Categorisation of tours

[centurion]

Trying to get away from the sometimes rancorous and sometimes downright silly discussion on tour guides it strikes me that it would be useful if there was some agreed standard of description of tours so that, if nothing else, those who have been on them could review how close they came to meeting their stated purpose without being in danger of legal action and others could more easily decide if the tour was for them. To begin by sticking my neck out with some suggestions.

1] Tour level

• An introduction for those with not much previous knowledge of the theatre of war concerned or indeed of WW1
  
• An introduction for those with not much previous knowledge of the theatre of war concerned but with some knowledge of WW1
  
• Intended for those who already have background knowledge of the theatre and covering some particular aspects (e.g. particular battle(s), a specific period etc)
  
• Specialised covering a particular aspect or theme (e.g. a particular unit(s), an aspect of warfare such as mining, particular generals etc.) for those already with some knowledge of WW1
  

Of course some tours might succeed in combining some of these but it would be useful to know in advance

2] Coverage

• General - battle sites, memorials, graveyards
  
• Mainly remembrance - memorials and graveyards
  
• Specialised - specific sites relevant to the tour level
  

3] Duration

• Number of days actually covering WW1 as opposed to getting there and getting back
  

4] Level of accommodation

• Basic (you may have to rough it a bit)
  
• Economy (cheap and hopefully cheerful)
  
• Comfortable
  
• Luxurious
  

This I fear is where some subjectivity may creep in

5] Accesibility

• Strenuous (you need to be very fit)
  
• Difficult (you need to be fit)
  
• Moderate (most people will be able to manage most of it)
  
• Easy (even the very unfit can do it)
  

You'll note this merely covers the tour not the guides. Thoughts anyone?

[slick63]

Are you suggesting a format which would have to be agreed by all tour operators ? A good idea in theory but could be a long slog getting them to agree with it.

All of the above could possibly be covered by a simple 'star' symbol rating, for instance

5] Accessibility

* easy

** moderate

*** difficult

****Strenuous

and so on....

Also 'value for money' although that might also allow for a lot of subjectivity.

One thing I can`t find on this forum is a tour review section unless I`ve missed it ?

[centurion]

Are you suggesting a format which would have to be agreed by all tour operators ? A good idea in theory but could be a long slog getting them to agree with it.

All of the above could possibly be covered by a simple 'star' symbol rating, for instance

5] Accessibility

* easy

** moderate

*** difficult

****Strenuous

and so on....

Also 'value for money' although that might also allow for a lot of subjectivity.

One thing I can`t find on this forum is a tour review section unless I`ve missed it ?

You haven't missed it - there isn't one. The reason I suggested a common set of descriptions is that it might make such reviews easier I think though you have the stars the wrong way round - you'd expect more stars the more accessible it was