The Rough Guide to New Zealand

Reviewed by JIM EAGLES

"Rough Guides are taking over from Lonely Planet as the tourist's best friend," says a quote from New Zealand teen magazine Jetmag on the cover of the latest Rough Guide to New Zealand.

Not, in my opinion, if the two companies' new guides to New Zealand are anything to go by.

I had only just finished my review of Lonely Planet's New Zealand when the new Rough Guide turned up and made a comparison inevitable.

I have to confess I've usually relied on Lonely Planet guides when I've travelled overseas, so they are old friends, and I think their new format is a distinct improvement. The Rough Guides, by contrast, are only casual acquaintances so it would always be harder for them to win me over.

But, even trying to make allowance for that, I found the Rough Guide version harder to find my way around, less user-friendly and, really, duller than its leaner rival (the Rough Guide has 1024 pages against 724). It's also perhaps a bit unfortunate that the Rough Guide people don't seem to care much for Auckland, describing it as having "a modest small-town feel" and suggesting visitors could be forgiven if they stay long enough only for "a quick zip around the smattering of key sights".

Not, of course, that I'm the sort of narrow-minded, small-town journalist who would take umbrage at such comments, but since I was using Auckland as one of the bases for comparison, that attitude was a bit of a handicap.

The Rough Guide thinks the key sights you should zip around are Auckland Museum, Kelly Tarlton's, Devonport, Rangitoto, Great Barrier Island, Tiritiri Matangi, K Rd, Ponsonby Rd and Otara Market. That's a reasonable enough selection, though if I was being snide I might wonder if the Rough Guide had taken its own advice and not hung around long enough to discover the attractions of the Waitakere Ranges and the West Coast beaches, or sailing on the Hauraki Gulf and living it up at the Viaduct Basin (though there is information about them).

Certainly in Devonport, where I live, its report seems based on a quick sprint round the village, ignoring any cafes or pubs further afield, and is seriously out-of-date in a couple of respects.

To assess the guide's merits when it comes to Christchurch - which the book is a bit kinder about - I approached devoted Cantabrian Janetta Mackay who described it as "a handy, thorough guide, but nothing too surprising that you wouldn't find in a free giveaway".

She was pleased to see it "goes beyond the cliche of Christchurch being more English than England, but not much beyond" and that it advised tourists that "there is life beyond the four avenues".

On the other hand, it got a small black mark for neglecting the plethora of cheap Asian eateries and several of the best upmarket restaurants, and a big black mark for some very bad editing which, among other things, had Christchurch as the nation's capital (God forbid).

The Rough Guide did, however, do better than the Lonely Planet in providing information I could have used during a recent trip to southern Fiordland. There's still not much about the wonders of Dusky Sound but it's a lot better than nothing. And the coverage of Queenstown and surrounds is extremely thorough and useful.

Overall, I'd say the Rough Guide would be a useful piece of equipment for anyone visiting New Zealand, or any New Zealanders keen to see more of their own country.

Personally, I will stick with Lonely Planet. That may be simply because I'm more used to the way their guides operate. Or it may be that Rough Guides are more targeted to the youthful backpacker end of the market, while the Lonely Planet appeals to the, er, more mature traveller. Or it just may be a better formula.

Price: $39.95