Editorial standards
30 places per destination. Here is how we choose them.
Most travel guides are built around comprehensiveness. The goal is to include everything so that nothing can be criticised as missing. The result is a list of 400 attractions in which the genuinely good ones are buried alongside the mediocre and the outright not-worth-it.
Sidetrack starts from a different constraint: 30 places per destination. That limit forces a decision about every single entry. Something can only get in if something else stays out. That pressure is what makes curation meaningful.
The same constraint applies as Sidetrack grows. A new destination only arrives when we know it well enough to be honest about it — and is held to the same 30-place limit from the start. Coverage expands, but the standard does not.
What gets in
Would a well-travelled friend recommend it?
Not the most famous option. Not the highest-rated on an algorithm. The answer a knowledgeable friend would give if you asked them directly — specific, honest, and willing to say when something is not worth the trip.
Does it reward the time it takes?
Some places are beautiful in photos and disappointing in person. Some are overlooked but genuinely worth two hours of your day. We care about the ratio of experience to effort, not just the headline attraction.
Can we say something honest about when to skip it?
Every place in this guide has a 'Skip it if' entry. If we cannot write one honestly, the place either has no meaningful downside — or we do not know it well enough to include it. Both outcomes shape the list.
Is it distinct from something else already in the guide?
Three similar temple walks within two kilometres of each other do not each earn a separate entry. We pick the one that best rewards the category and note the alternatives in the practical tips.
What stays out
High-volume tourist traps
Places where the experience has been optimised for throughput rather than the visitor. Long queues, expensive shops at the exit, and nothing genuinely worth seeing beyond the reputation.
Places where the photo is the point
A torii gate at exactly the right angle is not a reason to visit a place. We look for experiences that hold up without a camera in your hand.
Anything we cannot verify with depth
If our research finds only surface-level information — the same three sentences repeated across fifty travel blogs — we leave the place out. A shallow entry does more harm than no entry.
Famous things that are genuinely not worth it
Some of the most famous places in a destination are also the most overrated. We name these in the destination guide's Skip This section, with honest reasoning and better alternatives where they exist.
How each entry is researched
Every place is researched by going where experienced travellers actually talk: the Reddit communities where frequent visitors correct each other's bad advice, local blogs written by people who live near the place, and the travel forums where patterns emerge across hundreds of first-hand accounts.
The goal is to find what official sources omit — what only becomes obvious after multiple visits, the timing details that make a significant difference, and the things the tourism board would prefer you didn't know.
No entry is included without a "Skip it if" — a specific, honest reason why the place might not be worth your time on this particular trip. Writing that entry is the final quality check. If we cannot write it honestly, the place does not go in.
If something in the guide is wrong or outdated, email directly. The goal is accuracy, and corrections are taken seriously.