Don't know if any of you saw this report:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/13/1208024958613.htmlIt tickled me, because I've long had a bone to pick with Lonely Planet.
I actually think their guide books are my favourite, but I tend to take a lot of what they say with a pinch of salt.
We've used their books for several of our cycle trips, especially in Australia.
For example we spent a few days cycling through the Margaret River region of Western Australia, which is renowned for wine and the quality of food and produce.
We wine tasted and gorged on gourmet items, which was easy and fun on the bikes, but Lonely Planet had you speeding through on a single day without really stopping.
The piece de resistance though is their cycle guide to France.
We independently stayed in Provence, but took the LP book anyway.
We were at the foot of Mont Ventoux, but didn't take it on. It's one of the demanding peaks of the Tour De France and we were told by locals that many people train for a year to attempt the ride. We witnessed many of them heading up the incline on lightweight racing bikes.
However, in their guidebook, LP route you over Mont Ventoux as part of a tour, when you would presumably be on a touring bike with camping equipment and clothing strapped to the frame (or in a trailer you'd be towing). You are not only expected to complete the climb, but the tours starting point is several miles before the summit and once climbed they have you continue on to a town several miles beyond the mountain.
I did wonder if the LP team had actually done this ride, or whether they'd covered the route by car.
Disclaimer: LP do encourage feedback from users and in the past I've corrected them on several incorrect entries in their books. To their credit I've then seen the correct information inserted in the next edition of the particular guide book.
In each book they acknowledge by name all the people who have corrected any inaccuracies.
