Are you guys mainly doing urban travelling?
 

When you go away to places are you guys mainly doing urban type of travels?

I have an interest with national parks etc ... but I have learnt to not do that anymore and go away by myself. They just don't like it when are away from cities.


Cheers.

Who is "they'? Many areas of great natural beauty can be safely visited solo. Probably not a good idea to try and do something like climb Everest alone, but anything short of that should be reachable with planning and preparation.

If “they” is your family, then you have your work cut out persuading them to join you. But my sister in law, who likes things extreme on holiday, has developed a group of friends with whom she does this for one of her holidays.

Not sure I totally understand the OP including who "they" refers to. But no I don't do just urban travel.

When I lived in the city my travelling was more rural. Now that I live in a rural area my travelling is more urban.

I understand what the OP is saying about "they." My wife and family were appalled when I told them about driving around a large African game preserve by myself. Even though I'd been there before with a guide they thought it was extremely dangerous to do it on my own. It wasn't but don't try and tell them that.

I don't know who "they" is/are either but I don't have anyone concerned with my non-work travels - family, employer, employees, etc. I often head out early morning, evening, weekend, etc. out an about, sometimes in remote areas.

It's mostly landscape photography, so there's not much activity in the city. And sunrise is the best opportunity. Sure, as I discussed in the photography forum, I've found myself laying in a dry creekbed, 1/2 mile off a trail, at sunrise, with no one within at least a mile, with a fractured ankle. But that's the chance I take.

I've hopped in a car with a guy I just met - says he's my driver - and taken a 4 hour drive to Agra and Fatehpur Sikri without a local phone, speaking the language, etc. I just trust that things will work out and I can solve problems that arise.

So far so good.

We do urban locations when we have no vehicle at the destination, and rural destinations when we do. Sometimes it's a mix.

Last year we were a few days in Bangkok on foot/public transport, then rented a car and drove to a National Park, up to the River Kwai, and other destinations. There are advantages to both, but, of course, the cities tend to be more crowded, full of tourists, and often difficult to have a car. Motorbikes are not hard to park even in the most crowded places, but it kind of defeats the purpose of having your own transportation to get off the beaten path, and then choosing a destination, such as a vibrant urban city, that is easy to navigate on foot or with public transportation. Our motorbike travel tends to be very remote, with National Parks, offbeat Unesco sites and the scenery being a focus of the trip. Our urban travels tend to be based as close to the city center and bus/train transportation as possible, and to large, historic urban destinations.

Flyertalk tends to skew towards urban destinations (e.g., reviews about hotels are mostly about full-service ones), but lots of Flyertalkers also do outdoorsy travel.

I like to do hiking, camping, etc. trips once or twice a year. Add in another one or two National Park type trips where we might stay in a B&B or cabin and do a series of short hikes.

I've learned over the years to completely leave hotel points/status behind on most of these kinds of trips. If we're taking the time to go to the Oregon coast for 3 days in parks and on beaches, we book a B&B with some charm - not stay in the Hampton Inn just because we're Diamond. If we're going to a National Park that has a lodge, we stay in the park - not at the Fairfield Inn 30 minutes outside the park just to earn points.

A complete mix.

For work, well, it's mostly urban, as I'm visiting offices. Dull old offices. But there's always an opportunity - visiting the Nordics, you can jump on a bike and be out in some stunning countryside in half an hour, taking advantages of the early finishes and long evenings. I do miss my trips out there.

For personal travels, it's a mix. This year, I had my summer holidays in a wooden house on an island, but did visit the city from there as well. I stayed in a house in a hamlet in the Lake District. But I also stayed opposite some Roman city walls and am just now looking at some baby-friendly apartments in the middle of Paris (although we will be meeting some friends out in the suburbs).

I am lucky that the small town I live in has a very fast train link to London (30 minutes), and yet I can put my son on the front of my bike and be out in some lovely countryside in 5 minutes.

As a note, I very rarely do suburban travelling. But it does happen. Some Airbnbs I've had have been very suburban (and quite quirkily so - there was a fantastic one in Chicago, and a superbly odd one in Dublin). And, of course, there was the visit to "Ramsay Street" in Nunawading, for fans of Aussie Soaps...

It's a complete mix for us. We did two national parks this year and points between, Glacier National Park and Yellowstone. Last year, we did a number of the national parks in southern Utah. We drove in Namibia last month. We'll be traveling thru the northern part of Ethiopia soon. It's all about where we want to go and want we want to see.

I sometimes travel solo to National Parks. As I get older, I am realizing that I need to stick to popular trails where there will be other hikers, or join an organized hike with a ranger. I have had several incidents over the years hiking solo where I have fallen or gotten lost. Looking back on them, I am surprised by how much risk taking I did when I was younger.

Think about organized tours or ranger led hikes. That being said, I find that I have more fun traveling solo in cities than I do hiking solo in a National Park. Sometimes those National Park trips get a little lonely. I always find fun people to do stuff with in cities.

We were in Glacier National Park back in July. What an AMAZING place! (We followed that up with a few Canadian parks en route to Banff - equally amazing!!!)

When we travel, it's a mix of urban/rural. Partly because flying into a destination often requires an urban start/stop point to do it more economically. But we love going outside of cities to see what can be seen.

Who are they?

Pretty much everyone I encounter really. Family members, and not that I travel with work colleagues etc .. but again when they go on annual leave it is to urban places. From a place of New Zealand in the city working, they tend to go places like the Caribbean, California and Europe, maybe Vegas or a stop over in Singapore, Sydney or Melbourne or a family holiday to the Gold Coast or to Fiji or New Caledonia. The exception is maybe my camera club but again half half many of them want to be in the cities with the cafes etc wining and dining. I guess it isn't so regularly, but again many who do the photography road trips do that but again stay in small urban towns in a nice motel or a hotel or an apartment. They might do a wildlife trip in Africa but obviously it's not so regular. A few did a trip to antarctica and a few did a photo tour in China but for China it was focussed in the tourist places but maybe much earlier so they didn't have to deal with the crowds but I guess the most rural was maybe still the touristic rice farms.

It got to the point that family members said next time please don't invite them. They sometimes hear that friends went to a big city and went to this great cafe or restaurant and they want to do the same.

living in the boonies...
 

i gravitate to bigger cities when abroad. raw nature is not a novelty for me.

you'll find me gawking at the neon and all the expensive things in the city.

For the purposes of the question, I won't consider my trips to stay a week at remote beaches "urban travel"...............so I'm firmly in the no camp.

I'm all about cities.