Is 'Touristy' a bad word?

And it is always in the eye of the beholder. Touristy is relative term. Different meaning to different perspectives.

Well, that's a gal after my own heart. 'If you want adventure, you have to make the effort' and if you think a places is 'too touristy', you haven't made enough of an effort. When I had plans for Barcelona, La Ramblas was not on my list of things to see. I had planned to walk the maps of the Modernista architectural route, stay near the Hospital Sant Pau (a much less visited archetectural wonder), and had been given a list of places in the Zoological park for birdwatching. I sometimes consider myself a 'contrary' traveler, as I may have a personal 'must' list, but I'll consciously cross places off my mental list just because they are on published 'must see' lists.
I only travel peak seasons when necessary - as Newfoundland as its tourist season and weather is so short; or when the opportunity to visit friends in Normandy and Belgium in August was too good to pass up.

I won't say that 'touristy' is a bad word, because ultimately, it is touristy because there is a lot to offer to draw people in. You have some control on how you react being there, either by accepting crowds, traveling off season, or going further afield.

Great article. "Touristy" is often used to negatively describe a place (too crowded, not up to the hype, etc), but it is only someone's opinion. I can understand if someone claims that the Louvre is too touristy, if they don't like art, but calling France or Rome touristy is an opinion that just doesn't make sense. When I read "touristy" on this forum, my mind usually thinks "crowded."

It is a buzzword, a label, that is intended to be somewhat negative, but in reality is unavoidable and applies to more than one realizes.

I see many posts of people wanting to avoid "touristy" places, and stay away from "tourists" as well; but I guess if you want to do that, stay in your house.

The reality is, places people want to see, are "touristy"...and people who go to see things are "tourists", even all of us are tourists. If you travel to another place to see what is there...you're a tourist.

Many applaud Venice now banning Cruise Ships from the lagoon, those were the "bad" tourists I suppose, but they will still be there, coming by bus, as do the hoards by Train and water taxi. But in reality, even the "Travelers" on here, arriving by the two's or fours, are still tourists, and as much a part of the problem.

So you can also head out to out-of-the-way towns that see no tourists, except when you arrive...you're still a tourist, and the place touristy...just less volume. Try as you may, you just can't get away from it.

I haven't mentioned in a while, so I will again now, that tourism studies is a growing academic discipline.
It is usually located under anthropology in the university hierarchy, but has strong ties as well to sociology and geography.

There is more than one formal peer-reviewed journal of tourism studies:
https://journals.sagepub.com/description/tou
https://www.tourismstudies.org/Links.htm

Important to note that this is not part of hospitality programs - which is a professional/practical course of study often offered by business schools or management schools.

Nice article, of course she's right, and for sure she beats the subject to death. As if she's paid by the word.

I'm a tourist when I travel for pleasure, which is as often as I can. I do as much research as I can but I don't obsess over avoiding "touristy" or "must see" places. Off-season travel is the most foolproof way to minimize crowds. It helps to have minimal interest in shopping and gourmet dining. It helps to have time for multi-day stays in cities and multi-week stays in countries (i.e. it helps to be retired).

Maybe someday people will say of Paris, Rome, Barcelona, Mexico, etc. that "nobody goes there any more, they're too crowded." ;-)

I think a place becomes "Touristy" based on one's personal experience with the place. Once upon a time one could discover a wonderful place that you had all to yourself...10 years later that dream is spoiled with an Interpretative Center and a timed entry. We all yearn to be able to enjoy that special place...too bad so many others do, too!

I find that on this forum 'touristy' garners a negative connotation. People appear to want to avoid touristy places in much the same way as they prefer to label themselves as travellers rather than tourists, it's all a bit pretentious. Places that attract a lot of tourists do so for a reason, predominantly because there is something there of interest to a lot of visitors. That can hardly be considered a negative aspect and avoiding such areas is surely defeating the primary reason of visiting somewhere.

Of course, one person's idea of a great location is another person's ambivalence. I'm not particularly enamoured with Paris for example yet there are millions of people who are and for the greater part I can understand why. I'm a bit bemused by the popularity of Las Ramblas in Barcelona but I believe that if you have any interest in visiting it then you should do so and then evaluate it once you've been there.

I adore Rome, I've been many times yet still can't get enough of it. I'm a person who detests crowds yet I'm prepared to deal with them in order to get my fix. Is Rome touristy? Of course. Does that mean it should be somewhere to avoid? Absolutely not, unless of course you have no desire to visit the city or any interest in what it has to offer in which case don't feel obliged to visit simply because so many other people do.

However, there are many contributors to this forum who express a desire to seek out places with a particular reason in mind and often their focus is on somewhere well known or touristy. The Cotswolds is a perfect example. My impression is that for many people the charm of The Cotswolds is its number of "chocolate box" villages and sense of traditional country England however there are many places up and down the country that offer the same appeal but because they're relatively unknown amongst a wider audience they don't receive the same level of attention. I suspect many people would experience a more enjoyable visit to any of these lesser known villages in comparison to the congested and tourist saturated Cotswolds in high season. That's not to say that The Cotswolds are undeserved in their reputation, they are but they're far from unique in their attraction.

My sense is that a place that’s too crowded is just that, “crowded.” Touristy, when used to connote something less than desirable, means cheesy, lowbrow, or promoted to just take tourists’ money with a contrived attraction or with cheap trinket souvenirs.

The Website, thewanderingblonde.com, could be considered ironically derogatory. While “blonde” is simply a hair color, it’s taken on another meaning for some, to imply ditziness or outright stupidity.

The value of “tourist,” as opposed to “traveler” or “visitor,” leads to the use of touristy. I’ve not heard “travelery” or “travelerish,” let alone “visitory” to describe a place.

On some level, though, if a place is full of tourists, there must be some reason to go there.

Oh, as George Carlin used to say, there are no bad words, just bad intentions. The 7 words you couldn’t say on Network TV weren’t so bad that they couldn’t be said on Cable, or in movies, ad nauseum!

I agree with Cyn. When I think of the term touristy or use it myself, it's not referring to the crowds of tourists a place draws. Many places that people call touristy are culturally relevant but are sometimes ruined for me (and others) by their abundance of shops/stands selling cheap imported tacky souvenirs, along with the hawkers trying to sell me everything from umbrellas to day tours and add to that the carnival sideshow attractions like Ripley's B or N and wax museums, etc. To me, that's touristy. Just being crowded with tourists (like me) does not make it touristy in my book. I think people inter change the terms touristy (as described above) and touristed (meaning: visited by crowds of tourists) - there is a difference.

Nice definition, Nancy -- lots of great places are "touristed" because intelligent, thoughtful people (like all of us) want to experience them.

Nancy's explanation is the one that I think of when I use the word with one addition - it can also mean being so overrun with tourists that it feels like the only locals around are those serving the tourists. I really can't think of any place in Europe that applies since I avoid it by traveling off-season. The epitome for me was a 4-night stay in Siem Reap, Cambodia to visit Angkor Wat, and while it was 110% touristy, the sights were well worth the experience. I can imagine small places like the AC and CT villages being similar when tourist season is highest, but even small cities like Venice can be wonderful at the busiest of times - I've been there 3 times during Carnivale and always had an easy time finding the "real" Venice. I've been to Christmas markets that were wall-to-wall people and it seemed to me that at least half of the crowds were locals enjoying the fun as much or more than any tourist . . . . and a lot of the "tourists" were from places in the region, especially on weekends.

Maybe for a whole lot of folks, the opposite of touristy is just what we here call "off the beaten path." Both are good, just depends on what you're looking for.

As I write this, Santorini comes to mind as applying to my personal definition, but to be quite fair I did what most tourists do in Venice - went to the most popular places at the popular times. I'm sure if I'd invested some initiative and energy I could have had a superb experience there.

I find that on this forum 'touristy' garners a negative connotation.
People appear to want to avoid touristy places in much the same way as
they prefer to label themselves as travellers rather than tourists,
it's all a bit pretentious.

What JC said is my initial reaction when I see 'touristy' used. Sometimes my initial reaction is confirmed, and sometimes the word is used with different context, thus my initial question if it is misused. But based on the answers so far, it's not misused because there is no clearly defined interpretation.

The question came to me while I was reading a chapter on Bath in RS's For the Love of Europe book. Rick called Bath the most touristy place in the UK. But this time, the word was used in a pleasant, factual conversational style. However, often in this forum I get the sense that it is being used as a buzzword to state that you're not one of 'those' people.

Allan, yes it is overused and a lazy, one-word way to describe a place as anything from "overcrowded" to "full of philistines and the things that attracts them". As Cyn said, it depends on the context and intent, but it always carries a negative connotation, as I see it. But everyone kind of gets what it means, so perhaps its more useful to other tourists than saying positive things like "popular", "tourist-friendly", or the neutral "well-trod".

But you also hit on why its overused in your last sentence:

However, often in this forum I get the sense that it is being used as a buzzword to state that you're not one of 'those' people.

Yes, it can be a way of enhancing your status by implying you are in a position of taste and experience enough to put a place down.

I thought the article was saying things really no differently than what RS has been saying the last thirty years. She just chose not to use the words "dumbed down" or "back door". In a nutshell, you can have a better travel experience if you do some research and look beyond the obvious.

Touristy bad - crowded, overpriced, contrived and dirty.
Touristy good - historical, unique, accessible and fun.

We run into this on the forum often when discussing lodging -- 'boutique' and 'quaint' for some of us equates to uncomfortable [tiny] and outdated, while 'international' or 'business' standards brings up cookie-cutter or boring for others of us. Does 'modern design' mean cold and impersonal or tastefully understated?

And so on...

The Leaning tower of Pisa on an afternoon, with thousands of visitors and the worlds's tackiest souvenier stores doing a roaring trade - Touristy.
The same place at 9pm on a summers evening when all the tour buses have gone = marvellous.

Similarly, walking from the visitors centre, across the fields, past the barrows to come across Stonehenge on a foggy December morning - probably one of the most atmospheric places I've ever been.

Tou me, touristy normally indicates built purely for the purpose of tourists: Disney, Las Vegas etc. Or possibly that the tourism has overtaken the charm/purpose/attraction of a place (I feel that way about San Gimignano where the hole town seems taken over by tourist shops)

To me, touristy normally indicates built purely for the purpose of
tourists: Disney, Las Vegas etc. Or possibly that the tourism has
overtaken the charm/purpose/attraction of a place

I wonder then how everyone would classify a place like Bath. It was rebuilt for the purpose of tourists, so is it touristy? How about the National parks? Yellowstone in the US and Banff in Canada, Are they now touristy?

Paul..
. If you want to stay aWay from tourists. Stay in yr house

Thank you. That was worth the price of admission 1

I wonder then how everyone would classify a place like Bath. It was rebuilt for the purpose of tourists, so is it touristy? How about the National parks? Yellowstone in the US and Banff in Canada, Are they now touristy

Allan, until the Pump Room in Bath starts serving Hostess Twinkies with its afternoon tea, Touristy doesn’t quite apply.

National Parks? The moose and bears probably think so. Can you get moose antler hats or bear claw gloves at souvenir shops? Have mountain goats been trained to do a dance routine, at 6:30 every evening, then go around to the spectators, begging for tips or carrots? If not, the situation hasn’t reached its nadir.

By definition anyone that travels for fun to see things is a tourist, So why some folks disparage tourists when they are one is beyond me.
Are some locations more visited then others? Yes obviously. But think why that is... because that location has something that many folks want to see.
Is it a bad thing having something of interest to people? Not really.

But some folks have an over inflated opinion of themselves. How often have you heard someone say they didn’t like a location because it was touristy or to crowded or whatever. Did you ever stop and think about the fact that they had gone there themselves but are now putting the place down? I have a friend like that. Two trips a year for the last 10 years (PRR Covid) and a trip a year for decades before that. Buy this point he has been to all the touristy locations long ago so is on to less common locations or the common touristy ones but with a high end budget of only the “best”. But the point is he started with the places everyone wants to see.

The reason you see less folks at the off the Beaton path locations is that they are in general either of less interest or are not well known. So they are farther down the list of places you average tourists want to go. So far down that most tourists won’t get to them because they don’t travel that much.

With a few exceptions most tourist heave locations such as Paris or a London or Neuschwanstien are visited because they SHOULD be. Does this result in tourist traps and souvenir stands and such? Well yes. But I bet if you asked 100 people who have never been to Europe where they want to go if you gave them a vacation for free that 95 of them would list almost exclusively touristy locations. And the other 5 would list mostly touristy locations and perhaps an unusual location that means something to them. My friend mother wants to go to a little town outside Berlin because her grandfather came from there. And on my last trip my father and I visited a small farming town in Germany as his cousin lived there.

It is like folks that complain about fast food restaurants or quick serve restaurants. The reality is that the majority of people have eaten at a McDonalds. Pretending that they are bad is just that... pretending. Are they great? No but there is a reason so many go to them.

Touristy locations with very few exceptions are different then fast food places in that they are in fact that good, that you really must see them. And thus they became popular and now they are touristy...

Note I understand that not EVERYONE likes the same things. But I am talking generalities here. And in general folks want to See the Eiffel Tower more then they want to spend time helping a farmer in Switzerland bring in the crops. So you see a lot more tourists in Paris then in some s all Swiss village in the mountains.

It is just those folks that in general think they are above others that look down Their noses at folks going to see the Tower of a London. (Usually after they have seen it years ago themselves).

Touristy is used as a pejorative for places that are crowded with visitors and have a preponderance of things the speaker might consider "tacky". That is, cheap souveniers made nowhere near the destination (think "I heart Venice" t-shirts made in China), low quality restaurants (because there is a constant stream of 1-day visitors there is no need for repeat customers), and other things the speaker dislikes.

I dislike the word, especially when applied too broadly. An example is Venice - yes, the city at midday in the Rialto/San Marco corridor is unpleasantly crowded and could somewhat understandably be called touristy. BUT venture a few minutes off that corridor and it is no longer crowded, it is often downright deserted (another issue!), even in midday. And go out at 6AM or 10PM and, again, it is peaceful. Almost all places are like this. I dislike large crowds, not out of some sort of judgementalism but because I just find them physically and mentally unpleasant, and I can always find a way to minimize that while still enjoying my destination. So sometimes I engage in my own form of snobbery and feel that those who dismiss popular places for being "touristy" are just not savvy enough to avoid the worst of it! Kidding, FYI.

Also, some of the "touristy" places may not be worth seeing but most are popular for a reason. Should you skip the Colosseum because it is touristy, or go because it is an iconic, well preserved piece of history? At a certain point, disdaining the touristy would cause you to miss some really valuable things. Back to Venice - Piazza San Marco is a crowded zoo at noon in the summer, but seeing the Basilica is well worth it. You can't really judge people for wanting to see such an amazing work of art and architecture and history and religion.

I'm sure there is a quote somewhere that says: "The tourist sees what he is told to see, the traveler sees what he wants to see"...something like that.
Does anyone know the correct quote?
I think we all start off as tourists when we first begin to travel, then we become travelers when we realize that there is more to see just a short step off the beaten path.

It's unfortunate that some commenters here are using this as an opportunity to engage in performative solidarity with the tourist masses, and looking down their noses at those they imagine as looking down their noses at the middle-of-the-pack vacationer.

Here's a fine version of that habit from Monty Python:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2q1ojy

The example of fast food doesn't help the claim that travelers who complain about touristy spots are just being holier-than-thou: McDonalds is not good, nor rare, nor interesting, so seeking it out after having gone to some lengths to travel does indeed deserve to be looked down upon.

Suppose we picked another consumable, like wine?
Are you going to claim that people who look askance at someone for ordering a bottle of 2-Buck-Chuck at a bistro in Paris when there is a local option that has history and refinement listed right next to it on the carte for almost the same price?
Is all discrimination and savoir faire just a bunch of condescension and putting-on-airs?

Ah, Monty Python’s a-flying-a Cir-cussssssss! Both Graham Chapman and Terry Jones are no longer with us; they are missed. I wonder whether Eric Idle’s character had a Coal Miner’s Daughter?

McDonald’s serves a crucial role for folks visiting Versailles in France - the bathrooms are one of the best things a tourist and traveler could know about, before heading back to Paris.

If I buy a small apartment in Italy to use as a base for a month or two a couple times a year, paying property taxes, insurance and utilities, am I still a Tourist when I’m there?

Interesting word touristy. It always has a negative connotation. However, the great cities of the world are touristy, but of course we would never visit a touristy place like Rome, Venice, Paris, Florence, London, etc. LOL

In some neighborhoods of some cities and towns, the economy or life in general may revolve around tourism. I read guidebooks, I pick which museums and monuments look appealing. Many travelers including myself go to old historic parts of towns where perhaps most of the people we encouter are other tourists. As long as you understand that where you are visiting will be crowded with other tourists, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with this. I don't purposefully try avoiding other tourists or crowds in general. I have not decided whether I am more likely to be assaulted or robbed in a crowded or uncrowded location. On previous trips I have visited a combination of crowded popular museums and sites, and uncrowded less popular sites and museums. Maybe some travelers pride themselves on visiting out-of-the-way, unpopular, "off-the-beaten-path", or uncrowded locations.

I am unsure whether what "touristy" is supposed to mean. Does it mean "place the speaker visited and felt uncomfortable in because the place was packed with other tourists?"

Wouldn't it be unreasonable to expect a site you want to see to be deserted?

Do you pick sites only because you think the place will be deserted?

I am aware that some people may be uncomfortable in or near crowds.

Do some travelers have a problem with being in or near crowds of other tourists but not with being in ir near crowds of locals?

Crowds aren’t the issue. Those can often be expected, and advice from sources like Rick Steves can help avoid, or at least minimize the overcrowded experience for a tourist’s visit to popular places.

The “touristy” part comes when that popular place is accompanied by vendors, restaurants, would-be guides, lame souvenir sellers, and others trying to take unreasonable advantage of the tourists, milking them for money without giving much value in return for their making the effort to go there. A place where tourists aren’t really respected is touristy. That also goes for places where tourists don’t respect the place, or expect to be treated respectfully. Cheap and tacky is, as cheap and tacky does.

Great post Emma. Where I live the place is packed with "tourists" from January 1 until about the end of April. No one here calls them tourists, but whether they are called vacationers, visitors or whatever, they are the same as "tourists" in Europe. They don't fill up century old buildings because we don't have any here, but they flood restaurants, bars, golf courses, fishing boats, beaches, the roads, etc. They also buy touristy T-shirts, souvenirs and up the road 4 hours they shell out huge dollars to see "the Mouse". The more the merrier I say. Supports the economy and allows Floridians to pay no state income taxes and enjoy the benefits of the dollars spent here.

Everyone on this forum is a.......wait for it........ A TOURIST!!! As defined...."a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure." I'm a tourist and proud of it.

Interesting discussion as usual, but I took the original question to be specifically about the adjective "touristy" versus the noun "tourist" and all that goes with it. I think that was Allan's intent? I know the traveler vs tourist thing (which RS promotes) always gets people stirred up, but its really not that important.

Touristy is only a bad word when used incorrectly.

"that includes if you are deluded enough to think you are “living like a local” because you are staying more than a couple of days and have cooked the odd meal" - But what if I also call myself Mannfred in Füssen (which I did once), or Cyril from The Wirral? Does that count?

but I took the original question to be specifically about the
adjective "touristy" versus the noun "tourist" and all that goes with
it. I think that was Allan's intent?

I was just curious for people's thoughts when they come across the word. I know I shouldn't, but my thoughts automatically go to its negative use and thoughts of snobbery-traveller vs tourist kind of stuff. This is even before I finish the sentence to interpret the intent. I know I should rise above that, but it's one of those words that bugs me.

I was just curious for people's thoughts when they come across the word. I know I shouldn't, but my thoughts automatically go to its negative use and thoughts of snobbery-traveller vs tourist kind of stuff. This is even before I finish the sentence to interpret the intent. I know I should rise above that, but it's one of those words that bugs me.

Same here. A few years ago, a relative with a brief stopover in San Francisco asked me for some suggestions for a first-time visitor. I rattled off a few things, with a comment that most of these sites were "real touristy". His comment back was "I'm a real tourist!". It hit me that instead of "touristy", I could have just as easily said "popular and crowded" - like London, France, Rome, Barcelona, et al.

When out walking all day in Mumbai, Bejing, Istanbul, etc, McDonald's is a good source for a clean(ish) restroom. It is easy to walk in, relatively unnoticed and use the restroom. It is a great relief to find this touristy place.

I much prefer being a tourist, even if looked down on, and using an American type toilet, than being a local and using a squat toilet.

Hmmm, the secret nuclear facility in Chester isn’t a secret anymore, thanks to emma! That could be a less crowded place to see, a back door, if you will. I wonder whether they will be taking reservations, when tourists are widely circulating in Chester again?

Nuclear tour, followed by slightly overpriced ice cream - sounds like a plan :)

If I'm reading this thread correctly,

• There are those who look down their nose at "tourists"
• There are those who look down their nose at those who look down their nose at "tourists"
• There are those who look down their nose at those who look down their nose at those who look down their nose at "tourists"

To me, the first two groups seem okay, but I have to admit I kind of look down my nose at that last group.

Dave, maybe its circular, and that that makes you actually, a tourist 🙃.

I saw a sign in Florida once that read
“it is called Tourist Season. Does that mean we can shoot them?”

So locals who are not directly in the tourist industry seam to have issues with the large number of tourists no matter where tourists visit.

I still contend that the more popular tourist locations are popular for reasons. People travel to Paris because it is pretty, it has great food, and it has a ton of attractions for visitors to see such as the world’s largest erectors set (Also know as the Eiffel Tower) and the museum’s and such. Does this make it touristy? Well it is much more Touristy then my local small town here in Michigan. We have a nice bunch of old house that look pretty at Christmas... but not much else. So which do you think most folks would like to see?

That area certainly contains obvious and not-so-obvious points of interest, emma. Perhaps a tourist who can pronounce a place, or at least make a concerted effort, is slightly more valued than someone who’s just there to check it off a list.

Wars are devastating in so many ways, but for those who survive, and for subsequent generations, they can make for interesting sights. Sometimes those are tragically sad, and some can be learning experiences.

A long school trip long ago, we were taken to the National Atomic Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico. What was top-secret once is a tourist attraction now.

The touristy vs crowded question reminds me of the Yogi Berra saying, "No one goes there any more, it's too crowded."

Touristy for me is something or a place worth welcoming tourists. If it is good or bad depends on behaviour.

I like visiting places that might be considered worthy of visiting but aren't totally defined by tourism, all very subjective of course. I felt this ambiance in Erfurt, Dresden and Leipzig. In those cities there were obviously tourist heavy sites but by and large there were people just going about their business, with the touristy attractions nicely embedded in this, especially in Erfurt and Leipzig. Even in Prague we had one morning where we walked north of the Hradcany palace complex toward Stromovka park and it was stunning how devoid of tourists the whole area was.

I think I found a good description of touristy. It reminds me of when I visited Hollywood Blvd. This is an excerpt from RS's For the Love of Europe book:

Now, a generation later, Checkpoint Charlie is a capitalist sideshow.
Lowlife characters sell fake bits of the wall, WWII-vintage gas masks,
and DDR medals. Two actors dressed as American soldiers stand between
big American flags and among sandbags at the rebuilt checkpoint,
making their living posing for tourists. Across the street at “Snack
Point Charlie,” someone sipping a Coke says to me, “When serious
becomes kitsch, you know it’s over.”

I mostly don’t care if other people or publications designate a place or site as “too touristy”. If it interests me, I try my best to see it. I’m agreeing with anyone else who said the definition of the word touristy is in the eye of the beholder.

I use touristy - in a negative way - to describe a venue that wholly exists to usher hoards of tourists through a ticket line, crowded venue, gift shops then the exit. I don't consider all touristy places a bad sight to visit. Some are worth visiting, despite being treated like cattle at a meat packing plant. Most are too "touristy".

I like the discussion of looking down your nose at those who look down their nose...

I'm from San Diego. We are unpretentious. In fact, we are pretentiously unpretentious because we look down our nose at anyone we believe is pretentious. ;-)

Or "sideshow" is the bad word and "capitalist" is merely a descriptor.

My issue with the word is what to do with it when we get the forum question, "We don't want to do anything touristy."

Well, OK, what does that mean to YOU? As an art lover, just because a particular museum draws a lot of tourists doesn't mean it's to be avoided. Same with some famous landmarks. There can be good reasons why some attractions are overrun.

I think people sometimes throw the "touristy" word out because they think it makes them appear more sophisticated or experienced: terrible reasons to miss out on what could turn out to be the highlight of a trip.

At the same time, I cringe over going just to take the picture: been there, done that. No, you haven't.

The height of touristy is Ripley’s Believe It or Not and Wax Museums. I went to one in Niagra Falls and could not believe how fake it was. Touristy, to me, is something that has nothing to do with the any aspect of an area, just get visitors money. Sucker me once, shame on you. Sucker me twice, shame on me.

Touristy, to me, is something that has nothing to do with the any aspect of an area, just get visitors money

I wholly agree with your description. Touristy has nothing to do with crowded. If a place is interesting, and a lot of people go there to see it because it is interesting, I don't call that touristy.

Neuschwanstein, for instance, is crowded, but people go there to see a beautiful building, part of whose story is of an eccentric king, who longed for a time of knights and real castle, and tried to reproduce it. I does bother me when it is described as a medieval castle, which it's not. But, as long as you realize what it really is, it is worth seeing, in it's own right. Now I'm not so sure about the nearby luge ride. Luges are common in Germany; why is that luge unique to the area.

What in my opinion is really crass tourism, is a Sound of Music tour. Now you have to understand, I am a huge fan of the original movie. I have at least three versions of it, two, I think VHS tapes, plus a DVD with a running commentary by Prod/Dir David Weiss. But my love of the movie makes me revile someone using it to make money off of tourist. I know enough about the movie not to be suckered in to a high priced, irrelevant tour. A lot of things from the movie - Marabell Palace, or the old town - for instance, can be seen for free just walking around town. A lot of other stuff they show you - Leopoldskron, or the gazebo at Hellbrunn Palace - have little significant connection to the movie. The patio, supposedly in front of the Von Trapp home, was a recreation of the patio at Leopoldskron It was a temporary set, no longer in existence, elsewhere on the lake. And the gazebo in Hellbrunn was a small building on the patio patio set, only used for distance shots, taking up only a few minutes, at most, a few seconds at a time, of the movie. The actual song and dance scenes were shot on a sound set in Hollywood.

The tours were totally contrived as a way to take advantage of the location to get tourist's money.

Why doesn't anyone ride around in buses in Hollywood, where more of the movie was actually shot, singing "Doe, a deer"?

Why doesn't anyone ride around in buses in Hollywood, where more of
the movie was actually shot, singing "Doe, a deer"?

I did that once. People looked at me funny.