This is a very poor Lonely Planet book. I think the reason is that Colombia is still considered dangerous, though for the tourists it is not, and LP authors don't go to dangerous places. The example of that would be Haiti - no guidebook, no update in the new Caribbean guidebook, due to "unstability". Well Rough Guide Authors didn't have a problem with visiting Haiti and french Petit Fute has a recently updated book all about the island. And it isn't dangerous. Lonely Planet just chickend out. I think we have the same problem here. After Mr. Dydynski, noone s just brave enough at LP to visit "risky destinations". The question is, why write a guidebook like this at all.
Anyway, I've visited Barranquilla and Cartagena with this book. The part about Cartagena was OK, though the choice of restaurants was limited and I'm not sure they chose the best ones. The chapter on Barranquilla was laughable. I know it's not really a pretty tourist town, but people do visit it (and not only for the carnival), so LP authors should really write a bit more pages about it. It's a large city and got the amount of info as small towns do in other LP guides.
Well, to sum it up. Colombia is a very interesting country of over 40 million inhabitants and numerous atractions... now look at the number of pages in the book - small countries get 2-3 times fater LP guides... well, case closed - it can't be good!