But that is what most travellers do - go to the capital and work outwards
Nederland, Germany, Czech Rep, Slovakia, Hungary,
Romania, RoKorea, Japan, Thailand, Philippines,
Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, China (Macao & Hong Kong),
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, UAE, Bahrain,
Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Ethiopia, India,
Israel, Cyprus, TRNC, Turkey, "Palestine"...
So... I guess now that makes 32 if you only count those on the Countries of the World quiz. Or 35 if you count Hong Kong and Macao as separate places, and Palestine and Northern Cyprus as countries.
Boston, Philadelphia, Orlando (as many have said, the world's top tourist destination thanks to Disney World), Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Denver, Pittsburgh (a hidden gem), Charlotte, Minneapolis, Portland, San Diego, and more. But other world cities left off that were surprising to me were Frakfurt am Main, Milan, Barcelona, Oslo, tehran (if Damascus and Pyongyang, why not the more accessible Tehran?), Karachi, etc. Lonely Planet's list is garbage.
It has 5,250 inhabitants - top 50 in Slovenia. In Slovenia, there is 2 million people and only 16 towns with more than 10.000 inhabitants.
Krak is not a city it is a castle - but still amazing
St Simeon Stylites the Elder's pillar and basilica totally amazing.
Probably not a place I'd like to go given the current government rather than its interest as a place to visit.
This is clearly a list that is not updated a lot given how much travelling needs to be done to achieve it.
Shouldnt it be Monte Carlo rather than Monaco seeing as thats the country not the city
Plan to visit: Paris, NYC, London, Prague, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Florence, Krakow, Havana, New Orleans, Marrakech, Moscow, Dubrovnik, Isfahan, Brussels, Luxembourg, Valletta, Pyongyang :)
I'm not convinced this list is genuine.
Cancun is nice, but again other resort cities in Mexico (Puerto Vallarta, Zihuatenejo, Los Cabos, etc.) have more history and culture than Cancun.
Honolulu is fine as well, but again most of the cool stuff to there is not in Honolulu proper or it is just a beach.
"by our travellers who provided us with the list of 200 cities for inclusion in the book, via a survey we ran on www.lonelyplanet.com asking travellers (and our staff) to nominate their favourite cities."
Lonely Planet readers are a particular demographic, so you would expect a biased list but then any "what's the best city in the world to visit" list probably would be.
For more arguments - has anyone published the "Best City in the World to Live" quiz yet?
zagreb in the list but not lyon or porto?
So, can anyone explain me how we can find in this list cities like Damascus, Pyongyang, and not cities like Bordeaux which is one of the most touristic city in south western europ?
This beats or equals 94.5% of test takers
The average score is 70
Your high score is 135
You have earned 0 / 5 points for this quiz
I factored in an Aussie bias due to the Lonely Planet, and took travellers for an indicator that the appeal of the city to merit inclusion was not firstly a functional suburban railway system but its place in human history or magnificent location.
Enjoyed the comments, and agree that it is all subjective, and the list is anglo-centric in terms of choice. Also things change with time.
But guys, unless you went to Syria before the War then you cannot realistically comment. Spent five weeks there in 1999, and I exaggerate completely, but am honest, when I say that every single entry shoudl come form that country. Palmyra; Damascus; Homs; Aleppo; Deir-ez-Zur; Mari; Hama; etc etcAll gone now
The amount of subpar places in this list is ridiculous, and quite a few of them aren't really that safe, are they?
Seems like they just picked capital cities from a large array of countries to seem diverse, but often stroke out.
Much rather go to say Lviv, Porto, Nicosia, etc... than, say, Edinburgh or Tirana.
Athens is not even one of the 3 best places to go in Greece and it's the one they chose to represent the country.
Can't really mention any good place to visit outside of Europe since I've never been there, but most places they named really confuse me, I mean, Maputo? Khartoum? Sanaa? (this could go on for a while).
Correct me if I'm wrong, though .
Aleppo, Damascus, Muscat, Kabul, Pyonyang, Ulanbaatar
Phnom Penh and no Siem Reap / Angkor, Calcutta and no Agra, Toronto and no Niagara Falls, Bern and nothing else Swiss, no Brugges, Wuhan, Osaka or Harbin. New Zealand is beautiful, but Auckland and Wellington are just cities, nothing special. I just stopped and took it for a typical lazy travel writer's list.
I mean come on Kabul is better place to visit than Valletta or Copenhagen?!
Also, some of the comments are hilarious - a lot of people completely missed the point. This is a list for travellers who are interested in culture, history, exploration, and adventure, not travellers who just want to lie on a beach. Why on earth would Cancun or Honolulu be on this list?! There's nothing wrong with wanting to relax on the beach, but that's not what this list is about.
We can quibble about the ranking and there are a few notable omissions, but it feels like every city on this list belongs on it (yes, including places like Pyongyang - if you're a serious traveller, aren't you at least a little bit curious to see what it's like?). I've learned of a few places I did not know about that seem very interesting, like Agadez, Essaouira, and Ashgabat - which is pretty much the point of the list.
Also San Miguel de Allende and Guanajuato.
Cuenca, Ecuador is charming. Guayaquil is awful. (Personal opinion obviously.)
Also agree that a big drawback to cities like San Antonio and Austin is the lack of public transportation. They are the two most interesting cities in Texas, but you have to have a car and fight the traffic. I've lived in Dallas (yuk) and now live near Houston (double yuk).
Actually had a great visit to Honduras, including the Mayan ruins of Copan and the capital, Tegucigalpa, but that was many years ago. Don't think I'd opt for camping out there these days.
Of the places I have never been I imagine that some of the most worthwhile might include New Orleans, Havana, Rio de Janeiro, Lima, Buenos Aires, Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia, Lisbon, Marrakesh, Mumbai, Kathmandu, Kyoto, Beijing, Xian, Dublin, Edinburgh, Palma, Ibiza, Monaco, Bilbao, Cordova, Zurich, Geneva, San Jose, Santo Domingo, Damascus, Tehran, Reykjavik, Honolulu, and probably some places in Australia, New Zealand, and maybe some other Pacific Island countries... would still like to visit some of those.
And any list which thinks Johannesburg is one of the 1000 cities in the world most visiting should really be ignored
Talk about dangerzone.