Heritage Site Program. A few of the criteria:

"To exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design"

"To bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living, or which has disappeared"

"To be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history"

"To be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features"

"To contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation"

Here is some of their list for Spain, and I concur these are all must sees for any tourist in the area:

Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín, Granada
Picos de Europa National Park, Cantabrian Mountains
Historic City of Toledo
Teide National Park, Tenerife, Canary Islands
Works of Antoni Gaudí (Sagrada Familia, Casa Batlló, Casa Vicens, etc.), Barcelona
Ordesa y Monte Perdido National Park, Pyrenees
Historic Centre of Cordoba
Cathedral, Alcázar and Archivo de Indias in Seville
Santiago de Compostela (Old Town and Cathedral)

Stonehenge was on my “must-see” list and, on a trip to Britain years ago, found that would be possible. Turned out we really couldn’t work it into our jam-packed itinerary. After arriving at Heathrow and departing in our too-small rental car, we started on our way to Bath for a one-night stay. While driving on a section of roadway in the green, grassy countryside there was a sole image of something on the land in the distance. As we got closer, we could see through the driving rain, a formation of objects that I only recognized as we passed by in the car.

It was Stonehenge!
We saw the must-see after all.

Well there are always going to be those sites, museums or attractions that are always culturally viewed broadly as "must-see". It is what it is, and so many sites heavily rely on that sort of broad familiarity to draw in their visitation -- and this is not a critique of a site's overall quality . But, our own interests are not always going to align with the wider cultural interests and there's nothing wrong with that.

Working in museum education and blacksmithing, I do have and interest in museums (the museum product end and behind the scenes), early iron tech, Virginia and English history, and my must-see sites are going to be those that intersect with my interests.

The Iron Bridge, Coalbrookdale and the Iron Bridge Gorge Museum was most certainly must-sees for me. Then there was the Weald and Downland Museum and I coordinated my visit one year for their scheduled charcoal burn. I watched how a charcoal clamp was constructed and lit. Portsmouth for the Mary Rose Museum. I mean the Victory was nice, but the Mary Rose and the story of its recovery is amazing. Then hunting down the Virginia Quay in Blackwall, finding the church where John Smith is buried and then trekking out to St George's Church in Gravesend.

Multi-city tickets to London and home from Amsterdam are often much cheaper than London roundtrip, and always provide an opportunity to visit Normandy and/or the Netherlands.

Often enough the broader must-see sites happen to align with many of my own interests. In the end it is just going to be whatever piques my interest.

I really don't care how someone or some organization defines "must sees". For me, a must see or a must do is a place or experience that I have a strong personal interest in. Everything else goes into the "if there's time" category. The Eiffel Tower? You can see it clearly from many places in Paris, and that's good enough for me. I've got a thing about heights, so going up the tower is waaaaay down at the bottom of my Paris activity list. At the top of my Paris list? A few hours in the Louvre on every trip. YMMV, as it should.

I've got a thing about heights, so going up the tower is waaaaay down at the bottom of my Paris activity list.

CJean, you and me both. Same reason I've never gone up in the Eiffel Tower. I did let myself be talked into going to the top of the World Trade Center once and lived to regret it. I walked out and immediately dropped to a fetal position by the elevator and stayed there until they were ready to leave. Never again!

Must see - Those places i put in my itinerary that I won’t cut out if I begin running out of time. Everything else falls into the “if I have time” category.

Oh, the eyerolls no one sees, when I read the 'what are the 'must sees' in ??city? Then the silent click to close it and move on.
I tend to decide on a country, or region, then dig up that existing mental list of what I know about it and excited me, or made me curious enough to go.
I recently built a DIY trip to Costa Rica (CR), all to look at birds. They have a bird that is rather li ited to part of th coundty, so I determined where in CR I had the best chance to see it, and then built my locations around that. When I was researching lodgings, I was happy to see I could fet a few days in a research srationnI had read about some years ago and wished I could stay at 'some time'. It isn't fancy, it is more like Uni with bunk beds and limited cafeteria food, but I could talk 'bird' and everyone else did too. There were miles of trails to experience first growth forests and look for birds and animals. I was in heaven.
In Europe, I do tend to fall back on the art and architecture I learned about in a high school course. A lot stirred me at 17 and I still stay interested to see it, or similar when on my travels. So, something like the Prado Museum was the only item on that day's list. But the Reina Sofia got an hour and I was disappointed....even with Guernica. I should have trusted my gut and not Rick's stirring explanation.
Yes, to UNESCO sites, and yes, to specialized museums or for textiles and historical clothing. Both will appear on my winter trip to Italy, but it will be a first where most days will contain lots of 'if-I've-got-time'...because with 2 months, I'll have a lot of more of that time.

The question I have absolutely come to hate is, "Is it worth it to go to (fill in the blank)?"
An itinerary should be built around your interests and not opinions of others. Does visiting it provide value to you? Then go.

Much as I dislike the phrase "must see", even worse are the "must not see", or "don't bother", that are all about your perceptions and interests compared to mine.
It bothers me when Rick tells his readers not to bother visiting a city, especially when I have the feeling that Rick himself may not have ever gone there. Or when he went, it was 30 years ago, and cities change a lot over all those years.

We have been to Paris, but did not go up on the Eiffel Tower. It would have been nice, we would have enjoyed it, but it was not a must see.
I think the only place that I really, really dream of seeing is Egypt, but is it a must see? No, not really, but I would still like to go there. If I don't manage it, it will not make me sad.

Must see, for me, are my top priority sights. They're the sights I'd be really disappointed to go home without seeing. You're there and it's definitely something you don't want to miss.

Before a trip, I try to find out everything I can about an area and create the most complete list of possible sights I can. I often go to Google Maps and scroll through photos, in the left column, to see what I can expect. I then separate possible sights into three categories (triage?) - "must sees", "good to see if I have time", and "skippable". I plan around the must sees - usually one big sight after breakfast, lunch, a second big sight in the afternoon (some sights take an entire day, or more), dinner. At that pace I often have time for the "good to see" sights, so I keep them in my back pocket.

I will gladly pass on all my skippable sights, unless they are a must see for someone I'm traveling with. Then I put on a brave face, visit the sight, and try to enjoy it (e.g. Versailles).

My choices are completely personal. My "skippable" sight might be one of the most popular sights in an area (e.g. Eifel Tower). For me, history is the top draw - more specifically history between the fall of Rome and roughly the 15th century, lavish 18th century palaces don't interest me much. I'll hike a goat trail up a mountain, explore some ca. 1300 castle ruins and be overjoyed. People love my photos but aren't necessarily willing to hike up the mountain with me.

Each person has their own unique interests. For some it's shopping, for others food, cooking, art, music, lavish palaces, hiking forests, mountain views, sunbathing, etc. I've traveled as a couple, family and group. It's a big deal to plan something that fits each person's top interests.

I once relied on the Michelin green guidebooks that were super for touring. This was way before the internet.

Those guides gave three stars for the MUST SEE places. A two star rating meant that if you were going nearby that you were to make a deviation and see it, while a one star meant that if you were traveling through it, then you stopped to see it.

When I research, I seek guidance on TripAdvisor and other internet sources as well as my guidebooks.
These guides are meant to be guides and you are free to take that advice.

Some places that I have visited meant more to me than a guidebook. For example, the small sheep farming village in Southwestern Wales where my paternal ancestors came from in 171 6, meant a lot to me, so I visited it.

Some people won't miss Liverpool because of the Beatles tours. I liked the Beatles, but could skip such a tour and went to North Wales instead.

Portsmouth for the Mary Rose Museum. I mean the Victory was nice, but
the Mary Rose and the story of its recovery is amazing.

Before I saw it last September, the Mary Rose was only on the list because it was in the vicinity of the HMS Victory which I was extremely excited to see. Now it's the other way around. I'll suggest to anyone who asks that the Mary Rose was fabulous, and the Victory is worthwhile if you've got the time.

I'll add then I tend to shy away from telling people what to see. I don't like being told what to do, such as "you must see this," or "don't bother seeing that," I'll make up my own mind up thank you. But I do appreciate friendly suggestions on what you liked and why. That way I can make a better educated decision.

"The Eiffel Tower? You can see it clearly from many places in Paris, and that's good enough for me. I've got a thing about heights, so going up the tower is waaaaay down at the bottom of my Paris activity list."

I'm with CJean and Mardee...nope, no heights for me. And funny that you mentioned being able to see the ET from many places in Paris. For me that is one of MY must do's, lol. Yep, how many places can I spot the ET from. I'm not sure why it thrills me to see it peeking out when I look down a street or out a window in a museum. Yes, I do chase the view of it when I'm in the Louvre. And yes, I go to the Louvre every time. I pick different floors on different wings as my starting point each time. I know this time the Vermeers are elsewhere so I won't be disappointed when I find a blank wall where they are usually located.

I kind of keep a running to-do list for Paris and London, both cities to which I return again and again. I'll never see everything on the lists! This time my personal MUST for London is to get out to Bletchley Park. I've got it on the schedule, lol.

My short answer to " . . . how do you separate your must-see’s from your if-I’ve-got-the time? " is that much of it depends on where we are, how much time we have, how interested we are and how much effort it would take to get there. If some semi-interesting sight is near our hotel, we're more likely to visit it than a popular sight that is all the way across town.

I think there are definitely must sees, based on their iconic (a very mis-used word) status in the culture and civilization we live in. So yes, the Grand Canal, the Mona Lisa (sorry for the trigger word Allan🙂), Stonehenge, the Sistine Chapel, the Coliseum, and Notre Dame, are must sees, even if its to determine that you are not impressed. The rest of recommendations, whether here or in guidebooks, have to be weighed by consumer as to how they fit in with their interests. Words are important and if you don't read the whole descriptions, you can make bad decisions.

The best that anyone can do in responding to such questions, is to give an opinion. So I think how we read the question can be taken two ways. One is literally, in which case it sounds like anonymous strangers tare being asked to plan someone they dont know's trip for them. The other is to recognize it as a conversation starters, like coming up to a group at a party and asking for thoughts. In which case, the answers totally depend on the experience and opinion of who's there. Guidebooks are just opinions in print, not dictatorial.

It bothers me when Rick tells his readers not to bother visiting a city, especially when I have the feeling that Rick himself may not have ever gone there. Or when he went, it was 30 years ago, and cities change a lot over all those years.

Ms. Jo hit the nail on the head!

I am not bothered by Rick advising to NOT SEE a place.

That doesn't keep me from making my own decision, doing the research and visiting what I want.

Also, I appreciate the advice of posters on this forum, and that can influence my decision as well.

What shouldn't happen is to read something from one source and not research before making a decision.

Our "must sees" are all the places and things that have sat in our imaginations since we were children and college students.
Its a place or a thing that has rattled around in our heads for so many years, we just have to see them in person now that we are adults.

I am not bothered by Rick advising to NOT SEE a place.

What bothers me is he'll dismiss a site or place with little or no explanation. I don't have a guidebook handy to quote an example but if I'm not mistaken he did dismiss the entire South of Scotland as uninteresting. I get that he leaves places out because he focuses on what he feels is best, but to specifically mention a place and then not explain his reasoning is annoying.

the Mona Lisa (sorry for the trigger word Allan🙂),

It's hard to discuss must-sees without bringing her up. I will go to the Louvre, and I will visit Lisa, but for me the art at the Louvre is not my must-see. To me the Louvre as a historical Palace is the attraction. No plans on the radar yet to get to Paris, but when I do I'll be searching for a tour that treats the Louvre as such.

Then, a must see shifts to once I’m there, what would I be so
disappointed to miss if it didn’t happen. I love literary sites so
author houses, settings of well loved books, unique local libraries
all become priorities for me.

My favourite explanation so far. Plus your focus on literary sites. I was thrilled in 2018 in Bath when our guide pointed out where Mary Shelley lived. And then last Fall in England we made a trip around the Last Kingdom book series as well as The Pillars of the Earth.

Prioritize. You go for those places at the top of your list and work down.

It's like at a high school dance. You try for the hottest girls and when that doesn't work, lower expectations.

Poland is speaking to me. I watched Cameron Hewitt last night on Monday Night Travel talk about the culture and history of Poland and about the RS tour. I have been wanting to go there for several years, I was booked for the inaugural tour in September 2020. We know what happened then. So I hope to go there in 2024.
The activities of the tour include shopping in a local market for ingredients to make pierogis, then the group is divided into smaller groups so they can learn how to make pierogis in the home of a local Pole! In Krakow, I think, the group dinner is in a restaurant where much of the kitchen staff are Ukrainian refugees who cook and serve food from their homeland. There are Chopin concerts in a park in Warsaw under a marvelous statue of Chopin! Also, there is a History Museum of the Jewish people that focuses on their culture separate from the Holocaust horrors.
This is what I define as a “must see” for me. I’m going soon on a RS tour of Southern England because just about everywhere we are going are “must see” places. This topic is all so subjective that it is almost meaningless, I say this respectfully. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

This topic is all so subjective that it is almost meaningless, I say
this respectfully

Maybe my original post wasn't as clear as it should have been, but the point was to be a conversation starter that would be subjective. I enjoy probing people's minds to learn what makes them tick.

Allan,
I think I described how I think about what I consider my “must see” destination. Poland fascinates me even though I have no Polish ancestors but its history is so rich being in the middle of Europe between Russia and Germany and having been overrun numerous times. Poland once had the largest Jewish population in Europe (I thought it was Germany). So much about it is unknown to me and it makes me want to learn more about it and its people.

We always know the "must sees," when we plan. Tourist guides and such, rarely introduce a "must see."
Its a place, or thing, or thing to do, that has been embedded in you, that you have to see or do for real. Like seeing the Mona Lisa, or the Canopus of Haridan's Villa, seeing the actual "Birth of Venus," Statue of David, Stone Hedge, Pompeii, the Appian Way, Sistine Chapel, Tower of London, Versailles, Great Pyramids of Egypt, .... thank goodness we got to see Notre-Dame ... , Eiffel Tower, The vastness of the Great Basin area in the US, the Empire State Building, The sun rise on Haleakalā. Maui Hawaii, Crater Lake, the Pietà , Grand Canyon, Yellow Stone Park, Mammoth Cave, the Amiens Cathedral , Barringer Crater, Hoover Dam, do a gondola ride in Venice, see the Redwoods, or ride a cable car in San Francisco, lose 40 bucks on a slot machines in Las Vegas, view the book whereby Galileo had to recant his heliocentric statements at the Florence Science museum, Tour Cape Kennedy, eat haggis in Scotland, or have High Tea in England, and this is only a scratch of a list, ........., these are all things that were through, books and movies, made them Must See places and things to do. You have to see them, because you are compelled to see them in the flesh, as they have images that have lived, one way or another in your mind, for a very long time. Reality, is sometimes an awakening that you've been holding some special fantasy about a place, or the place or activity, or thing is actually better and more interesting than you imagined, like LA. :) I love the Must See/Do Lists. Cause at least, I did most of them. No human can see all of it: That is impossible.

Travel guides do introduce "if you've got time" places. Yet these are mostly not critical to see, in any way for us. We already know where to scratch that sense of fulfillment even before reading the travel guides: The travel guides add the fillers and give alternatives when your travel plans go wrong. And if there is a given, that will at some point, go entirely wrong. That is when travel skills come in to place, you rearrange stuff and hit your must do sites anyway, later on a re-visit.

I agree that someone's opinion is much more useful if they explain why they have that opinion. It's not unlike hotel revues. A bad rating tells me nothing unless they explain the issue. I really don't care if a hotel doesn't have an elevator, or if a room has no air-conditioning. I don't mind stairs and I don't travel during the hottest months. If they mention noise or filth, however, it's useful because those are things I care about.

For me, a “must see” starts with what prompted me to want to visit that location to begin with, be it a landscape or historically important site or unique experience.

I like Beth's answer the best.

Once again, Allan thank you for introducing an interesting thread. With most of you, I agree that a must-see is entirely personal, with no right or wrong answer. I developed my own must-see, or bucket list, from many resources...a book I read, a history class I took, a PBS show, whether a documentary or a piece of fiction, a movie I saw.

For Ms. Jo, I will say that Egypt has always been at the top of my list. I have told my family that if I ever get a terminal disease, send me to Egypt no matter what the political situation is. Luckily, in 2019 things were pretty stable and I was able to celebrate turning 75 by having a wonderful tour of Egypt, including a 7 day cruise on the Nile and a flight to Abu Simble. Every bit of traveling I do from now on is gravy! So, Ms. Jo, if Egypt is your goal, try to do so when you can. I wouldn't trade relaxing on our Nile boat as we slowly made our way up and down river, seeing the sun set and watching the farmers, herders and fishermen living their lives that looked so one with nature!

Francis, your list is long, but I am surprised to realize that I have done or seen all but 8 of the things you mention. So much to be thankful for!

Allan, thanks again for your food for thought.

Jeez Ogonos, you're really into the extreme vacationing. I assume you go to work to rest up for your next trip?

I will 100% agree that sometimes Rick dismisses places with out explanation. We visited the Great Chateaus of the Loire Valley, and after considering all the logistics, decided on staying in Tours. Of which Rick has to say, "..... I wouldn't stay there."

For us it was not only the perfect logical place to stay, the history was fascinating, but also it was a eye opener of the sacrifices the French had to endure during WWII and how they re-built.

We did several night walks around the city, and it was wonderful. Most of the time, Rick is right on the money, but occasionally his opinion is just wrong. :)

A "must see" is a subjective and personal matter, be it psychologically, culturally or historically. It's personal regardless of what everyone says or advises in a guide book.

It is a " must see " if I am desperate enough to get there spending money, energy , and time and actually see the site. For me that includes a measure of desperation, that factor has to be there, such as the first time in Paris, Berlin, Fontainebleau, Amiens/Somme, Gdansk, and some others.