How about some fresh thinking..

Michael made some valid points. Good for you M :-) I'm with Nancy also. I have used Rick's books in the past but must confess that I Take many of his recommendations with a grain of salt. Some places just sounded too cheesy, With Rue Cler coming up as an area I would never dream Of staying in. We have always done our own thing, avoiding many passes he suggested getting, or taking tips from others here who found places They thought were worth visiting, like Gent for example. I came away enjoying Antwerp. It was neither dirty nor grey and boring, and we liked Leiden much more than Haarlem etc. Utrecht in the Netherlands Continue being a favourite. I sometimes feel guilty for asking questions, and then totally
Doing something different once we arrive in Europe! By the way, been to Voralberg and Vaduz when I was in high school ( late 40s now), way before the tourists and loved it. Went back in 1990 with hubby.

Great thoughts Roy. When we fly over in August we will land in Zurich, but we are taking a train directly to Stubenbach, Austria to explore that region known as the Voralberg. We will do a lot of hiking around there. We will also travel around by train and bus in the area and pay a visit to Vaduz, in Lichtenstein as well. We also will visit some of the mainline areas later on, Como, Cinque Terra, Venice. We will definitely explore regions around these areas, not on the main menu.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this post. I don't think it's unusual to explore out of the way places (that's what the whole "back door" philosophy is about, right?), even though most of the RS back door places are no longer technically that way. On my first trip to Spain, I visited exactly NOTHING listed in RS's Spain book (he virtually ignores the north). I have never used a third party consolidator for renting a car, nor worried about not knowing much of the language where I go. Maybe since I don't do ruts, I can't say what other ones to avoid.

I think many of people who come on this board for tips/help display extreme risk-aversion when choosing their destinations. Let me elaborate. RS "brand" caters and promote the back-door as a concept of travelling out of the way of masses. If one took a careful (as observer, not costumer) reading of RS materials or videos, one would realize the abundance of "brand" concepts such as: "authentic place", "real people", " the locals" (these elusive aliens are the Grail of RS crowd), "getting out of the tourist bubble", "unique experiences" etc. However, after almost two years contributing to this site, I notice most of the new people asking for tips or hints for other places are actually only seeking validation for what they already have in mind ( "I know there are many nice half-timbered buildings' medieval core German cities, but I still want people to tell me Rothenburg is the best among them so I can have peace I'm only going for what is really worth"). I'm not criticizing RS for taking this approach, just noting he picks some specific spots and "package" them in some sort of "pilgrimage route for in-the-knowledge people going to Europe". I used to provide a lot of these alternative suggestions when people asked about itineraries, but then I realized most will not dare risk the possibility of - for instance - going for Werningerode and the Harz, and not Rothenburg and the Romantic Route, and be frustrated or disappointed, whereas sticking to the RS "blessed and sanctioned" recommendations offers an easy way to deflect such disappointment: "the place is awesome because RS says it is, so if I don't feel the awesomeness I'll still look for it in the details".

Since I started wasting too much time on this website in the early 2000s, I've noticed that this topic comes up at least once a year. Great ideas, but yet here we are again. On Rothenburg- see it if your itinerary has you passing by, but don't rearrange your entire trip around it. There are many suitable alternatives.

Naturally, tourists wish to visit the top destinations they've always heard about and dreamt of but haven't yet visited. And for some, a European vacation is a once in a lifetime experience, never to be repeated due to cost, time, age, or whatever. Knowing this, why in the world would seasoned travelers like many of us here discourage brand new travelers from visiting the famous destinations in lieu of some backwater village down the road that promises more authenticity and true back door adventure? It would be different if veteran travelers were asking for a unique, back door recommendation, and a Helpliner responded by recommending Doltu, Moldova. But more typically, questions about RodT, Neuschwanstein, et al are often rejected as yesterday's news. That just doesn't make sense, but it happens here all the time. I mean, if a traveler new to Asia wants to see the famous cities and is asking for recommendations about them, you wouldn't recommend Dili, East Timor as a more authentic and back door alternative to Tokyo, Seoul, or Singapore just because you've been to all three before and now consider them to be boring, full of tourists, and not authentic enough for you anymore. BTW, RS packages certain routes, because those routes reflect the famous places tourists wish to experience. I could be wrong, but something tells me the Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus in 14 days tour wouldn't be a big seller.

I agree with what Michael and Mme Eli have said. I think a lot of the people who use RS (including me) don't have enough opportunity to travel and thus don't have the ability or desire to forgo the biggies. I'm sure it's not what the OP means, but bypassing Paris for a smaller region to avoid tourists and tour like the Europeans seems like folly. And let's be honest: there are dozens of "must-sees" (for lack of a better word) that a person might want to visit before delving into the more unknown. Not only that, but I think one thing that the OP alluded to is important. He alluded to the way German, Italian, and French (and English, later) tourists travel. But we (most of us) aren't European. We have different needs and travel styles and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's just different. Most of us on this board have vastly different travel styles as well. To imply that we aren't traveling correctly because we aren't traveling like Europeans seems unfair. I don't think that's what OP meant, but I think it's worth mentioning. I do agree with the OPs overall message: when traveling, branch out, get out of your comfort zone, and have a great trip. :-)

There will always be the "must sees", Paris, London, Rome for example, but I've often thought that for someone to really get the "back door" experience one must truly go off the beaten path. To do that I've thought get your blue book and other guide books, see want towns and villages are recommended and eliminate those completely, get a map for the same region and find similar sized towns and visit those instead. I never understood why people come to the board and ask for restaurant recommendations. To really get a back door experience one must venture out on their own, find that unique place on their own, I just think it will hold much more memories that way. Can you really go wrong say in Paris, after all they're all authentic French restaurants. As Americans or Canadians are our travel experiences really any different than a Swiss or Norwegian? If I desire to travel to London, see the Tower of London, take a walking tour of the Jack the Ripper, etc, why would someone from Zurich who is in London at the same time not be there for a similar experience as mine? It's not like there are sites that only European tourists are allowed to see and others that North Americans are only allowed into. We're all tourists afterall, though some won't admit to it. My own personal experience in this regard, on my first trip to Ireland I cycled around the western area and down near the Ring of Kerry, who did I meet the most? Norwegians doing the exact same thing. Some of the question I read perplex me to an extent. Do some of the questions asked really need asking? I think some people ask questions just to ask questions. For example money, about once a week someone will post "should I get money exchanged before I leave or after I arrive, we all know there is no difinitive answer to this, there are 2 camps on this board on the way to go. ATM's have been a part of our lives for about 30 years now.

I have Never eaten at a restaurant Rick recommended, nor have we booked any of the hotels either. Not even the B&Bs. I always find my own places based on feedback from VRBO or TripAdvisor. We stay outside the main tourist areas also because I don't like noise, need a kitchenette, and prices are better. I found a lovely, vegan/GF restaurant called El Piano in York, and also Lombardia in Antwerpen. There are others that we stumbled upon like Indian and seafood places in the UK. I use Rick as a guideline, and I appreciate all the ideas from board members here, but we inevitably always end up doing our own thing, even in Paris, Rome or Barcelona. There is nothing wrong about following Rick's book to a T. Those who do that are not inferior to those of us who don't. It works for them. That's why he's written these books....to save time, money and help you make the most out of your trip. As long as everyone is happy,
It doesn't matter how we choose to travel and what we choose to see.

I'm enjoying this post and thanks Roy for posting. I like what all of the others have said and I think the biggest thing to remember is that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to travel. Another thing I'd like to add. I think the new "Trip Reports" forum is a good opportunity for travelers to share the off the beaten path towns, lodgings, restaurants, sites, etc. with others. Since a lot of us don't travel frequently to Europe our opportunities to find these places are limited and I, for one, thank those willing to share their own personal "gems".

This is going off on a tangent, so I need to clarify my original question. That question is: What would you do or recommend to others to avoid a rut in trip planning? I offered my thoughts, but I feel like I am missing some obvious things, as well. Naturally, we all try to hit a few of the Grand Tour sites, such as London, Paris, Rome, etc. But there is a a lot of leeway in choosing second-tier sites and in the logistics of travel. My thoughts are directed at people who have already hit these Grand Tour places yet are determined to visit Europe every chance we get until we are too old or broke to do so. There are a lot of places I have not seen and some I would like to see again. And just because certain choices worked in the past does not mean I could not make better ones in the future. I am sure others feel the same way, so what changes do we make to avoid falling into a rut?

The rut I fall into, and have done for years now, is Paris. I love my Paris rut and have no intention of changing it. In fact, I wouldn't even call it a rut It's the place I love most in the world and I offer no apologies for going back again and again. Often I go elsewhere in Europe or to the Middle East, but my default destination is Paris. Important: I have never stayed, nor will I ever stay, in a hotel on rue Cler.

I'm kind of confused about these things. Flying into a small airport will usually be far more expenesive. It's not hard in Europe to get from a big airpor to a less touristed region. I agree that people should give up the rental car when it makes sense, but also they should use it when it makes sense (often those "out of the way places" is exactly where it makes sense!) I am frustrated too that so many questions here seem to focus on people who hit supposed 'backdoor' spots that are highly trafficked and out of the way. If people specifically want to go to that specific place, fine, but unfortunately the non-comprehensive nature of RS guidebooks lead people who don't do their due diligence to believe that those are the ONLY locales that offer the experience they're looking for, which is often untrue. That said, the RS guidebooks are very clear about NOT being a comprehensive guidebook and anyone planning a multi-thousand dollar trip abroad should do research from more than one source. I don't think people should panic about the language differences, but they should also be realistic that language differences can be a problem in some locales (aka in the real off the beaten path places) and as a general courtesy should spend a few hours memorizing the basic niceties in the language of the countries they're traveling to. That's called "not being a jerk". If you can't learn to say "Excuse me, do you speak English"? in the language of the country you're traveling to, why bother going? How would you react in the US if someone came up to speaking in a foreign language expecting you to understand them?

Frankly, I don't give a fig how others decide their itineraries, travel style, or even perceived ruts by some, etc. Travel on Wayne.

I've posted this before, so my apologies to those who have read it before, but it bears repeating; "Back Doors" are not locations. It creates unnecessary trouble when people take its meaning that way. Rick Steves has a nice page-long description of his back door travel philosophy near the beginning of every book. Read it. It's excellent. But it says nothing about location. The back door is a casual, open, inquisitive travel style. It does not lead you to a different destination any more than the back door of your house leads to a different house than your front door. But the back door is informal. When you say "find your own back doors" it should mean find your own tricks and methods to get the most experience out of your travel time and money. It does NOT mean find your own secret locations. Rick covers what he covers and omits what he omits because his books can't go into the kind of detail he is noted for for every possible destination. He chooses favorites and practically begs readers to branch out on their own. If people don't, that's not his problem. As for me; I'll start wandering Europe looking for secret locations when I get done hitting the hot spots. We're packing up for month-long trip number five right now and we have at least five more to go before we get even close to finishing the "A" list locations. I'll feel fortunate if I get that far. Most people don't. Meanwhile, I've been to plenty of places that lent themselves to quiet introspection and provided fantastic memories, all without seeking out any sort of quasi-secret locations. No apologies here.

Well, we travel at our own pace to our own places with our own plans. We haven't been to Paris or London or Rome. We use a real travel agent to buy our tickets for coming and going and that's all. There are no "must sees" or "must dos" in our lives. We make our own ajenda, sometimes on the fly. My approach to traveling probably has been formed by reading about journeys in the 18 and 19 hundreds. Those intrepid souls figured out things as they went. You can read Peter Fleming or Ella Maillart, or Fr. Evariste Regis Huc. or others to see what discovery and adventure is. We don't need help finding sustenance. Food and drink are plentiful. Careful planning is essential. Communication in this day and age means we take an iPod Touch and use it for email. Our finances are well planned before we go and we don't need a cheap way from point A to the other end. We don't use locks or money belts although we do have a bit of personal security. We arent's paranoid about any place we go. We've walked through some pretty rough looking places and haven't cringed. We also have never had any kind of travel insurance. So you want some fresh thinking try that. Look what happened when everyone went to Cinque Terra. They squashed the geography so the depression served as a funnel when the rains came. Go some where else. Buy some more guide books, Rough Guide, Lonely Planet, Bradt, etc. And for crying out loud get a good map to help with your planning so you have some idea about what's between here and there. That might help with some of the unrealistic plans people need help with. Thomas Cooks Rail Map Europe is excellent. We have worn out several. That's all. Sleep tight brethern and sistern.

The last paragraph of Andre's response sums it up perfectly for me. The majority of people who post questions here are new travelers to Europe. Thus, I don't see the point in wasting time recommending certain Italian coastal towns that don't have anywhere near the congestion of the Cinque Terre, or quaint Irish villages that are still close to the scenery people come to see but that aren't in the Blue Bible. If I don't recommend a place listed in the RS Guide it's simply not going to fly with most of the people who come here to post a question. These posters want to go to Vernazza or Doolin because those places have been approved by Rick. There are people in this world who simply don't want to research and plan out a trip that strays beyond what guidebooks tell them are the "must sees". While it may limit some interesting experiences, I believe what they do with their time and their money is their own business, and I'm positive that most of these people return from their trips quite content with having followed what was mapped out for them in a guide. There are some long time contributors here who will proudly tell you that they have visited the same country or even the same city dozens of times. Again, their money, time and choice. As someone else mentioned, your post is a rehash of an "observation" brought up here at least 1-2 times per year and typically by someone interested in promoting that whole "look at me! I'm a 'traveler', not a 'tourist'!" mentality.

Of course there is nothing to compare to the big city major tourist attractions, and I don't think anyone on here ever says to not bother visiting them. What is bothersome is the person who, lets' say has a very short vacation, is on a budget and wants to see a medieval walled town. Rothenburg is way out of their way and will take time and extra money to get there. Some of us may post that they can instead go to X,Y, or Z and have the same wonderful experience and it won't cost you as much and it will fit into your time constraints. No sooner is this suggested, then dozens of posters come on and say, Oh no, you HAVE to go to Rothenburg, it is the BEST, Rick says so. Even though they have never been to the other towns that have been suggested to have a comparison. Some of us who post on here a lot do wonder about a guide book that says to not bother with a town or city or tourist attraction because it isn't worth your time. Isn't that subjective? Shouldn't a guide book be a bit more objective? What are the criteria? How many times has someone posted about Heidelberg, because the book says don't bother? How about Mainz? How long has it taken to get Northern Germany and Hamburg in the book? Any mention yet of Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp? Not really, but there is extensive commentery about Dachau. Why? I am sure there are other countries and regions who suffer from the same lack of attention or which are frankly dissed in the book. I can't imagine limiting my dining to restaurants that are in a guide book, nor my hotels. It would never even occur to me to look.

Jo just echoed my lemming syndrome comment. If anybody who's been around the block a couple of times tries to post an alternative, they get shouted down by the lemmings who've only jumped over the cliff once - - and only that one cliff. Numbers win out every time, and the rut keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Speaking of fresh thinking... I saw the 2012 edition of Mr. Steves' Germany guide for the first time today. I knew he had added Hamburg, but I was particularly surprised to see Eisenach and the Wartburg, Erfurt and Leipzig are now in the Blue Book. Some posters had criticized the lack of geographic scope of the Germany guide- actually, this is was a common comment made by me. Hell, did the name of the state of Thüringen even appear in previous additions? But I give Mr. Steves credit for venturing into new areas and not merely endlessly rehashing the same old Baden-Baden-Beilstein-Bacharach-Rothenburg-Reutte itineraries. Now, lets see if his flock follows.

Well, as the OP said, there is no right or wrong way to travel and the original proposition represents only one opinion. Personally, I don't feel in a rut at all. If I did, I doubt any of the original suggestions would do anything for me, but as stated, that is his opinion and I hope they work for him. I'll add one, which is, stop traveling....for a short time or forever. In my life I've been very involved in things and moved past them. Sometimes I return after a break, sometimes I find something new to do. It shocked me, even though I realize this is only my opinion, to read one poster on these boards saying he got bored after 2 days in one of my favorite cities. Another poster went to my second favorite small town in Italy and wrote it was "nothing special." I wondered if these travelers were jaded or simply had very different goals/values when traveling. Whichever it is, they are certainly entitled to their opinion, but it certainly had me thinking some people are in a rut. For me, I'm excited to plan and impliment a trip. I've traveled a bunch of different ways and seen some amazing sights and feel like I have a lot more to go. So, no rut here. ps +1 for Michael's post and Randy's

I don't take issue with some of these suggestions; they simply embody the way I've always traveled. But I do have comments about 2 of them: (1) * Fly into a small airport, some place you've never been before. Then explore that region. There's no need to fly into a small airport to explore a new region. We do that all the time after flying into whatever airport is most convenient, taking price and schedule into account. (2) * Comparison shop online for car rentals first instead of automatically relying on third-parties – AutoEurope, Kemwell, gamut, etc. Maybe next time, but just this once, do it yourself.
I've comparison shopped directly to car rental companies' own sites several times, only to then rent through AutoEurope or Kemwel because I found them to be better for price and selection, and more user friendly.

Please reread the original question in its entirety, not just the examples. Have you ever argued with someone, then when things cool down, you saw the other person's point? That is what my examples were about. If necessary, forget them entirely and supply your own. I had hoped for some new ideas, new ways of thinking about things, that I could apply to my own travel planning. There has been some of that here, but also more defensiveness than I expected. I ask for fresh thinking and get accused of rehashing. Maybe this is a lost cause, after all.

Randy's thoughts are quite correct. If back doors were places, one would be required to leave Europe entirely and travel to remote areas of Southeast Asia in order to find undiscovered, authentic places not yet spoiled by tourism (Europe is anything but undiscovered). But Tom's point is also spot on...Rick does neglect significant chunks of real estate, and Germany has been probably the most glaring example. He covers the biggies, of course, because that's what his customers want. It's refreshing to see some additions, and I would hope we see some new TV episodes as well. I mean, when was the last fresh episode for Germany? I also liked Norma's thoughts about Paris and Nancy's about Spain.

Roy, I think what you are asking for is ways to change the way you do things when traveling/planning a trip. You came up with a few, and are asking for more. The problem lies in the fact that not everyone does things the way that you do. If we are already doing things the way you suggest, it's hard to imagine what might be "fresh" to you. Obviously, no one has answered the question in the way that you intended but it is difficult because we all come from different perspectives.

The biggest rut stems from planning, which in turn leads to reading guidebooks and participating in forums, which in turn leads to even deeper ruts. It's the lemming syndrome. As I've said before, europe is the easy one for us since I lived there for years, and touristed there for a bunch more. I can only guess at the total which might be somewhere between eight and ten, probably. Prior to our marriage my wife did a lot of european travel as well, maybe a couple of years. We don't plan, we don't know when we'll go - - when we do it's last-minute (usually a day or two, ten days at most) - - other things are going on, we don't have any frigging time to plan - - we land and wander - - we're taking a break, not trying to work a punch list - - we've seen every major city and every darn museum so many times it's laughable - - but we still have a ball just poking around. Sometimes we do come up with a theme (iron-age hill forts, walled ports, menhirs, Hannibal's path through Spain and France) that puts us near or through places we've been previously, but with a different perspective this time around. Despite honorable intentions, these ideas often fall by the wayside after a week or so since we tend to go off on tangents. Another thing we do a bit differently is split up. We're happily married, not joined at the hip. She really likes the area around the France/Belgium border. I don't care for it, but I can get myself into Wales or the Pyrenees for a week of hiking in about two shakes. We've never lost each other permanently.

Back to my main point - - not planning. (I've got to switch to other parts of the world for new experiences to illustrate the point.) In the past year I: Spent a month on a bike in Tajikistan (when I got on the plane all I knew about it was its general location and had no idea what language I'd try to use). Spent almost a month in Tasmania solo (no preparation) prior to my wife joining me for a semi-planned couple of months in the rest of Australia and parts of New Zealand.
Spent a month with my five-year-old grandson in China - - the plan consisted of landing in HK and showing him the Amur without going anywhere I'd been before (my idea) and not going where anybody spoke English (his idea). This one could have worked out a bit better, since we go miserably lost for three days, but we sure weren't in a rut. Spent a solo month in Mongolia (just got back). When I left, I knew where Ulan Bator was, roughly where the major national parks and reserves were, most of the history, and none of the language. I've no idea what I might have missed; what well-recommended B&B, crepe, or gelato joint was just around the corner; or how badly I stereotyped what I saw. But I damn well did some rather vivid learning - - without the benefit of tromping some well-worn path. This approach could probably work in Europe if people would just get out of their cocoons.

If you get to go to Europe once a year (or something close to that) or are an ex-pat who lives there, your travel style will differ significantly than someone who has never been, or maybe goes once every ten years. You just cannot compare the two. I don't know about this being in a rut statement. You can't be in a rut if you are exploring a new place, even if you stick to your style.
It's like me telling people who visit to skip Colonial Williamsburg and go see Charlottesville instead.

Roy - I've re-read your OP and still don't quite understand your point. Or, more accurately, your audience. I'd guess that most of us regulars are seasoned travelers to Europe. So we are more likely to get off the guidebook path and skip the hotspots because we've already seen them. But most of the visitors here are new to Europe or new to the place they are asking about. I would be highly surprised if they wanted to get off the guidebook reservation. I've been to most of the European hotspots, so anytime I return to one, I am more likely to branch out and go other places not listed. But there are places I could see again and again. I also know people in Europe that I can visit. Even if they live in a major city, I'll be seeing local neighborhoods and eating or drinking at truly local joints with them. I also have very specific things I want to see and do, and many of those are not listed in the guidebooks for the general masses. But most of even the seasoned travelers here may not have those advantages. As far as travel planning, I tend to do what works and what I'm comfortable with. I use a combo of guidebooks, online resources and personal recommendations. But I also love the planning part. Guidebooks are great for those that don't have the time to plan or don't want to spend their precious vacation time and money on something unknown.

Ray - subjectivity is a really big thing. I think that's part of why RS guides are so popular. For whatever reason, for infrequent (and particularly first-time) travelers to Europe he does have a knack for suggesting sites that will knock people's socks off. They're often not what knock MY socks off, but I'm not really his target audience at this point. Most of the regulars on this board aren't! And it's just inexplicable, what will make someone love one city or place and not another. Baden-Baden was pretty and I am a spa person but I already had been to some pretty fancy German baths before I went, so it wasn't impressive to me and I am still shocked to see so many people going out of their way just to visit Baden-Baden. Meanwhile, RS and a lot of people on this board give short shrift to cities like Marsielle and Strasbourg, both of which I just adore (but they were also the first two places I visited in Europe, so I may have some residual "glow" over being so impressed initially). Ed - I think not planning is a good way to get out of a rut for experienced travelers, definitely. That said, the way you do things nearly gives me a panic attack just thinking about it! It's clear we have very different personalities. And I think that's what makes forums like this so good - we all have different personalities and enjoy different things, so when someone asks for recommendations we'll all have different answers and argue about whether Neuschwanstein is worth it or car vs. train and the OP can look at our responses and evaluate which one will be most likely to work for them.

Sarah, Exactly. It is all subjective, which makes the original question (to me) kind of difficult to answer. I've been to Europe enough to feel comfortable there with or without a very fixed agenda. However, after one trip with a "light agenda" I realized something I would have really enjoyed seeing was 7 kilometers away. After that, I vowed it would never happen again. As a result, I do read RS but also have another line of travel books which I enjoy (actually more than the RS books for suggestions about sights.) Because of the internet, I also do lots of research via city and country tourist guides. That way, I can know what's around. I may or may not choose to see something, but I know what I might miss and will make informed choices. Is that a great way for everyone to travel....nope. But it works for me and keeps me excited. As you said different things appeal to different people.... which makes the op a difficult question to answer.

I have often found the off the beaten path the best part of the trip. But I can't imagine devoting a whole trip to the idea. I'm just a hair (or maybe a whole wig) too risk adverse to spend the kind of money necessary to visit Europe on one big gamble. What we do is this, we plan for some special interest and low key days everywhere we go. We are traveling this summer and for every city I have several day trips plotted that are supposed to be low crowd. These are "atmospheric" or outdoorsy places rather than big site attractions. I also have researched several special interest places and side trips which are also low on the guidebook totem pole. How much of this we actually do will depend on time, weather, interest and how tired we are. We tend to know the night before when we need a break from crowds and museums. Places this strategy has gotten me include: Great Malvern (small town think Agatha Chrystie and hiking), Tenby (tawdry British seaside resort and walks along the cliffs), Dover (ruins no crowds WWII headquarters underground, Roman house), Pistioa (food and narrow streets and a very odd cathedral), a monastery outside Florence (solitude and private tour), Chester (walled town and surprisingly appealing cathedral), Battle (beautifully interpreted battlefield), walking Hadrian s Wall (gorgeous countryside and an impromptu sheep herding demo). Cooking classes and wine and or cheese tasting tours often fill this same need. I don't think I would have gone to Europe for any of them but they were all great days and a much needed vacation from my vacation.

OK, Roy, I'll take your suggestion and add some things to the list, now that I've critiqued a couple of the examples: (1) Rent houses for a week at a time, preferably from locals rather than Americans or Brits who happen to own a rental home in the area (in France we've always used Gite de France). We started doing this in France about 20 years ago, and it really changed the way we traveled. It beats hotels in so many ways. Sometimes you get to know the owners of the property during your week, and even become friends. And if you're in a village, you might get to know a shopkeeper or 2 if you make frequent visits to their shop during the week to buy provisions.
(2) If you stay in a city, stay in an area slightly off the beaten track. We once spent a week in Annecy in an apartment that was in a residential area about a 15 minute walk from the tourist center. If we had stayed in the center, we would probably never have spent any time in the area where we stayed. Instead, we got a lot more walking in (going back and forth to the center many times), plus saw some interesting neighborhoods near us.

I've visited so many places in Brittany, even though old
Rick never mentioned them, which is a good thing! Did he mention Knaesborough in the UK? Can't remember. We loved it. By the way, we went to Mt St Michel this trip, big mistake, every French person was there because it was a bank holiday. I never knew there were so many French tourists! Lol Winter was much better for a visit, but we enjoyed the Abbey.

I guess if I ever found myself in a rut while traveling I would simply change my travel style. I totally agree with Randy that 'back door' traveling is a state of mind...not a place.... and for some people I don't think the back door philosophy is even a goal. Some people just want to see the most well known sights in the world and call it a day. Especially those people new to European travel. Just think how someone would be reprimanded on this site if they had been to Europe 20 times and only been to places no one had ever heard of. There aren't too many people on this particular site who travel the way I do... (actually Ed and a few other people who just get a car and go)...sometimes with a plan, but it always changes, and for me that is the fun of it. I have done more planned trip with grandkids and we have had a few 'themed' trips... one a Castle Tour, and one focused on Art, and one on food, but my goal is to plan only what I have to and let the rest unfold. My dream of the perfect trip would be to land with my camera, toothbrush and no plan at all and see what happened (well, maybe I would need some makeup too)

" ...If I were him, I would definitely avoid reading these forums, I doubt they are an accurate representation of how the "world at large" or even "travelers at large" view his ideas, tours or travel style. Of course, that is just my opinion..." Rick does follow these boards very closely, and issued this video response to his critics via Facebook several hours ago: http://youtu.be/b_E8HvSMhLs

Planning is important for me. I need to have a pretty good idea of what I want to see. But I don't feel obligated by it. That's the "state of mind" that tourists should have - if something else looks interesting, go for it. Enjoy what you are doing and seeing and don't regret missing something - as long as you've seen/done something else instead. You will never see and do everything. Also find your own style. "AJ" and "FJ" (married couple) went to Montreal years ago and rode the then-new monorail. AJ gaped out the window at everything and had no clue what she was seeing. AJ spent most of the trip looking at his map and knew exactly where they were every minute, but almost never looked at it. They both had a great time.

Good story with a moral, Chania, even though we don't have a monorail in Montreal.

It seems to me RS "Back Door" is a philosophy: http://www.ricksteves.com/about/pressroom/travphil.htm If I were him, I would definitely avoid reading these forums, I doubt they are an accurate representation of how the "world at large" or even "travelers at large" view his ideas, tours or travel style. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Chania's friends must have gone to Montreal 40 years ago. I believe Montreal did have a monorail for the Expo '67. Not sure how long it lasted. Good point to the story. Different strokes for different folks.

Michael, who was that guy!? What a stitch.

He was born Eddie Adams (from Torrance CA), later changed his name to Dirk Diggler, and changed his name a second time to Brock Landers.

I see the Back Door philosophy not as literal places, but, as posted before, more a state of an inquiring, open mind. I'm still exploring Italy after 8 trips of varying lengths to all parts of the country. Since it deals more with people and attitudes, I look for it everywhere - from large cities to one lane roads. Perhaps my rut is choosing to concentrate on one country; but it's become part of my life and culture.

This is an interesting thread. I know I have a personal travel rut. I got to Scotland to walk with my friends every chance I can. I feel deprived when I have to miss a year like I did last year. This year, I am busting my rut because my trip to the UK is primarily for business with colleagues that I've been working with for a year! But, I'll have a week end in London and then another weekend possibly with the rut back in Scotland or maybe somewhere else. It's also all being decided in the next 3 weeks which is another rut buster. I almost always plan! So, I find myself thinking, what do I want to see in London? Do I go back to the tried and true or do I try something new? Other than a brief visit to the British Library a couple of years ago, I've not spent time in London in over ten years despite multiple visits to the UK. I've not done the London Eye. Should I go to the Tate? I've not been to the WWII museums. And, I don't have a heck of a lot of time to dwell on this as I have a lot of work and other things to do before I leave on June 29. So maybe I wing it. But I'm a planner. Ah, so much internal conflict. ; ) And that is what a lot of this thread is about. Pam

Hello Roy. I think your suggestion of not going to the Cinque Terre in Italy is strange. You said : pick a place that German ... tourists visit. I was at the Cinque Terre villages, and I know that many German people go to the village Manorola in the Cinque Terre. When I was at Manorola a group of friendly German people (from Germany, on vacation) walked with me through that village toward the water front. (I liked being with those German people. Some of them even had a good sense of humor). Every year, I think I would like being at the Cinque Terre again, on a trail up there high above the tranquil blue Mediteranean Sea, gazing down at the waves and white surf and dark rocks and white birds circling in the air below me. When I was there the trail was quiet and peaceful, with pleasant plants at the side of the trail, a very pleasant place to be at on a sunny day. If a person likes that kind of environment, I would not advise the person to not go to the Cinque Terre. Rick Steves said the trail that I like there was not ruined by the mud slide. But, of course, in July and August very very many Italian people, on vacation, go to the Mediteranean Sea coast of Italy. I recommend going to the Cinque Terre in other months. (And, my travels in Europe and Britain could not be described as a rut).

Yes, it was way back when, while my friends were still living in Toronto (well, Hamilton) before they moved to Jerusalem. Guess what - they really haven't changed much . . . When I want to do something fun and spontaneous, I ask her. When I need directions somwhere I ask him. From Wiki..... :
The Minirail is an automated monorail system in Montreal. The network was originally built for Expo 67, and continued to operate for Man and his World through 1971.