I was thinking the other day about the negative use of "touristy" by some posters here, and considering that it's a variable concept. I was also reminded of some of the really hopeless requests I occasionally see for a "non-touristy" spot in a region that has been a major international tourist destination for decades if not a century, like the French Riviera.
But there's no simple distinction between "touristy" and "non-touristy", more of a spectrum:
Totally non-touristed - you will hardly ever see a foreign person. However, in these days of easy travel and widespread information, in Europe any genuine place like this will probably be either very dull (see what "living like a local" is really like and decide never to do it again) or very remote indeed and inaccessible without a car or a lengthy hike.
National tourist site - somewhere that is visited by people in the country or region but not by many international tourists, either because it's not of outstanding interest or because there's no nearby international airport. Probably not horribly crowded except on public holidays, but you'll see souvenir shops and so forth. You'll get a taste of the local leisure culture but you might find it a bit tacky.
International tourist site - you'll see plenty of foreign tourists. Seriously, most places in Western Europe that are highly rewarding to visit are going to be like this.
Tourist honeypot - the usual stereotype, hotels full, local people getting seriously pissed off about crowds and too many AirBNB properties, sites more and more requiring pre-booked timed tickets, etc.