I bought this book to use for a trip to New Zealand, and took it along with a Lonely Planet Guide, so that I would be able to use the best of both books. Comparing like-for-like, I much preferred the Lonely Planet Guide as despite seeming to contain less information it actually contained much more relevant information about places to see, and what to do.However, the level of detail contained within this book re history is second-to-none, containing history of the country as a whole, as well as history of each region. The maps are quite basic but very clear, certainly ideal for wandering about cities and woodlands. There is a vast amount of info on places to stay, although I cannot tell you how good it is as I didn't use this. There is also quite a few recommendations on places to eat, although not 100% accurate as far as I could see.
All in all, it's not bad, lots of information (although I suppose not quite the info I need on hols) so I have to say there is better in my opinion.
With New Zealand voted the number one destination for 2004 by Lonely Planet travel writers, it's no surprise that there is a plethora of guidebooks to this beautiful country. Having just spent a month travelling with the Footprint guidebook, the Rough Guide and old copies of the Mobil travel guides to the North and South Islands, I must report that the Footprint guide is the weakest of the three.When planning this trip I was excited to find that a new Footprint guide was to be published in November 2003, just a month before I was leaving for Kiwiland. With currency of information always a problem with guidebooks, I was looking forward to having something bang up to date.
And it was; most of the prices and contact details were accurate in January 2004 (but, of course, may not be by the time you travel). However, the Footprint guide soon became the one left on the back seat whilst we referred to the Rough Guide and the old touring guidebooks.
The Footprint book is perfectly competent, but suffers in comparison with other publishers (heck, the Lonely Planet guide is edited by Tony Wheeler himself).
Top three reasons for this?
Well, firstly there's less information here than in the Rough Guide. Footprint is a shorter book with fewer maps and shorter listings.
Secondly, the Footprint layout is soon annoying, with accommodation, food and activities listings often several pages away from the details of the destination itself.
And thirdly, the standard of writing is just not as good as the other guidebooks which can be quite frustrating (not that I'm one to talk, er, write!).
The author's background as a natural history writer is reflected in the strong commentary on the landscape and wildlife of the country, but historical and cultural sections are weaker than other guidebooks.
So, it's always helpful to have a second guidebook to double-check opinions and recommendations, and find alternative places to sleep and eat. But if I were to recommend one modern guidebook for NZ, assuming (like us) you choose to ignore the Lonely Planet guidebook as everyone else has it, stick to the Rough Guide.
