- Taschenbuch: 592 Seiten
- Verlag: Rough Guides; Auflage: 2nd Revised edition (29. Dezember 2003)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 1843531097
- ISBN-13: 978-1843531098
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 13,2 x 2,6 x 19,8 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: Schreiben Sie die erste Bewertung
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 3.433.718 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
The Rough Guide to Ecuador 2: AND THE GALAPAGOS (Rough Guide Travel Guides) (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 29. Dezember 2003
Dieses Buch gibt es in einer neuen Auflage:
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
For those looking to experience South America for the first time, Ecuador is a decent choice, being both small and relatively safe for visitors. There is also a wide range of options for learning Spanish in Quito--one of the most pleasant capital cities on the continent--and the jungle in Ecuador contains the richest birdlife in the world. But, on a continent where things can go wrong, it is vital to have a good guide, and this book fits the bill. Here you will find tips on where to wash your socks and have your teeth pulled in Quito, as well as a richer look at history and culture than is provided by some of the competition.
Guidebooks can give travel writing a bad name, but Rough Guides are rarely among them, and it is good to see that this new guide to Ecuador is part of an expanding list for Latin America (other recent additions include Argentina, Chile and Cuba). Illustrated with photographs of high quality, and written by old Latin American hands, the book comes with essential information for visitors while casting an erudite eye over everything from flora and fauna to the fascinating histories of Andean weavers at Otavalo and Darwin's visit to the Galápagos. The South American Handbook remains the best overall guide to the continent but, for Ecuador alone, this book will prove hard to beat. --Toby Green -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine andere Ausgabe: Taschenbuch.
This guide to Ecuador examines this fascinating and dramatically diverse country and includes complete coverage of the unique Galapagos islands. A colour introduction gives an insight into the country's highlights from snorkelling in the Galapagos to exploring Quito's colonial churches. Detailed accounts are given of these attractions as well as all the others from the unspoiled jungle of the Oriente and the highland farms of the central sierra to partying at the capital's latest nightspots. There is also practical advice on a range of activities from learning Spanish in Quito to shopping in Otavalo's bustling markets or climbing Volcan Cotopaxi. There are up-to-the-minute reviews of the best places to stay, eat and drink, plus the pick of the cyber cafes and shops. Finally there are over 50 maps and background on Ecuador's history, culture, indigenous peoples and environmental issues.Alle Produktbeschreibungen
|5 Sterne (0%)|
|4 Sterne (0%)|
|3 Sterne (0%)|
|2 Sterne (0%)|
|1 Stern (0%)|
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com
I use guides first and foremost for general planning. Second, I use them to learn as much as I can about the history and culture of the country before I arrive. Third, when in country, I use the guide to help me to understand and appreciate what I am looking at. For example, when in a church, I appreciate information about architectural style and or points of interest. For all the above purposes, I find the Rough Guide better. It is more detailed and informative so I learn far more. This is perhaps to be expected as the Rough Guide is 576 pages versus only 408 pages for Lonely Planet. (The page lengths listed in Amazon's book descriptions are both incorrect.) Historically, I have usually found the Rough Guide series to be superior to Lonely Planet.
I guess another way of looking at it would be to say that due to how I use a guide book, and because my expectations are reasonable, one guide may be much older than another, perhaps even in the same series - depending on future editing, but still be superior to the newer.
I rarely use guide books to get recommendations for restaurants and lodging. I tend to use internet sources for such things as well as personal recommendations, which I find more up to date and reliable. When guides go to print, the research being presented can already be up to a year old. Establishments disappear or their quality can improve, or more often, flag. This is often the case when an establishment gets recommended in a guide book. For whatever reason, this quite often leads to the establishment going downhill. For such purposes guides are already out of date the moment they are released, or certainly soon thereafter. The same is true for prices listed, which I usually take with a grain of salt. I find that the best restaurant recommendations usually come from asking someone at my lodging, who has been in town for a short while.
Paper Book versus E-Book: As much as I love and depend upon my kindle, I find the e-version of a guide more difficult and frustrating to use than an actual book, which is more user-friendly and preferable. It is so much easier to quickly page back and forth with the paper version. For example, going continually back and forth between a map and text on a different page, is infinitely easier. Also, reading a kindle map is at best, highly frustrating.
A warning to all: The tourist train from Alausi to the Nariz del Diablo, or Sibambe, is no longer the same experience it once was. The old cars have been replaced by modern cars. The price is now three times higher, $25 instead of $7.80. And, you can no longer ride on the roof. There is zero feeling of being in/on an old-time train. It is a terrible tourist trap to be avoided, not at all worth the time or the money.
[Dear Amazon, why is it not possible to post reviews only under the specific edition being reviewed? It is absurd to include an irrelevant review published in 2001, for an edition published in 2010.]