Lifespan of a guidebook?
 

Searched for this, but not too thoroughly, so I hope this isn't too overdone.

Newcomer just finished reading the Rick Steves thread, which prompted this general question about guidebooks:

What's the lifespan of a good guidebook?

I actually don't have an European one -- I mostly just pick up one from AAA or hit up the library -- and wondered if I should spring for something new, of if I could go for a circa 2002 from half.com.

I don't get out much - maybe 1-2 time a year, and about as cheap as possible (which can be figured out by the "library" note, I bet)

Thanks.

Resale value for guidebooks drops substantially when a new edition comes out, like the textbook market. Like textbooks new editions don't mean that much has changed inside - Lonely Planet has become particularly bad about updating their information. This doesn't stop them from churning out new editions for hot tourist destinations - a new New Zealand or Australia guidebook appears every 9 to 12 months content mostly unchanged, where S. American destination go 3-5 years between "updates".

The actual useful lifespan of the guidebook depends very much on how much the destination has changed since publishing. With burgeoning tourism it doesn't take more than a couple years for the guidebook to become less than useful. As an example the Lonely Planet Argentina was practically worthless for Ushuaia, AR because the town had doubled or trebled it's tourist capacity since the guidebook was published. Eateries were gone, hostels changed owners, locations, or simply closed up shop, nightclubs changed, etc. Coupled with flat out wrong maps and you've got something that isn't much help.

It depends on how you use the guidebook, but 2002 is pretty old. If you just want maps and landmarks, they don't change. And if you do all your hotel and restaurant research before you leave on tripadvisor or someplace, then you're probably okay.

But if you have the guidebook so you could switch hotels on the fly, or pick a restaurant, 2002 is definitely too old. Think how long the pringing cycle is. 2004 is the oldest I'd go for. The big restaurants would probably be consistent, but small places can change fast.

I bought a 1999 guide book for NYC. Other than the obvious change circa September 2001, I have found a lot of little things that are incorrect or wrong. It does a decent job of getting me around via it's maps and giving me a general feel for the neighbourhoods I am in, but everything else is out of date and showing way less of a price. Even the subway and trains have changed in a few places.

I have had some success with just printing pages off the web and winging the rest. For Hong Kong, Paris and Brussels, I was able to print off a city map (or pick one up for free at a hotel), a metro / subway map and 6 or 8 pages from the lonelyplanet.com, fodors.com or similar travel website and get by fine. For restaurants I just walked around and looked at menus and how many people were inside - busy is good. For hotels, I researched it all online.

Greg

I dunno, while an old guidebook can be fine for maps and maybe general descriptions of places, it can be hit or miss with just about anything else. Tourist sights can close for refurbishment or be renovated in such a way to be totally different. Hotels and restaurants can close, be remodeled, change in various ways. Transportation options can come and go.

You could probably start with an old guidebook then supplement it with web research for the details once you're looking at places to see, stay, eat, whatever. But even the general feel of some places can change if the guidebook is several years old. Personally, I don't find the amount of money saved on an old guidebook to be worth it. I'd rather have the latest one, and also I like to glance through several different guidebook publishers to see which one appeals most, which means going to a large bookstore for the best selection.

Having a recent guidebook on a road trip through Northern California and Oregon last summer helped us pick places to stay (both planned ahead and unplanned) and places to eat, as well as what to see. Our favorite guides right now are Moon Handbooks and Insiders' Guide's "Off the Beaten Path" series, but there's still a lot of personal preference in the choice of which publisher.

Restaurants tend to come and go, hotels change, but the eiffel tower, and the collesium seem to stay put.

That said, went to paris a few years ago with 7-8 year old maps and guide books, and the Picasso museum was not there. Asked a lot of people, all of whom acted like they knew where it was, but sent us off in the wrong direction.

Had another guide book with us that said the Salt Palace was a small interesting museum in Paris. So we went to see it since we were in the area.

My rule of thumb is to never buy a guidebook with a copyright date older than a year ago. The information in the guidebook is already 6 months to a year old, as there is the time needed to print and distribute. I'm spending both time and money to get to a destination; the $20 spent on a guidebook is money well spent to maximize my pleasure once there.

Guidebook publishers can make it very difficult to find the copyright date, burying it within the book. If I can't find the copyright date, I don't buy the book.

My exception is the Michelin Green Guides, which are purely for sightseeing. Sights don't change as quickly as food and lodging.

I do not buy a (regular) guidebook (e.g. Lonley Planet, Vis-A-Vis., etc.) older than year, better six month. Meanwhile I know where the publishing companies hide the date of publishing (they have tp print it in the book in Germany).
I try to reconfirm the information in the book before I start my trip by searching the internet (e.g. local homepages, Tourist info, Flyertalk) and perhaps print it or copy it to my laptop. I know, this means I could serach the web instead of buying a book, but I do not discover a city with my laptop on my knees ...

If I buy a guide about cultur (e.g. art and history, architecture) with only aa few touristical information in it, it could be older. These books are not so often updates like the typical guidebook.

Lonely Planet is unique in that it basically tries to give some level of coverage everywhere, even places that might only get a few thousand TOTAL visitors a year. Most other lines will only put out books for where there's enough demand and interest to make a profit. So there's a lot of competitive pressure to frequently update books for the hottest destinations.

I use Lonely Planets a lot, but the degree I lean on them can really vary. The more "foreign" the country (language, level of development, level of tourism-oriented infrastructure), the more it gets leaned on, and I also tend to lean on it in places with costs that are very hostile to budget travel (e.g. many places in the South Pacific, where only a small fraction of total services available will be affordable).