To think you don’t really visit somewhere when you go on a cruise?

[shingledshack]

Recently spent a week on an island and rented a villa, drove around the whole island, tried different restaurants, villages, beaches etc cetera.

My dad visited the island on a cruise as an excursion. They had half a day there and got off at the cruise dock and sat on the beach.

I asked if he’d like to go back and he said no he’d already been there. So I said sure you’ve seen a little bit of the place but you’ve not really visited somewhere if you just go for a half a day on a cruise. Then he got pissy with me and said of course he’s visited

He was there. He did what he wanted. He’s not interested in going again. I really don’t get what the problem is.

You were there a week. Was that enough? Can I say it doesn’t count as you need to be there at least a month to really experience it? Or you have to live there?

It’s fine if that isn’t your sort of holiday, but he wasn’t asking you to join him. You holiday the way you enjoy, leave him to holiday how he enjoys.

A cruise stop is like a day out in that place. For some people or places that’s plenty, for some it’s not enough.

I’ve had 5 hours in Oxford - have I visited it? Have people who cross the border from the USA for a day at Niagara Falls visited Canada?

He went, he had an afternoon at the seaside, he wasn’t inspired to find out more. That’s ok.

Sometimes. It completely depends on how long you are on shore in each area. A few hours won’t do that, a day maybe.

I get people love cruises but the whole thing looked horrendous to me.

If you haven’t actually been on one you have no idea.

If you haven’t actually been on one you have no idea.

You see this on here ALL the time! People make assumptions about cruises despite never having been on one.

It's odd

I would say yes he's been there, because he has, but no he hasn't experienced it much. However, I think the tone of your op is judgmental, so voted YABU. He can make a decision based on his own experience.

There's a big spectrum of what people consider a visit to a country or city looks like. I have a friend who won't go anywhere without an itinerary that covers every 5 min slot in the day and used to drag us around every single thing in a city to tick it off the list. Now when we go away together we leave her to it. She thinks we're not experiencing things as we'd prefer to spend a morning wandering followed by an afternoon drinking but that's her opinion.
I'm well travelled - did loads in my youth - but now I could easily go to an AI with my kids and not leave because I can't be arsed. Doesn't mean I haven't been.

I think it depends on the size of the location in question and what you do with your half day there. You dad has visited but has no real experience of the place. If he’d used his time to do more than the beach by the harbour my answer would be different.

I've been on a cruise and have visited the places - looked round the cities and been on a trip to a historical site and its museum.
It wasn't a hot weather cruise though- in autumn and Northern Europe . I imagine if its somewhere too hot you'd lack the energy to pack much in.

I have every idea having been on one thank you. I went on one BEFORE that experience and it only recemented my opinion.

You presumption that I didn’t know what I was taking about is only to make a point and I stand by the fact that to me they are horrible busy overrated floating cities with pretence of culture amounting in ruining local places. Speak to any local and they will tell you the same (after of course they sell you tat when you debark).

I know what you mean OP. I've been on a couple of cruises (not really my thing but I worked for a travel agency briefly and was given freebie cruises as part of my training!) One was in the Baltic and we 'visited' St Petersburg, Stockholm, Copenhagen and a little island in Finland. It was a great holiday and interesting but I don't really feel I can say I've 'been to Russia' on the basis of spending 12 hours in St Petersburg. Yes I have physically been in Russia but still know very little about the place.

We happened to be at Ephesus when the cruise ship tours arrived. They were disgorged at the top, swarmed down the main street and straight back on the coaches at the bottom. No one was poking around the side streets like we were.

If they spent 20 minutes looking at the ruins that would be generous. There was no one at the Temple of Artemis (one of the 7 wonders of the world) which was close by

Sounds a bit of a pointless thing to disagree about. I've done both, a cruise is a great way to enjoy a few places you wouldn't otherwise necessarily go on a fortnights holiday.
I've often visited places on a cruise and returned for a longer holiday. Both equally a visit, just in different ways.

Plenty of people go to a resort in Egypt or Cape Verde for two weeks and never set foot past the pool. If you’re on a cruise and want to explore properly there are usually lots of different excursions you can book. It’s down to the type of person you are, not the type of holiday you’re on whether you see much of the place or not.

We are going on a cruise which includes Ephesus next year and will certainly be looking at the ruins thoroughly. Don't tar all cruise ship passengers with the same brush.

But presumably the coaches were taking them to see something? What does it matter to you which parts of Ephesus or the surrounding area they chose to see? Why does it matter how long they stayed in a particular place? Most likely if they weren't on a cruise, they wouldn't visit at all.

We've done a few cruises. Sometimes we do a coach excursion. Sometimes we wander around a city or port town on our own (and yes, we poke around the side streets). Neither is the right or wrong thing to do. We've visited places that it would never occur to us to visit on holiday, and a few of those we have liked so much that we have returned for a longer visit. It's a great way to get a taster of place.

We've also done city breaks, road trips, skiing, island villa stays and all-inclusive fly and flops. They're all holidays, each with a different feel, and none is superior to others, it's horses for courses, isn't it? Unless you spend a few months in a place, or live there, you're only ever a tourist, doing tourist things, and not really understanding the true nature of a place.

When you visit places on a cruise you can do excursions which can manage to show you a lot and give you a good feel to a place. I imagine lots of cruisers see much more of places than many people who never leave the resort they are staying in.

Well if his ideal holiday if he was there is the beach then he's visited it as much as he's going to. People go to all sorts of amazing places and never leave the hotel!!

But I do get your point. We did a Norwegian cruise, I don't consider myself to have visited each town / city on depth, yet I've got an idea of places I'd love to see more or and places I wouldn't bother going back to

#jealous

If I could ban cruise liners I would. They're destroying our small community, for locals and more traditional types of tourists. They're a scourge.

I think those who try to speak out against cruise liners are wasting their time on MN, but thank you. Rather than become less popular due to environmental concerns and what has been outlined, cruises are in the pocket of many more people and a popular choice. There's even so-called extinction cruises, a bitter irony

A cruise gives you the opportunity to see places that you could not have afforded to see otherwise as one cruise can take you to different countries. Basic inside cabin cruises have allowed me to visit for example Jerusalem/Bethlehem, Petra, Istanbul. I would never have been able to afford three separate holidays. You say that you visit and thoroughly explore by driving; that is fine on an island or say France but in some places this would not be possible for most people.

Agree with the majority - of course you've visited somewhere regardless of the length of time there. You might not have explored it as thoroughly as someone who stayed there longer but you've still been there.

by your "logic" you've never "visited" anywhere you've been for less than a few days. So anywhere you've ever done a day trip to. You've never visited the cinema, a theatre, the beach, a swimming pool, etc. Which is clearly incorrect.

A cruise wouldn’t be my idea of a holiday, but I can see the attraction, as you visit various ports and have a flavour, and can return at a later date if you want to see more. We recently visited Madeira, a popular winter cruise stop. A lot of people we spoke to were disappointed they couldn’t see more of beautiful Madeira and planned to return.

OP, if you don't want to go on a cruise, don't go on one.

But FYI making out that you're a superior traveller who loves to immerse herself in other cultures and whislt looking down on those god-awful people that do like cruises doesn't leave you looking good.

There are various websites that list which cruise ships are going to be in dock each day. So if you have free realm of what you do on a hotel holiday, you know which days to avoid a certain place