"Must-See"

I usually just ignore those posts. Any guide book is full of the most recommended "must see" sights so I cannot provide anything new. It is really better if people do a little basic research first and have a more detailed question to begin with.

You are not off base;
I always tell people to do a little research (guide book or videos)
on a destination to try to determine for themselves what you are interested in.

I agree that nothing is a "must-see" if you're not interested. However I think people who ask about them are just looking for opinions on the best things in a given place. You can have a wonderful time doing no "must-see" things, but it's good to know what's considered top so you can decide if it's worth it to you or not. I really dislike getting home from somewhere THEN finding out about a great thing I missed!

I mostly agree with you. It's so easy for me to get caught up in thinking that I "must see" various things that I'd never even heard of until I opened the guidebook!

That question has always baffled me as I'm never sure why the country/region/city was chosen in the first place if one has no idea what there is to see there? I do understand if it's someone traveling primarily for business and so hasn't been able to concentrate on random free time.

LOL, I've made the lists of churches. art museums and historical sites and had them come back with, "Well, I really just want to go shopping..." 🙄

I agree with Kathy, Lane and others. From my own lists, I know I will never see everything on them. Choosing a place without any idea of ehat's there is puzzling. Everyone's must-sees are different.

I have gone to a particular city to see one painting, but then I find so many other great things to see/do there, as well.

Agree!! And that's why there are guidebooks ... as guides, not commandments. "Must-see" and "best" lists are so subjective -- for me, a "must-see" is anything done by Marc Chagall in easy distance to where I will be travelling, for others that would be high on their "must-miss" list.

Our focus has shifted over the years from "must sees" to "while we're here's". So many plan a trip as if it will be a "one of" and are driven to not miss anything. We were that way once but learned that only gets you tired! Now we really enjoy a place and see the "must sees" as we can.

Yet, Rick does it in his books. He tells people not to go places, that they aren't worth it, but it is all just his opinion. Mainz, Wiesbaden, Heidelberg, & Rüdesheim all get the Don't go There listing. Yet, you MUST go to Rothenburg. It is a must see. He says to take the Rhine ship from Bacharach to St. Goar, ignoring all the rest of the Rhine, because those are his must see towns.

He marks sites in every city as a must see or not. Thus, it is no wonder that people come on this forum and do the same.

I rely on guidebooks to provide a summary of the top sightseeing options, especially a more opinionated book like Rick's or like Michelin Green Guides that both use a star rating system. If you're just starting your research, some of the tops sites may very well be places that you've never heard of before and it's valuable for you to learn about them sooner, rather than later. The more you learn about, the more you will want to see. The more opinion and description your source can offer, the easier it is for you to weigh choices and make some plans in advance. If you have a special interest in food, or hiking, or another topic, there are also specialized resources for those.

The places that foreigners have heard of the most before traveling to Europe tend to be just the biggest cities and not the very attractive small towns nearby. In a big city like London, you've probably heard of the British Museum and the Tower of London, but did you know about the excellent exhibit at the Churchill War Rooms before finding it through a travel guide? People on this forum can give their opinion of it, if Rick's 3-star rating isn't enough.

In Paris, you know about the Eiffel Tower but that doesn't necessarily mean that you "must" take the time and expense to climb it. That's something that I still have not done, after several visits, and have not regretted it. Unfortunately, it's a decision that the traveler tends to have to make in advance, since tickets can sell out.

That does not mean that you should not also leave room in your plan for serendipity, wandering, photo safaris, special events, delays, detours, nature breaks, people watching, conversations, and tired feet. While Rick's At a Glance highlights list is mostly focused on indoor options, other text in his guidebooks makes it clear that an outdoor walking route (whether in town or in country, self-guided or with a tour) is almost always considered a "must do." The path described is just a start.

I agree with Lane's premise that you can go and enjoy what you see in a less structured way. Things that you didn't plan can end up being the most memorable or enjoyable. But, as usual, time limitations keep us from having it all, as does the occasional need to make reservations.

You're not off base, this is something I've always found interesting about posts on this thread.

To me the only "must sees" are places and things someone has had a strong interest in seeing the very moment they first read about them, or has an interest in after seeing it in photos or stories, they read more about it, think more about it, the seed has been planted, time to go see it in person!

I don't mind "must see" questions. I agree people have to research a place they want to visit and not rely on others to do their base work; but, sometimes when you read about a sight in Rick's book you don't get that bit of excitement you might from someone who was just there. Or a tip when to visit. That is why I love reading trip reports. I also read posters' profiles so I can determine if we have similar travel styles. I also don't put down people who like to shop, it is just another form of sightseeing.

I also don't put down people who like to shop, it is just another form
of sightseeing.

Barbara, that remark in my post wasn't meant to be a put down. Everyone is free to do on their trip, with their time and money, exactly they want to. I just meant that key bits of information are helpful to have upfront versus having to guess? As I don't really shop on vacation, then I wouldn't have spent time on the question.

That's why one of my first clarification questions, when someone says they want suggestions, is to ask what they like to do. Are they wanting sports, nature, shopping, historical places, museums, or what? I can't count the number of times, as Kathy says, that I have made suggestions only to be told that "we aren't really into art" or something.

I really dislike the phrase "must see." It makes me think, why must I see it? Who says I must see it? What is a must see for me might not be for others, and what others think is a must see, I might have zero interest in seeing. I can see where it would be helpful for people to ask what are good things to see in a certain city or region if they also say what types of things they are interested in. I just cringe at the phrase, "must see."

I forget where exactly I witnessed this (likely somewhere in either Germany or Belgium), but I distinctly recall a 50-ish woman, carrying the Blue Book, loudly calling to her husband "Honey, I think this is a must-see!" in front of some building or monument.

I think we had this discussion on the forum several years ago...

Personally, I dislike the term because it implies a lack of personal agency, and a herd-like mentality.

Must-sees are so subjective. One year I was traveling with two married friends, and one told me privately that her husband said "she's not going to drag us to every church in Sicily, is she?" So I made Monreale optional. We had time, decided to go, and they loved it - and we were off in search of every church mosaic in Sicily that we could find.

I have a really impressive list of must-sees I haven't yet visited despite two trips to the cities in which they are located: the Colosseum, the Acropolis and the Eiffel Tower. I'm going to France this summer (second trip to Paris) and one thing I already know: I will not be going inside Versailles.

I don't understand people who don't want to make their own decisions about what is most likely to appeal to them. None of us has enough vacation time (or Schengen time in my case). Why spend that precious commodity on someone else's "must-see" rather than a local sight that aligns with your personal interests? A lot of those big-name sights have high admission fees, too.

...as well as hoards of people. All I remember of the Vatican was the absolute crush of people. As someone who has been fortunate to make more than one international visit, I find that "must sees" don't touch me nearly as much as the odd, unplanned experience. Watching the rugby finals in a bar in Bayeux where very little, if any, English was spoken still sparks more then trying to peer around people at the Louvre for a glimpse of "must see" art.

I can see both sides of this topic. It's reasonable question from a newby traveler who may never be in a particular city again. On the other hand, the more experienced I get as a traveler the less I am drawn into goal-oriented tourism. On the third hand, on my recent fourth visit to Rome I could not resist a return visit to the Vatican Museums. (I am really mad at them though because I think they purposely manage the crowds poorly to maximize the shock and awe factor. Surely there must be a way to present this in a way that is less miserable for tourists. Give the folks at the Borghese Gallery a call). That said, if someone only ever visits Rome one time and don't go to the Coliseum, then why travel at all? On the fourth hand, everyone's trip is their own and if you choose to fly to Rome and spend an entire two weeks camping out at Termini, then good for you. All kidding aside, I think balance is the key. Yeah, there are some sights that are worth going out of your way for, even enduring hideous crowds. But don't make it so goal oriented that your trip is spoiled if you don't get there. It's for each of us to decide what is above and below the "must see" line. I think Rick is usually right on the mark about what cities, towns, and villages are worth visiting (also on his hotel listings are very solid, if a little high on the range of my willingness to pay). The way he rates the sights, I find to vary more from my own assessment--but that is where it gets very subjective. If you are an enthusiast for a specific category of sight--for example castles--you might want to give it an extra star or two on Rick's scale.

Very subjective, that's all there is to it. For me there are a host of "must sees" but it is a personal matter. I don't agree with the view at all of skipping Heidelberg, Mainz, (I've not been there), Wiesbaden, or Rüdesheim from a cultural or historical aspect. My advice for a first or second time visitor to Germany is to go to see those cites/towns, forget the loads of tourists in Rüdesheim, which I saw last in June of 2013...go anyway.

On the trips I have mainly accomplished what I had planned on seeing. Have I made mistakes? A few but it depends, but so what. Have I come back and regretted not visiting a place? Yes, of course, but intervening factors come into play here...time, money, energy, over-reach, weather, distance, etc. In such a case, you set the priority on the next trip.

When most folks say "must-see" they mean what are the top sights that should be at/near the top of their list. Some people need recommendations to start a plan. And some people use this forum as an easier way to get information than to do simple research on their own. I am as annoyed by questions that I find an answer to by google a key phrase in the OP's question.

Must-sees are a personal decision. As an example, I like art from cave paintings up to impressionism. I can live without modern art. My French girlfriend is, among other things, an abstract artist. I'm pretty sure my must see art museums would be different than hers. If we're traveling together, we have to allow time for some of each.

I always suggest people research all the sight options, then score the must-sees based on their own tastes and priorities. The same concept holds true when someone asks whether they should visit England or Germany. I can't tell you which one you're going to like more; I can only tell you what I liked best about each place.

One person's must see is another person's idea of hell.

I remember one RS employee wrote on the board the reason people should use the RS guidebook is because Rick tells them what not to waste time on.

Seriously? Is everyone's interest the same as his? Or Fodor's? Or Lonely Planet?

Everything about travel is subjective. What I might enjoy doing would not interest someone else and vice versa. As an example, I have a low threshold for churches/cathedrals. Unless there is something unique about the next one, I'll skip it. I've had my fill. Others can't wait to see the next one.

I also enjoy the journey and love to sit back in my train seat and enjoy the scenery. Others find this a chore and see it as just a way to get from Point A to Point B. I'll get to a place and sometimes just wander around getting a feel for it while others enjoy running from one guidebook suggestion to another.

I'm always happy to get suggestions on what is available in a certain area but ultimately the choice is mine. And just going to place others suggest so I can say I've seen it, when I would have enjoyed doing something else, is a waste of time.

I took a RS-Paris tour in 2015 (it was great). On Friday the group went to Versailles but I elected to sleep in and do nothing all day. It was everything I thought it could be.

I remember one RS employee wrote on the board the reason people should use the RS guidebook is because Rick tells them what not to waste time on.

Judging by the contents of his books, I guess I need to spend a LOT more time in art museums... and what was I thinking, spending all that time enjoying life in "too commercial" Heidelberg, when I could have enjoyed all the "authentic experience" of those trinket shops and throngs of tour buses that Rothenburg odT has to offer?

I always find the must-see questions tedious; before I decide to spend my time, energy and hard-earned dollars on a trip anywhere I've already got a solid list of what I personally need to see and do. This is determined by various means--usually a lifelong desire to go somewhere (London), a strong feeling about a place (read Anne Frank's diary when I was 10 and going to see her house in April) or a personal connection (my main heritage is Estonian and Hungarian, been to Estonia and back to Budapest for the 3rd time in April). I spent a week in Vienna and visited numerous sites pertaining to my favorite movie, The Third Man, and it was one of my best trips, very satisfying. Between this forum, Rick's books and just searching for "things to do in ____", I can come up with an entertaining itinerary. I love museums--not just art museums but ones about people, places and things, so any trip includes a healthy dose of museum-going interspersed with outdoor exploring, and if I can find a flea market or some antique shops then I'm thrilled to bits.

I believe "must see" questions can be answered with this simple question: "Why are YOU going to __(wherever it is they're asking about)_?"

That also can be the answer to the question: "How many days should I spend in this city or that town?", although that one can involve other considerations.

"Why YOU are traveling to a place" can answer a lot of questions.

Once you figure that out, you can include that reason in the question re: must sees and others on this forum can then share their knowledge and experience with answers that pertain to what might also be YOUR must sees.

Nah. People who come on here asking what are the 'must-sees' are just using the Forum for what it is designed for - seeking opinions - the very same thing that this post is doing.

Mrs.EB, my friends knew I teach theology and Christian Art, and they entrusted me to plan the sightseeing (except for s couple of beach and vineyard visits), so I guess they expected to come along on "my" trip.

Loved the logic of your response for just separating for a bit and meeting up later, I highly recommend it.

djp, I agree with you. I don't actually object to questions asking about must-sees. I wrote this post because I've seen a number of responses to questions along the lines of "You can't go to [blank] without stopping in [blank]." Or "If you're in [blank] you can't miss [blank]." Or "If you're going to [blank] you need to spend at least [x] days."

I think we all need to be careful when expressing an opinion to make sure it doesn't come across as established fact. When I went to the Netherlands last year, I got some responses telling me I absolutely must go to Keukenhof. I'm sure I would have enjoyed Keukenhof if I'd gone there, but I had a great trip without going there.

The problem with the term "must-see" is it comes across as absolute. And I don't think there's any universal must-see anywhere. Each traveler has his/her own priorities. It's great to share our favorite things; it's another thing entirely to tell someone they can't miss something.

When we express an opinion, we may end up influencing someone's travel plans in a way that would make their itinerary more desirable for us but maybe not for them. So we should be careful to distinguish between facts ("It takes 4 hours to get there by train and you'll have to make two connections") and opinions ("I think you'd be better off not trying to go there as a day trip").

Whenever I give someone itinerary advice, I always try to add a comment at the end along the lines of, "Whichever option you decide, you are sure to have a great trip."

I agree that "must sees" depend on your interests. That being said, I do think a few sites are musts for everyone-The Sistine Chapel despite the crowds, the stained glass at Sainte Chapelle in Paris, the city of Florence, and the British Museum.

Lane this was an interesting topic. There are those who want facts and those who want opinions. Then there are many who can't tell the difference, either in the asking or the telling.

Its a conversation, no different than the neighbor who gushes "you simply must see the .....". You take it for what its worth.

One person's must see is another person's idea of hell.

This can be an interesting list. China's Great Wall? Spain's Alhambra?

If I was less lazy I would look into trademarking the motto
One traveler's trash is another traveler's treasure.

As I enjoy repeating, for me 15 minutes on the Champs Elysee is 10 minutes too much,
but I can't get enough oil paintings of a penitent Mary Magdalene or a pierced Saint Sebastian.
'Yet another' stone rendering of Santa Barbara? Yes, please. I wish i could collect 'em all. Especially in the churches with bad lighting and no labels in English, it's like I've died and gone to heaven.

In my opinion, most places that we visit have must see items.

I could provide a long list, but here are some examples:

Rome== St. Peter's, Sistine Chapel, Coliseum, Forum and Pantheon. There is a lot more in Rome, but those are at the top. I am sure that others might not agree with me, but I expect most would agree.

Other places. like the Caribbean, finding a must see is much harder. Some people just love going to the beach, boating or snorkeling. others not so much.

I think guidebooks with must sees are helpful to point those in the right direction. I remember the old Michelin guides with one two or three stars. They always nailed it. Three stars was a must see, two stars, worth a detour or something like that. Forgot what one star was. probably, see it if you are in the neighborhood.

I believe in must sees and rely on guidebooks, websites, etc. to inform myself of where/what they are before traveling. I also try to talk to people who've visited the place I'm going to get their advice. Having said this, I don't always hit all the must sees each place I go. Also, some of the best travel experiences I've had have been the unexpected/unplanned. For example, we were in Rome and planning to visit the Forum/Palatine Hill. My wife slept in so I got up early and went wandering and came across a very small/beautiful catholic church where they were conducting mass. It was a great unexpected experience before going to the must see!

When I see questions like, "where should I go......what should I see...." I cringe a little then need to remind myself about what David said. Mostly because I would love another opportunity to plan a place to go and a something to see. I have enough potential places to go and somethings to see to fill up fifty trips.
Also this planning phase is pretty close to being the most joy giving phase (it lasts longer than the trip itself) and I wouldn't give that up to another person.
As I take more and more trips though I am sure I will have more fun answering those questions from my point of view. I do use the viewpoints of others when making my plans. I take special notice when James E is writing about Budapest and when Zoe is writing about a town centered around a beautiful church and when Wray writes about a beautiful photo-op view (Wray, can't wait to stand on Monteliusvagen). I am also going to Florence for the reason that my husband wishes me to see it. But I guess I have come to trust the advice of these people based on my experience of "getting to know them" and what drives them. I believe this forum will make me a better traveler.

An insidious effect I'm noticing of the "must see" mentality is the idea that there's some minimum amount of time you need to spend in a particular place. So for example, when someone shows up here with an itinerary that gives them (for example) three days in London, people will tell them that no, it's positively impossible to see London in less than a week, because of how many "must sees" there are, so they need to cut other destinations from the itinerary (that they may want to see more than anything in London) to make time for a bunch of London sites that they never mentioned being interested in in the first place.

It's impossible to see everything in London in three days OR a week. But that's OK, because there's nothing wrong with visiting London without seeing everything.

buzzard, "they" obviously wanted our opinions, in the example you cite. Otherwise, why are they here, asking us to critique their itinerary? Shouldn't we be honest, and say what we think would make their trip more enjoyable for them?

Some people come here and ask us to critique their itinerary, and they are barely spending one night in each place they are going to. Why not tell them they would get more out of that particular place if they were able to stay two nights there, if it is indeed a place with a lot to see?

By the way, I don't care how many sights a person sees in London, buzzard. That is entirely up to them.
But it's different if they ask point blank, "I only have given London one night in my schedule--Is that enough for me to see all the must sees? Should I put some more days in London in my schedule?"
Now what should the answer be? Since they often ask point-blank.
You imply that we are imposing our will on people, instead we are merely trying to give them honest answers they are seeking.
We make suggestions, only suggestions; they can take it or leave it.

If a person wanted to see no sights at all in London, just wanted to take a couple of walks and explore neighborhoods, take a glance at old churches from the outside, and have several drinks at the pub and call it a day, I would consider that a good visit.
There is no right or wrong itinerary; just whatever a person wants to do on their vacation is right for them.

As we know, there are known 'must sees'; these are things we know we must see. We also know there are unknown 'must sees'; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know to see. But there are also unknown 'might sees' – the ones we don't know if we 'might see'. And if one looks throughout history, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult one.

....with apologies to the former Secretary of Defence, or maybe not.

And then there are the "must-see-again" places, but that's another topic...

Rebecca: Of course there are people who come here with itineraries that are just plain absurd, like with an international flight or 10 hours of driving every single day. That's not really what I'm talking about, though.

In one of the examples that inspired my comment, the OP was asking for help building an itinerary to see London and two other cities in around a week and a half, and she'd listed half a dozen sites of interest in London. One commenter advised that she'd have to drop one of the other cities and plan on at least five full days in London, because she hadn't accounted for the time she'd need to see all the museums and galleries. (She hadn't mentioned wanting to see any museums or galleries.)

Where's the harm, you ask, in suggesting someone add more time in London? The harm is that more time in London is less time somewhere else - or sometimes no time somewhere else - and they want to see those other places too. Sure, we're just making suggestions that they're free to take or leave, but they're asking us for advice on the assumption that we know what we're talking about. So if we're going to say that what they're trying to do is "impossible," we need to make sure it really, really is, not just that it's a different pace of travel than we prefer.

That presupposes that the former Sec of Defense (under which president?) knows his history.