I would say China other than Beijing and Shanghai.

But even in big cities there are parts where people don't even understand "yes" or "no" Also, recently I had some troubles in Spain as well.

So, I guess if you can also learn Chinese and Spanish then you could be anywhere in the world.

For example South America.

In my experience, English knowledge was generally poor.

You would need to know at least basic Spanish.

It would be easier to say, where English and Russian would be enough.

I expect, that Russian would be useful only in former USSR and maybe some Eastern European countries.

In Western Europe should be relatively easy to find someone who speaks English.

Then there are all English-speaking countries and their former colonies.

My bet is that anywhere else, than I mentioned above, only those two languages might not be enough.

In the central and western Africa.

People beside of their own African languages know French and Arabic in most African countries but they do not know English or Russian.

Small cities or rural areas of most countries around the world that they do not speak English or Russian and only know their own mother tongue.

You can find them from India, Turkey, Iran and China to South America even in Europe in France, Italy, Germany or Spain!

I think more than Russian it is better to learn Spanish and French.

Nowadays knowing Mandarin can help a lot too!

The former satellite states of USSR.

While old people still speak Russian there due to enforced "friendship" with the USSR, many people are now much more hostile because of the tainted past of oppression.

While driving in the rural parts of Poland, I needed extensively my word list of polish phrases.

Forget English and Russian there, I was even more successful with native German.

Young people in the cities are eager to learn English (searching jobs in Western Europe), but in the more remote parts Polish is the only option.

I suspect it is the same in Czech Rep. and Hungary, it would be fine if someone can confirm this.

It'd be easier to just say where you can get by.

List of English speaking countries in order of % of English speakers .

A similar list for Russian .

Serbian and Polish and Ukrainian are very close to Russian so replace the Russian in the previous link with Polish and Serbian and Ukrainian.

Question: I speak Russian and English. Will those 2 languages be sufficient to travel anywhere in the world as a tourist? Or there are some regions where it wouldn't be enough?  By sufficient, I mean, I would be able to buy tickets, book a room in hotel, order taxi, use a restaurant etc.

Where in the world knowing Russian and English will not be enough?

Travellers to small cities or rural areas of most non-English speaking countries around the world, especially in China, central and western Africa and even European countries like Poland may need to speak the local language or a common language like French, Arabic or Spanish.

In many parts of the world people only speak their native language, China is a good example. In West and Central Africa, Arabic and French may be spoken but English and Russian are unlikely. The best languages to learn may be Mandarin, French and Spanish.

In most parts of China people do not speak Russian or English.

In Central and West Africa, people may speak Arabic and French but not Russian or English. Many people in rural areas everywhere only speak their own language.

In rural Poland people only speak Polish.

French, Spanish and Mandarin may be the best languages to learn.


If you like museums, you might consider to spend some time in Frankfurt.

One of its main attractions is the Museumsufer ... Nürnberg is on the way from Regensburg to Frankfurt.

by train it is one hour from the former and two hours from the latter.

It is a very interesting city.

It has an old town, a castle, ..., but also megalomanic Nazi architecture .

From there it is only one hour by train to Bamberg .

It has the largest preserved medieval city center in Germany.

Well, Nuremberg (Nürnberg) and Würzburg are the two spots on the way to Frankfurt/M. Bamberg is also beautiful, but I am not sure if it is really worth a detour.

My favourite place in the countryside of Regensburg is Kallmünz (bus no. 15).

A beautiful medieval village with a castle and a view over two rivers.

And when you're there you have to enter the Bürstenbinder pub.

Another medieval house, they sell their local beer of this region ("Zoigl").

Their only meal is "Baustecheala", noodles made of potatoes with huge amounts of oil.

If the Walhalla Memorial is on your list anyway, you could extend your trip:

Go there by bike or bus (no. 5, check the schedule in advance, esp.

the way back!).

This gives you more time to stay there than going by ship would.

Bring some food, take a break and watch the ships go by on the Danube.

By the way, no need to enter the building except you are extraordinary interested in and familiar to German history.

After the Walhalla Memorial take the path away from tourists to the east down the hill and along the Danube to the village Bach (8km), whose wine will definitely be an experience.

Don't forget to bring some Aspirin and don't tell me I did not warn you.

Or you could take a walk on the Winzerer Höhen (beautiful view over Regensburg) to Adlersberg and have the famous local beer of this village.

Or just ask for the many other small local breweries in the county of Regensburg.

You got already some good answers, I can advice you too to visit Nuremberg.

Another city worth seeing is Heidelberg .It's 1,5 hours from Frankfurt by train and you can visit it at the end of your trip.

The castle is the most popular attraction, the old town is also very beautiful.

My favorite place is the Philosophenweg on the other side of the Neckar river with its wonderful view of Heidelberg

Regensburg is in easy day trip range of Nuremberg (Nürnberg), Augsburg and Munich (München), and on the way to Frankfurt, you'll pass Würzburg.

Each of these cities has all the things you mention and is well worth visiting.

Another place worth seeing is the historical town of Rothenburg ob der Tauber .

Another option is Bayreuth, especially if you are into Wagner :-)

Question: I'll be traveling in Germany in June. Toward the end of the trip, we'll be going to Regensburg and then we have three days before we have to be in Frankfurt to fly home. I'm looking for suggestions for places to visit, places that we can get to via public transport, during those three days. Architecture (esp. churches) and libraries/museums are some of the things we like to see when we travel. We're also open to interesting food experiences. :)

Sites to see between Regensburg and Frankfurt

Nuremberg (Nürnberg) and Würzburg are the two spots on the way to Frankfurt, and Augsburg and Munich (München) are within day trip range of Regensburg. The historical town of Rothenburg ob der Tauber is worth seeing, as is Bayreuth especially if you like Wagner. Bamberg is also beautiful, but may not be worth the detour. Heidelberg is also worth seeing, and is a 1.5 hour train trip from Frankfurt. You could also consider spending time in Frankfurt itself if you like museums.

Places to visit between Regenberg and Frankfurt include Nuremberg, Würzburg, Bayreuth, Bamberg and Rothenburg ob der Tauber. Frankfurt itself is good for museums.


The short answer is: depends.

There are multiple discussions on Airliners regarding the subject.

One from 2004 and another from 2011 .

General consensus is that it is not possible with few exceptions: Accompanying live cargo Being an employee of the company flying the cargo

In the remote areas like Alaska it may be possible to be flying a half and half plane.

Half cargo - Half passenger.

You are an airline crew member or a courier in that case you can request a Jumpseat Service from cargo airlines like Atlas

(maybe someone can enlighten me what Groom means here)

Save those you are likely to be denied access to the plane

Most freighter aircraft (excluding smaller aircraft) do have a small number of passenger seats, normally intended for use by staff such as deadheading/additional pilots, other company staff, etc.

Whilst it's possible that freight airlines somewhere in the world do accept paying passengers, in general it's not possible unless you work for the operator of the plane.

Some cargo companies allow select staff to fly on their flights for any purpose, whilst others only allow those travelling for business purposes.

There's a number of reasons that it's not allowed, but in it's simplest form

it's due to the licence class of the aircraft itself, which will not have been certified to carry paying passengers.

In most cases this will be form of the airlines "Air operator's certificate" (AOC) not allowing for passenger traffic, either at all, or on specific types of aircraft such as freighters.

Carrying passengers would also require the flight to have flight attendants in order to meet requirements for safety, and for an aircraft that might have as few as 4 passenger seats that's simply not financially viable!

Even when only carrying their own staff things can still go wrong, such as in the case of Fedex flight 705 .

Alaska Airlines operates a number of 737-400 "combi" aircraft , which have a cargo area behind the cockpit, and 72 passenger seats in the back.

The airline posts a schedule of which flights will be operated by these planes; they are ticketed just like every other Alaska Airlines flight.

Mostly they are flights within Alaska but a few go to Seattle.

These flights also show up on Kayak as "Boeing 737-400 Mixed Configuration".

If you're a member of the US military or an immediate relative you can fly Space Available (Space - A).

This can get you on military cargo aircraft (with cargo), some of which are military versions of civilian aircraft. http://www.amc.af.mil/amctravel/spaceatravelcategories.asp

I worked for Fedex until 2002, and up until September 11, employees could travel on the jumpseats of company planes.

This was only available to employees, and not to friends or family, so when I was single, I traveled quite a bit, even getting to Japan and Hong Kong for free.

Seats were available first come, first served, and at any time you could be bumped off if the company needed to use the seat to move a flight crew or other employee who needed to go where the aircraft was going.

I recall that they suspended this after September 11, and do not know whether or not they have re-instituted it or not since then.

The key was that they were not flying passengers, but allowing employees who had taken a training class on how to operate the emergency equipment on board the aircraft.

Short answer: no.

I have no special knowledge of the subject, so i propose a google potpourri.

"All I know is that I know nothing, except Google" - Socrates

It was the 2012 april's fool for STA travel .

Apparently it was possible for Fedex employees at some point.

Fly on cargo plane Passengers on cargo flights still possible ?

(If you are a pet, it's possible too as there is pet cargo.)

Maybe in case of special merchandise professionals have to stay near (but it's not a travel).

( 3 zoo keepers flew on a cargo because they brought two pandas )

By boat it's feasible, where can I get information on freighter travel? .

On special occasions you can not only travel in the normal passenger seats but also inside the cargo hold.

For example in the COVID-19 epidemic Americans went home in a Kalitta B747 freighter like this Click the link on each image for the source

Technically, passenger aircraft are also cargo carrying aircraft, so the answer is yes, however aircraft specifically licensed or designed without passenger seating would only permit flight crews, essential staff that accompany live freight, or in the case of military with armaments.

The liability for passengers and security arrangements would make general passenger transport using freighters a high risk, especially in the current situation of heightened terrorist awareness.

An open approach would be counter to these measures.

Question: Some time ago I heard someone telling about travelling in cargo planes. Apparently some of those planes have a limited amount of extra seats and companies would sell them for an extra profit.  Does anyone have any information about this? Is that still possible?

Is it possible to travel on cargo airplanes?

In remote areas like Alaska it may be possible to be flying a half and half plane, but in general it is not possible with a few exceptions such as   accompanying live cargo, or being an employee of the company flying the cargo. Some cargo companies allow select staff to use their jumpseat service for any purpose, whilst others only allow those travelling for business purposes. Aircraft licenced to fly cargo would normally not be permitted to have paying passengers, or doing this would require extra staff and safety standards tha would not be financially viable.

Air Alaska runs a half cargo half passenger plane service but that is very rare. Most cargo companies only allow crew and employees to travel on cargo planes, and nowadays, even that is very rare. Regulations state that planes carrying passengers must have a cabin crew.

It is generally not possible to travel on cargo planes, unless you are an employee or crew member. It used to be allowed for employees by Fedex for example but not anymore.

Air Alaska has half cargo half passenger planes. Tickets are sold as normal airline tickets.

Technically a plane can carry passengers but, in order to do so, it would need a cabin crew to meet safety regulations.


We went to Empire State Building during our Christmas season (2012) trip to NYC.

I carried a small digital camera in addition to my phone which had a camera.

My girlfriend carries a Nikon digital camera D50 with exchangeable lenses, and also a camera in her smartphone.

Security checked the camera equipment without difficulty.

I was completely unaware that there could have been a restriction; it never raised a question for us.

I presume their definition of professional includes much more serious lenses, tripods and the like, to preclude the possibility of sale of competing photographs.

If you do not have a tripod, bipod, monopod, or any other bulky equipment which will create an impediment or disturbance to the other guests, you should be allowed in.

I've been up literally hundreds of times, and though I can't speak for them, I've a good feeling as to what they allow and prohibit.

They just mean you're not allowed to take photographs for commercial purposes in there, and stuff that into a blanket clause.

I've seen hundreds of such statements all over the world and have never been told my professional level DSLRs and lenses aren't allowed.

That includes the WTC, though that was long ago before the digital age when I was still using 35mm film cameras.

Of course you could always run up against a "security" guard on a powertrip who thinks he's doing his boss a favour by bullying you who tells you you need to buy a "photography license", but if you stand your ground and demand to see his supervisor that demand is likely to quickly go away.

Just to complete the cycle I went up the Empire state on Sunday and took my DSLR and 2 other lenses for it

and they didn't bat an eyelid.

Never had a problem with a DSLR.

I don't think they mean pro-sumer cameras.

I think they mean no large formats, or television production cameras.

Just visited last week

and I carry a Nikon D5600 for vlogging and they confiscated my Rhode Microphone at security.

I got it back, but still, what a pain.

Question: I'm currently planning a trip to New York and have been looking at the website for the empire state building and noticed the following   The items listed are not permitted in the Empire State Building.    [...]   Professional cameras, equipment  from  http://www.esbnyc.com/faq.asp .   Has anyone tried to take a digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) with them?  If so have you had any problems at security with it?

Are DSLR cameras permitted in the Empire State Building?

A DSLR without a tripod or other bulky equipment should not be a problem, they just mean you're not allowed to take photographs for commercial purposes in there, and that large formats, or television production cameras are not allowed.

Bulky photographic equipment may not be allowed in the Empire State Building but there does not seem to be a problem with DSLRs.

You cannot take bulky photographic equipment into the Empire State Building or take commercial photos.


I think just about every flight east across the international date line would qualify.

I'm interpreting this question as "Are there flights whose scheduled local arrival time is numerically earlier than scheduled local departure time?"

All other interpretations appear to be silly(ier).

This will be satisfied by any flight of less than one hour duration which crosses a time zone boundary westbound.

I thought of looking at flights into Chicago:

it is near the edge of the Central time zone, but many nearby cities are in the Eastern time zone.

I looked at a United Airlines timetable to find short flights from Chicago to destinations to the east, then looked up the corresponding westbound return flights.

The shortest such flight I found was United 5848 which departs South Bend, Indiana (SBN) at 4:33 PM EDT and arrives at Chicago O'Hare (ORD) at 4:20 PM CDT , a duration of 47 minutes.

It only operates Saturdays.

Recent FlightAware data suggests that SBN-ORD flights may have an actual flying time as short as 18 minutes.

The airports are only 135 km (84 mi) apart.

There were other sub-hour flights from South Bend, as well as Muskegon, MI (MKG), but not as short as UA5848.

Intriguingly, there are flights to Chicago from Fort Wayne, IN (FWA) and Grand Rapids, MI (GRR) scheduled for exactly one hour, so in terms of local time they arrive at the same time as they leave.

An example is United 5345 which departs Fort Wayne at 4:25 PM EDT and arrives Chicago at 4:25 PM CDT.

American Airlines also has Chicago as a hub and had sub-hour flights from Fort Wayne and Kalamazoo, MI (AZO).

Yes, you can.

And you can so so without an aircraft.

@Gagravarr's answer is closest to correct in real physical terms of any answer given.

The following is based on his deeply insightful response.

I'm an engineer.

He is obviously [tm] correct in concept, but did not carry his point to its obvious conclusion.

I do.

Non-engineers may find themselves querying the validity of this "solution" :-).

Time zones are artificial man made constructs which quantize the gradual variation of real local time as you progress around the globe.

The time where you are at any moment IS the real time.

To land before you took off you have to land at a place where the real time is earlier than the real time

was when you took off.

As a given real clock-time travels around the earth with the rotational speed at that point, you need to travel faster than the rotational speed to decrease your current local time.

The earth rotates at about 1000 mph rotational velocity at the equator.

So, at the equator, an aircraft travelling East at >= 1000 mph will have the real local time decrease as it flies.

[I'll use 1000 mph as rotational speed at the equator to make the sums tidier.

Actual speed is about 1040.4 mph and what this actually means gets a bit complex as discussed here Earth's Rotation - Wikipedia .

1000 mph is close enough for us.

However, that's at the equator.

As you leave the equator and travel pole-wards you can achieve the same effect at lower velocities.

At a lattitude of N degrees North (or South) the rotational velocity, and so the velocity required to "stop time" is V_time-stop = 1000

x sin(90-latitude)

mph (latitude in degrees).

So at 50 degrees South (bottom of NZ)

V time_stop = 1000

x sin((90-50) =

640 mph.

At Severnaya Zemlya at 75 degrees North (near the site of the Tsar Bomba)

V timestop = 260 mph.

At US McMudro base in Antarctica at 77.88S

it's ~= 210 mph and at Russian Vostok Station at 78.45S

it's ~= 200 mph.

An operation Deepfreeze Hercules out of Christchurch on final into McMurdo

IF flying due East will be experiencing decreasing real time if travelling at over about 210 mph groundspeed.

(Add 4% if you want a slightly more accurate figure).

The Russians (and anyone else) at Vostok have it just slightly easier.

Finally, at Amundsen-Scott station AT the South Pole

if you walk the short distance to the actual pole, then touch the marker with you

RIGHT hand and maintain contact while you jump along arcs of a circle around the pole marker so that you rotate around the marker, you will land some hours ahead of when you "took off' at every jump.

An added perspective.

China operates a single time zone across the whole country - "Beijing time".

In eg Urumqi or Kashgar the time is several hours later than it "should" be.

Travel out of Western China to any surrounding country and as you cross the border you will "arrive" in the other country several hours before you left China - and no dateline involved.

Then there's Greenwich ... :-)

Not since Concorde stopped flying it hasn't.

British Airways' advertising slogan for a while for Concorde was Arrive before you leave .

Between London or Paris and New York, you'd sit in a seat rather like this one , sip champagne, eat a little, and about 3 hours later arrive in Paris, "before" you'd left!

(For this answer, I'm defining "before" as the plane going faster than the revolution of the earth, allowing you to get ahead of the local solar time.

This gets easier the closer to the poles you get!)

As others have said most any flight eastbound across the international date line lands before it takes off.

Being an American married to a Chinese

I've taken plenty of such flights.

Once we even managed to take off and land AGAIN before the original takeoff.

However, it's also possible to do without the date line.

I've done it once

but it was

so long ago I don't recall the city pair other than it's between capitals in Europe.

~45 minute flight that went one time zone west.

There's also another case that can produce a substantial jump.

China operates all on one time zone but it really stretches across several time zones.

A flight from western China to a neighbor would likely go back in time.

Question: Theoretically, it should be possible to land before taking off (if you go on a fast enough airplane between two cities close to a time-zone boundary).  Practically, are there any such flights, even if they were on opposite sides of the international date line?

Can I land in a different time zone before my take off time?

Any flight of less than one hour westbound across a time zone boundary would qualify, as would most flights eastbound across the international date line. Other than this, it has not been possible since Concorde stopped flying.

It is considered possible to land before you take off if your flight crosses a time zone westwards or you cross the international date line flying eastwards. This may no longer be easy now Concorde no longer flies.

A short flight that crosses an international timezone westwards could go back in time, as could any flight eastwards that crosses the international date line.

It is no longer possible to go back in time since Concorde stopped flying.


Doing it without permission: Worst case you pay for a new car.

Getting permission : Ask!!! .

Find a person who has the authority to approve your request and explain what you are trying to do and why.

It actually worked for us.

It's important to find somebody who is able to authorise your request.

Dealing with someone who is sympathetic but lacks authority will get you nowhere.

Real life example below.

We rented a car in Australia a few years ago - ALL rental companies had similar "no off road" clauses in their contracts.

They were generally specific enough that you could probably drive an Australian "outback" road but not take "unformed road" trails down to picnic areas, dams, lookouts etc.

We had our two adult children with us - we wanted to introduce them to a small glimpse of the "real" outback.

We decided to visit and stay at the world famous in Australia "Glengarry Hilton"

(yeah, right!!!)

- down about 50 km of roads that you wouldn't usually call roads near Lightning Ridge.

Some of the agreements said "without written approval".

The endeavour seemed doomed.

Non of the counter staff we spoke to had any expectation that such approval could actually be gained.

Nor did their supervisors.

Having identified the company that had the car we most wanted I did an internet hunt for company upper management and found a phone number of a State manager.

Instant success.

Full understanding of what we wanted to do.

Good explanation of WHY they had the policy - and a note that roads to picnic sites etc were fine - all they wanted was a road that had a formal description so the breakdown wagon knew where to find you :-).

He had only one question - "

How did you get my number " :-).

Full album here - to stay in roll mode, scroll don't click Glengarry Hilton - Wikimapia - zoom out until you see where you are :-} .

Yes.

No problem with driving there.

Don't be misled by the "green" surroundings :-).

What do I risk if I ignore the clause and drive on such trails?

Long story short you risk voiding any coverage you have on the vehicle, which will make you responsible for any and all damages that may happen.

Also most modern SUVs are not designed to be take off road and some don't even offer 4x4 capabilities, so it is very possible that you may not even be able to get to where you're going.

So how do you get there?

There are 4x4 and ATV tours like this one for Grand Canyon.

So if there is anything worth seeing your will have tours and if not you're likely to have places to rent similar vehicles.

How can you visit those areas?

Simply take the right turn.

There are quite a few unpaved roads which are clearly marked - just look for them.

I've personally been on a few unpaved roads in Death Valley, Capitol Reef National Park and Monument Valley.

Use common sense: Sometimes the roads are quite easily accessible, even if they're unpaved.

Drive slowly, watch for potholes and if you don't feel comfortable: Turn back!

However: If your contract says that you're not allowed to drive on these kinds of roads and you get stuck or have any other kind of accident

I suppose it'll get quite costly.

But as they say: No risk, no fun! :)

We've had this problem for a number of years as we have relatives that live along gravel roads in various parts of Alberta.

Having looked at all the local rental companies there are basically two variations of the rental contract depending on the company.

The majority of the companies stipulate that the vehicle can only be driven on paved roads, which means we would be in violation of the rental agreements whenever we visited any of the relatives who live along gravel roads.

The others stipulate that the vehicle can only be driven on regularly maintained roads, which in the case of Alberta includes the gravel roads.

Talking to the various rental companies one said to us that if they restricted the rentals to paved roads only entire towns would be inaccessible by rental car.

Update:

Since I wrote my original answer for this we have now found one local Alberta rental company who explicitly allow some of their vehicles to be driven on the gravel roads rather than allowing it via a loophole, but only those in the SUV classes.

We came across them quite by chance because they are now the Fox Car Rental franchisee at Edmonton Airport

and I talked to them directly to confirm.

My basic advice though remains the same, the major rental companies will generally restrict usage to paved roads, but the key thing is to talk to the local rental offices as they may well operate different policies based on where you are going.

Fined 300 EUR for driving on Non Asphalt Roads.

In May 2014, we rented a car via Raddisson Hotels from Fastrent, Tallinn, Estonia.

As we were about to drive off the lot, the attendent said be sure not to drive off asphalt roads.

We did drive on one well maintained national park sand road.

Fastrent charged us 300 EUR for driving off asphalt road.

A well hidden line in Conditon 6 of 33 on the back of the contract says "Lesse can drive the car only on the asphalt roads."

Question: In the southwestern United States, many interesting spots are only reachable via off road trails.  Rental car contracts seem always to include a clause that disallows driving on such roads (even when renting an SUV).  How can I visit those areas?  What do I risk if I ignore the clause and drive on such trails?

How can I visit areas with unpaved roads in a rental car?

If you do it without permission, you risk voiding your warranty and in the worst case, having to pay for a new car. Most modern SUVs are not designed for off road and may not even have 4x4 capabilities, so you may not be able to reach your destination. The key thing is to talk to the local rental offices as they may well operate different policies based on where you are going.

Major rental companies do not allow off-road driving and it is considered a good ideea to get permission before doing it. Failure to do so means the driver is liable for all damages. It should be noted that most modern SUVs are not designed for off-road driving.

If you want to drive on non-asphalt roads in a rental car, get permission first or you may end up paying for damages. Most rental companies do not allow driving on roads other than asphalt.

If you drive on non-asphalt road the insurance will be void and you will be liable for all costs.

Modern SUVs are mostly not designed for off-road driving.


You may be able to make a Eurail Pass work for you.

Oh so dear

but oh so wonderful global pass Regional passes here eg Germany Poland here Eureka! -

There are "Select Passes" allowing 3 or 4 or 5 countries of your pecification.

These were not shown in the general menu.

Eurail 2013 routes map PDF download.

Large and impressive.

Regional Passes:

These are usually 2 country passes allowing N days of travel within an overall period.

Adding the extra country may make individual pricing cheaper.

Austria

-Croatia-Slovenia Austria-Czech Republic

Austria-Germany Austria-Hungary Austria-Switzerland Benelux-France Benelux-Germany Croatia-Slovenia-Hungary Czech Republic-Germany Denmark-Germany Denmark-Sweden Finland-Sweden France-Germany

France-Italy France-

Spain France-Switzerland Germany-Poland Germany-Switzerland Greece-Italy

Hungary-Romania Italy-Spain Norway-Sweden Portugal-Spain Scandinavia

I did some checks on prices for you.

Prices are from Bahn.de.

Please verify this yourself as well.

Krakow - Prague:

$37 (this one's from Rome2rio.com - Bahn wouldn't give it up) Prague - Munich: $120 $87 Munich - Hamburg: $200 $102 Hamburg - Warsaw: $200 $102 (possibly cheaper possible, since these are ICE train) Total:

A 5 day Eurail Select pass would be $320.

So based on these prices, it's a pretty close call.

300 USD should even be enough to cover all these itineraries.

To know the exact price for tains to and from destinations in Germany, you can have a look at http://www.bahn.de

For the tickets from Krakow to Prague you can have a look at http://www.polrail.com .

Or try at the station in Krakow.

The Czech railways only allow booking into the other direction.

The price eventually depends on how early you book, how much comfort you choose and how flexible/restrictive tickets you buy.

I know that there are Interrail or Eurail passes.

They might be worth a look only if you are less than 26 years old.

But even in that case, you will probably be better off by buying point to point tickets.

As an example, here are some quotes for 2nd class travel, with a departure in three weeks, on a weekday.

Krakow –

Prague : 76 USD (www.polrail.com) Prague – Munich : 25 USD (www.cd.cz) Munich – Hamburg : 88 USD (www.bahn.de) Hamburg – Warsaw : 55 USD (www.bahn.de) =

244 USD

Have you considered a Eurail pass?

This allows travel on European railways for a fixed set price.

Current prices start at USD $313 (for your entire trip) for those three countries if you are 25 or younger. http://www.eurail.com/

A pass like the Eurail Pass (and the Interrail Pass) was once a great way to travel around Europe.

You could just hop on and off trains at leasure.

However, these days are mostly gone.

Many long distance trains require reservations, which mean you need to go to the station to get them anyway, and often there are limited contingents for pass holders.

In practice it is now best to just buy long segments online in advance to take advantage of advance purchase deals, and for short trips just to buy them locally at the station on the day of travel.

Question: I was thinking about purchasing the tickets at the local stations. I wanted to spend three weeks in Poland and a week in Prague, Munich, and Hamburg. I set aside $300 for each train itinerary but I'm not sure if that's enough.

How much would it cost to take a train from Krakow to Prague, Prague to Munich, Munich to Hamburg, and Hamburg to Warsaw?

300 USD should even be enough to cover all these itineraries, or you may benefit from a 5 day  Eurail Select pass for $320.

There is actually very little difference in the price of a Eurail pass and the all the individual tickets for travelling around Europe by train.

A Eurail pass is a good idea if you want to travel around Europe by train. It costs 320 dollars for a 5-day pass.

300 USD should be enough to buy all the tickets to visit Krakow, Prague, Munich, Hamburg and Warsaw.


The definitely can.

TSA works with lock companies to develop locks they can remove without damaging the luggage .

Which also states that they may choose to open your bags.

I am pretty sure that other agencies providing security at airports have similar capabilities.

Assuming I lock my luggage, what can they do if they suspect the baggage?

Are they allowed to break the luggage without my permission?

Similar question: Where does a 600 pound Gorilla sit?

If by "security officials" you mean Customs Officials processing passengers in or out of a country then the general rule is that they can do essentially anything they wish to with your bag and in some cases they may do more than they are allowed to.

Actual regulations re locked bags will vary by country but you can be more than certain that if your bag is locked and outgoing customs officials suspect it contains dangerous or unauthorised contents then it will not be allowed to progress unexamined.

A lock may be removed (always an easy task), the bag may be rejected and returned to the check in area or put in storage or confiscated, and it may be destroyed with malice aforethought.

All major airports have means of dealing with suspected explosive devices.

Detonation of bags left in public spaces occurs regularly if not especially frequently, and a checked in bag may be similarly destroyed if the risk is deemed to justify it.

What can they do?

Really? ...

I took the photo below in an airport "somewhere in China".

Almost everyone walks past this without being aware of what it is.

I call it a "Police Mortar" :-).

The writing just says "Police".

It has a two concentric cylinders, no doubt of high grade steel with some sort of buffer between.

Inner cylinder is generously sized to accommodate YOUR bag.

They assume that you will be providing the "charge" but with one of these they can add their own starter to see what happens when there is no roof overhead to make a mess of.

Spring mountings accommodate recoil, hopefully.

Throw it in, hitch it up, tow it away.

Somebody wants to talk to you about your missing luggage.

Just follow the column of smoke to the far side of the carpark.

Along the way ...

As I transited Australia heading for Asia I was accosted by two pleasant people.

They invited me to come to a small side room and have my carryon luggage and my general person sniffed for explosives using a magic machine supplied for that purpose.

They made it very clear that compliance was entirely voluntary and that I was under no obligation whatsoever to comply.

I asked what would happen if I declined.

They said "Then, Sir, your journey ends here.

" I complied.

The Chinese during the Olympics when I was outbound from Qingdao (Olympic sailing venue) took pssengers about 30 at a time into a locked room, went over everyone with wipes that presumably pick up residue, then placed the wipes in an electronic analyser.

Getting the all clear they released the roomful and brought in the next batch.

I've wondered what would happen to the journey plans of the 29/30 in the room if 1/30 caused a positive test.

You can expect that your checked baggage will be being given at least as careful a scruitiny as in these cases.

All countries will have regulations that allow security officials to open and inspect your bags.

The odds of them doing this due to a desktop computer being in the bag is very low, but it's always possible.

In the USA, locking your bag with a non-TSA approved lock (ie, one which they have the ability to open) will significantly increase the chances of your lock being removed and the bag inspected.

Back 10 years ago I flew Melbourne -> LA -> Virginia and checked some expensive camera equipment in a Pelican case locked with Pelican locks.

On this particular trip I was so tired when I arrived in Virginia that I didn't notice that the locks were missing from the Pelican case and shoved it in the cupboard when I got home.

(I was also unfamiliar with the then new TSA policies)

A month later I pull it out , see the locks are missing from the outside and open it up to find the TSA leaflet explaining how they had cut my locks off to do an inspection .. and had thoughtfully left the remains of the locks in the case.

It really annoyed me that the TSA had broken the security of my case and had not re-secured it with something (zip ties, metal wire, anything).

This inspection happened sometime after I had passed through Immigration/Customs at LAX and then re-checked my bags on the domestic flight to VA at the drop-off point at the exit of Immigration/Customs.

I believe that as a result of the TSA action I had a camera stolen from that case.

Fortunately the thieves were dumb - in a case filled with $2500 of 35mm film camera equipment (including my all time favourite lens), they stole a $100 digital camera.

In my case I had discounted rule #1 for luggage and flying:

Never check anything you want to ever see again.

Never put anything in hand luggage that you can't just drop and leave.

Always keep on your person things that are required for physically traveling.

I don't have any evidence for this

but I'm pretty sure on my last flight to the US in 2012

I saw some note that if the TSA suspects something in your checked luggage they have the right to open it.

If that means that they'll have to destroy any kind of lock then that's what they'll do.

This matches a warning in a travelguide I read a few years ago which also states that on flight to or from the US you should only lock your suitcase with a TSA approved (and therefore TSA-unlockable) lock.

Question: Chris S answer in this question  recommends against packing items such as desktop computer because they can look suspicious to the security officials.  Assuming I lock my luggage, what can they do if they suspect the baggage? Are they allowed to break the luggage without my permission?

What can security officials do when they suspect my checked baggage?

All countries will have regulations that allow security officials to open and inspect your bags. Using a non-TSA-approved lock will make it more likely for the bag to be opened, rejected and returned to the check in area, put in storage or confiscated, or even destroyed.

Any suspicious bags may be opened by security officials even if that means they have to break the lock. Regulations allowing this apply in all countries. Moreover, if you bag is left in a public space or security officials suspect it contains an explosive device, it may be detonated.

Security officials in all countries have the right to open suspicious luggage even if that means breaking locks. In the USA if you do not use a TSA approved lock, you bag is more likely to be opened.

All major airports have ways of dealing with suspected explosive devices. Bags left in public spaces and suspicious checked bags may be destroyed.


You need a visa for neither country because you are a citizen of each.

When you enter a country, in order not to need a visa, you show them the passport of that country .

In your case, when arriving to Saudi Arabia, you show them the Saudi passport.

When arriving to the UK, say after you get back, you show them the UK one.

You obviously need to have both with you

but you always show one at any given time.

It is possible there are legal exceptions, but this works in most parts of the world.

For Saudi Arabia, which gives no visas to tourists, you pretty much have no choice.

Show your Saudi passport to the Saudi Immigration, show your British passport to UK immigration.

If the airline asks if you have a Visa for the UK show them your UK passport.

Do not show Saudi Immigration your UK passport.

As I understand you may get into trouble if you do.

I do this all the time

and it's never been an issue for me.

it used to be that you could get a certificate of right of abode in your Saudi passport that acted like a permanent visa meaning that you didn't need the UK passport, but they don't issue these any more.

There are three different (groups of) people you show your passport to on an international flight.

Immigration exit on the country

you are leaving The airline you're flying with Immigration entry in the country you are entering

The rules for all dual nationals flying between their two countries are: Always show your passport for a country to that country'sofficials Always show the passport for your destination to the airline.

So, flying from the UK to Saudi, you show your Saudi passport at check-in (airline), then your UK passport to immigration exit (UK immigration), and then your Saudi passport again at the gate (airline).

When you land, you show your Saudi passport to immigration entry (Saudi immigration).

Flying from Saudi to the UK, you show your UK passport at check-in (airline), then your Saudi passport to immigration exit (Saudi immigration), and then your UK passport again at the gate (airline).

When you land, you show your UK passport to immigration entry (UK immigration).

There are usually multiple places where you'll have to show passports and things can get a bit tricky.

Obviously you'll use the passport of the country whose passport you are at.

But often you want to show the passport of the destination country at check in to show the airline company that you have the appropriate visas/residency.

So for example for a trip from Germany to the US the sequence is as follows: Check in with the US passport

(Airline will actually send that info to the US)

Use German passport for passport control when exiting Germany Enter US with US passport

I would just like to add a small detail to the otherwise excellent answers of Richard Gadsden and Omar Kooheji : some countries do not have actually immigration exit checks performed by immigration officers at airports, they rely on airlines to provide the relevant information this is for instance the case in the US, as well as in the UK in this case

, when travelling from that country to your other passport's country, you do indeed show you destination country's passport, but they may ask for the other passport this was for instance the case in the US before the current Visa Waiver Program was set up: on arrival, foreigners would get a part of the I-94W form stapled into their passport, and the airline was supposed to collect it to return to immigration authorities.

If you entered with an US passport, and then exited with another passport, they would be missing the form in the passport, so would need to see your US passport to clear things out.

don't know how they sort it out nowadays

(they probably keep track of your APIN data from both legs), but in the US case at least I don't believe I have been asked about it in a while

Conclusion:

don't be surprised if the check-in agents ask to see the other passport (the one from the current country).

This will most certainly depend on the pair of countries, of course.

Question: I have two passport one is Saudi and the other is British.   My question is I am in Saudi Arabia and I want to travel to the UK and back how does that work?  And do I need a visa for any of the two counties?

Traveling with two passports - which one to use?

You do not need a visa for either country as you are a citizen of both. Show your Saudi passport to the Saudi Immigration, and show your British passport to UK immigration.

When travelling with two passports, you do not need a visa for the countries whose passports you hold. However, at immigration, make sure to show the passport of the country you are in, so UK passport in the UK. Moreover, the check-in staff may ask to see the other passport to be sure you do not eed a visa to travel.

If you have a passport for the country you are travelling to, you do not need a visa.

When travelling with two passports, show the passport of the country you are in to the immigration authorities, for example UK passport in the UK. At check-in you may need to show the other passport to prove you do not need a visa.


Type the airport name or code into the search box of OpenFlights , or substitute the airport's three-letter code into this link: http://openflights.org/airport/HND

Then click on any airport and the "list" icon in the popup to see who exactly flies that route.

Alternatively, look up the airport on Wikipedia , although the list of destinations is just a table.

Kayak features a convenient map through their Routes page: All flights shown on the map are direct.

Your first address should be the website of the respective Airport.

For example, Oslo Airport has a destination map .

One can in most cases assume that if there is a flight TO a location, that there is also a return flight back.

I do not think that there are services that allow you to include several airports, even less so by a km radius.

You will have to go through the airports that are available for you by hand.

I use http://www.flightconnections.com/ for this.

It's map based an you can click on any airport (or a near by one) and see immediately all scheduled flights including airlines and day-per-week flown.

CAVEAT:

"Direct" is not the same as "Non-Stop".

Many airlines now combine to more or less random legs, give it the same flight number and call it "direct".

It doesn't mean it's the same plane or same crew and

it certainly isn't non stop.

I

Normally any flight aggregator like Skyscanner or Kayak allow searching for all airports servicing the city.

In your case if you put in Oslo you will get both airports, similar behavior exists for other cities like London(LON), Moscow, Paris, New York(NYC) just to name a few.

Other services like Travelocity used to suggest additional major airports if prices were to be better or similar such as in the case of flights to Newark Philadelphia airport used to pop up.

Kayak has a direct flight search tool .

As far as I can tell, it only lists departures from the airport you enter but if you click each departure there should be a "reverse direction" option which quickly links you to the departure schedule for the destination airport.

Like the other answers I'll share my tools that I use, the most common ones are: (with no affiliation to them) are skyscanner and greatescape

I feel like they are both underappreciated for the amount of things they let you do.

You are able to put in the airport of your choice and then get a list or map view of all the destinations you're able to reach from there.

Both allow for direct flights only to be selected, with Great Escape allowing for further filters too.

*Both of these tools were mentioned by a now deleted answer, which I presume was deleted for spam reasons, but I agree that both are useful tools so I have posted to highlight them as options

Use Google.

It invented an awesome service for searching flights.

Just type in a google search - 'flights from mumbai' and it will return you a list of non-stop flights from mumbai.

If you want to find all flights to Mumbai - print 'flights to mumbai'.

For anyone googling here, Google has unfortunately changed the above a little bit since this screenshot; however it's still a fairly amazing facility.

I use itasoftware.com, when you put in your city there is a button beside it that you can use to expand to airports within a certain number of miles and you can deselect the ones that are not of interest.

To find closest international airport I use TravelMath.com

Google.com/flights is a good alternative to see fast where are current flight carries to one city.

travel.stackexchange.com/users/2399/Léo Léopold Hertz 준영

I found a very similar tool, but with advanced functionality.

You may see baggage allowance, aircraft model with the tail number on the route and airport schedule with arrival and departures.

The synergy of the flight radar and direct flights mapping https://flightsmap.org

Question: Assume that you want to go to Oslo. You want to aggregate all airports that are 100 kilometres from Oslo. This includes at least Gardemoen, Rygge and some others probably.  Is there any service that tracks all flights that go there?  Similarly for any other city.

Is there a tool to find all nonstop flights to one destination?

travel.stackexchange.com/users/2399/Léo Léopold Hertz 준영

Normally any flight aggregator like  Skyscanner, GreatEscape, Flight Connections  or  Kayak will allow searching for all airports servicing the city. You may also be able to find out on Google. It may not be possible to search for multiple airports within a given radius, so you may need to go through available airports individually.

Although some people believe there are no services that provide information for

A number of sites allow you to search all destinations for an airport as well as searching flights to nearby airports, such as Skyscanner and Kayak. Google aslo offers this search capability.

Some people think there are no services that provide a search function for several airports. However, Skyscanner and Kayak definitely have this functionality.


On the Italian side there is: Reggia di Caserta Villa Boboli Villa Lante Giardino Giusti Isola Bella Villa d'Este

Yes, there is!

750km North-East of Paris is the delightful city of Hanover (Hannover), which has the Great Gardens at Herrenhausen Gardens

(Großen Garten of Herrenhäuser Gärten)

This was largely laid out in the late 17th century, and one of the leading gardeners from Versailles was commissioned to help lay it out, so the styles of the two are very similar!

It's a bit easier to get to than Versailles

is from Paris

- it's about 10 minutes on the tram from the city centre, or you can walk down the tree lined avenue from the city centre through Georgengarten (park).

Sadly I didn't have a good camera with me, but here's a cc photo from dierkschaefer from Flickr that shows what it's like: And another, this one from grebein which shows more of the fountains in full display: Wikipedia also has an aerial shot, which gives more of an idea of the scope + layout

Vienna and its surrounding has several gardens: Volksgarten Wien: Palace Schönbrunn Augarten Wien

There are quite a few in the UK as well, with Blenheim Palace being probably the most famous (but by any chance not the only one).

The gardens look like this:

Peterhof just outside St-Petersburg is really amazing.

I can add 2 more beautiful gardens in Germany: Sanssouci near Berlin Schwetzingen Schlossgarten near Heidelberg

Although the style is a bit different than the gardens in Versailles, the Hellbrunn Palace

(Schloss Hellbrunn)

outside Salzburg makes for an impressive visit nevertheless.

Aerial shot Part of the fountain

The gardens and fountains make for a pleasant visit, but the real joy is that the grounds were rigged to play practical jokes on visitors by the archbishop who commissioned the palace's construction, so the stone seats throughout the garden contain fountains that spray visitors (they still operate) and water-operated musical theatre is designed to soak the audience.

In short, the grounds are beautiful, and it makes for a good history lesson when you learn what the slightly immature prince-archbishop of Salzburg did in his free time.

In Portugal, just outside of Lisbon, there is the Queluz National Palace which is famous for its gardens and is often referred to as the Portuguese Versailles.

I've long thought of the Tivoli Gardens of Copenhagen, Denmark as being somewhat similar to Versailles.

It has the "fountains and flowers" generally associated with Versailles.

But Tivoli was created as an amusement park with the intent of having the OPPOSITE effect of Versailles.

That is, King Christian VIII created it for the "people" to defuse the possibility of revolution, while Louis XIV created Versailles for himself and other "royals" and aristocrats, thereby increasing the probability of the French Revolution.

You can see a list of French formal garden ( jardins à la francaise ) at the end of the wikipedia article on the topic .

and don't forget Paleis

het Loo in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands (wiki page includes a link to a list of baroque style homes and palaces) for further inspiration)

While a lot smaller, they're rather charming.

An active residence, only part of the palace and its gardens is open to the public.

Question: The  Gardens of Versailles  are world famous, and  apparently  receive over 6 million visitors a year. They're stunning gardens to visit, but I can't help but think that some other European courts might have decided to build their own similar.  Are there any other similar parks elsewhere in Europe that can be visited? Ideally ones still in / restored to the Versailles style?

Are there other places with gardens like those at Versailles?

Italian examples include Reggia di Caserta, Villa Boboli, Villa Lante, Giardino Giusti, Isola Bella and Villa d'Este. Vienna and its surrounding has several gardens: Volksgarten Wien, Palace Schönbrunn, Augarten Wien. Gardens in Germany include Herrenhausen Gardens in Hannover, Sanssouci near Berlin and Schwetzingen Schlossgarten near Heidelberg. Blenheim Palace is probably the most famous in the UK, but far from the only one. Peterhof just outside St-Petersburg is really amazing, and the gardens of the Queluz National Palace just outside Lisbon in Portugal and the Tivoli Gardens of Copenhagen, Denmark, can be compared with Versailles.

Beautiful gardens similar to Versailles can be found in many parts of Europe, including Italy, Germany, Austria, Denamark, the UK, Russia and Portugal.


In general, no.

If you book a ticket that includes some time in a city along the way, it's up to you to figure out where to sleep and to pay for that.

Two exceptions.

First, if you had a short connection, say two hours, and there's a problem that delays the second flight and you have to spend the night there, the airline might ( might !)

pay for a hotel.

Second, Air Canada (since you mentioned Toronto) has a special program involving connecting through Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver and getting a hotel night as part of a package.

(Free if you are on a high fare, $49 otherwise.)

You also get lounge access at the stopover airport.

It's pretty enticing for someone in your situation.

Just don't assume that the same practice applies to any stopover you might book, on any airline, anywhere in the world.

No, you're not entitled to anything that's due to the scheduling of your flights prior to entering the contract.

Were the airline to change the schedule later, say due to weather conditions, technical problems, etc.

you MAY be entitled to compensation based on local laws, international treaties (not relevant on internal flights), and airline policies (which would be reflected in the terms of your contract).

But as you booked your ticket knowing there'd be a 23 hour layover, how to deal with that is your responsibility and yours alone.

You can of course see if the airline has options to add a discounted hotel for the night, they might have such offers.

China Southern Airlines offers a free hotel stay for a long layover.

I learnedthis when a gate agent approached me upon arrival and made the offer for a hotel in Guangzho China during a 15 hour layover.

Since then I'velearned that other airlines offer something similar if the layover is longenough and all the travel is with the same carrier.

Ask.

Many airlines do not do this practice; however, in many airports, such as in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) and Singapore airports, there is a hotel that rents rooms at 6 hour intervals at very good rates.

Many large airports have rest areas, shops, restaurants/cafes and are like mini-cities in themselves -

so there is plenty to do, but it is always a good idea to book any in-airport accommodation ahead of travel.

Smaller airports would not have these facilities.

In any case, as Kate Gregory said, it is the responsibility of the passenger to organise how you spend your layover.

It's called STPC (Stop over paid by Carrier).

Some airlines do this if the layover is longer than X hours.

I know for a fact that Emirates does this if the layover at their hub in Dubai is longer than 8-9 hours.

They take care of the hotel and the formalities for getting you out of the airport to the hotel(in some cases Visas and such).

It is better to call the airline call center and ask whether they provide STPC.

Hope it helps.

Question: I have a 23-hour-long layover in Toronto, Canada.  Am I entitled to board and lodging from the airline?

Does a layover of more than 6 hours entitle me to accommodation by the airline?

While some airlines like China Southern Airlines and Emirates offer a free hotel stay for longer layovers, and many airports like Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia offer rooms at 6 hour intervals at very good rates, it is generally up to you to figure out where to sleep and to pay for that where the flight and layover are as scheduled.

In general accommodation is not provided by airlines for long stopovers. Howeevr, South China Airlines and Emirates offer free hotel stays for long stopovers and hotels in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore airports have rooms that can be booked for 6-hour intervals.

In general airlines do not offer accommodation for long stopover. If you book a ticket with a long stopover, what you do in that time is your responsibility. The airline may have discount offers on hotels.

Some airlines and airports do offer an accommodation service for long stopovers. Emirates offers accommodation in Dubai for stopovers more than 8-9 hours, South China Airlines offers a free hotel stay and Kuala Lumpur and Singapore airports have hotels where you can rent a room in 6-hour intervals.


The simple answer is no!

If you are thinking of the Caspian sea, there may not be any "police" watching you per se, but the people of the North are quite religious, and they police themselves.

Bikinis are out of question.

If her scarf flies away, they will give you friendly warnings.

Don't be scared, they won't harm you, they just will tell you to keep your Hijab on or something like that.

In female only swimming areas she can swim by herself.

These areas will be covered (not at top, just at the sides).

In any case, you should not swim in the Caspian sea, it is too polluted.

Someone mentioned the Island of Kish being more relaxed.

Yes, it is, but not to the point that she can swim with a bikini.

The things people get away with in Kish are dancing in public, for example, or singing music that is considered illegal in other parts of Iran, and less policing on Hijab, etc.

But again, bikinis are out of question.

According to the article in the Global Post

it is possible as long as she's in a female only area and hence you can't be with her.

This information obviously is a little dated but the only area that is known for laxer regulations would be the island of Kish but that information is even more dated.

The most recent English news

I was able to find is an increase in religious police

so legally it is highly unlikely that regulations enforced for hijab would be laxer for bikinis.

Not in public, it is illegal and unaccepted.

But in private places, such as private villas connected to sea, you are free.

According to local rules, women cannot swim in bikini in presence of men around.

They are limited places for women to swim in the sea which men are not allowed to enter there.

However as a Iranian i recommend you to visit here since there are many other wonderful stuff which will inspire you :)

It is possible to the extent that she runs the risk of, at best, being deported from the country.

However, though the piece below is four years old, it suggests it might be possible to find private beaches on the Caspian: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/pourzal221209.html

Question: Is it possible if she is not Iranian to swim in her swimsuit or bikini in the sea?  She is not from Iran, she is European as me.  Is there some "police" that watches how people dress on the beach?

Can I swim in Iran with my girlfriend in bikini in the Caspian Sea?

According to local rules, women cannot swim in bikini in the presence of men. While the police may not be watching, the people of the North are quite religious, and they police themselves. There are female-only areas where she can swim by herself, and where men are not permitted, but in any case the Caspian Sea is quite polluted and you should not swim there.

In Iran, women are not allowed to swim in bikinis on public beaches. There are, however, special women-only areas where they may swim. Moreover, the Caspian sea is very polluted, nobody should swim there.

Women cannot swim in bikinis in the Caspian sea. Bikinis are not allowed in Iran.

There are special women-only areas where women can swim.

The Caspian sea is too polluted for swimming.


The behavior and acceptance of this behavior generally differs.

Kissing someone on the cheek is generally considered to be a great degree of familiarity with the person you're doing this with.

So here goes:

In the business setting I've only seen this done by French or Canadian(Quebec) expats.

Between friends it is acceptable but again only if you know the person you're kissing.

When it comes to business environment you kissing a woman as a matter of greeting technically can cost you dearly since it might be spun as sexual harassment and you're likely to be fired on the spot

but this is a discussion for Workplace site.

Between friends

: Almost anything goes but you have to look at it based upon the situation.

From Wikipedia :

According to the March 8, 2004 edition of Time Magazine , "a single [kiss] is [an] acceptable [greeting] in the United States, but it's mostly a big-city phenomenon

The Wall Street Journal points out how it's affecting business , and when to do this.

Chicago Tribune has a piece on how it's spreading , and notes that it's not just a case of "is it in America now?" but that it's cultural, and different regions make sounds when they do it, might do one kiss or two, and it varies even in the same city.

Having traveled around there, I can confirm that one of my friends did it but perhaps because she has a lot of Latin American friends, and she points out that some of her friends were taken aback when she did it in Florida.

So short answer - it depends.

I'd watch the person you're greeting - if they go in for it, follow their lead, until you feel comfortable with what to expect.

I am French

and I was told American people usually just say hi, shake hands or sometimes hug if they know well each others.

This is correct.

Americans rarely initiate cheek kissing.

If you initiate a cheek kiss, and the kiss-receiver understands what you're doing, they will probably reciprocate and think, "Oh, how charming and foreign!"

I grew up in Texas

and I have always observed it to be very common for family and close friends to cheek kiss when they greet one another, especially in a home or holiday setting.

When we were young it was mostly the adults and little kids, but it has become more common all around.

However, some people find it an odd invasion of their personal space (family or otherwise).

I have noticed that it is becoming more common here among young people in big cities (especially between my friends who have lived/traveled abroad), but still seems to be between close friends.

Even my Latino friends here in Texas seem to follow the same cultural norms.

Ie.

Sometimes in public - nearly always at home/special occasion.

Well I spent 6 months in the USA in 2014 and as a Turk, I can say that cheek kissing is highly common in Turkey.

So I faced a little trouble at the beginning because American people that I meet during the 6 months were like just saying hi, not kiss or hug.

If you meet someone on the street they do not even stop to talk a little, just say hi, and go on.

In Turkey we stop and talk for more than 20-30 minutes which is something I do not approve :)

But just hi is not enough for me

I think.

Question: I am French and I was told American people usually just say hi, shake hands or sometimes hug if they know well each others.  I have been living in California for the last few months and I noticed that people were sometimes cheek kissing here. I also just saw that in an episode of Dexter (in Miami I believe).  Is cheek kissing something common in the US for born American citizen?

Is cheek kissing common in the US?

Americans rarely initiate cheek kissing, but a single kiss on the cheek can be a sign of a great degree of familiarity with the person, and is mostly a big-city phenomenon.

Cheek kissing is rarely initiated by Americans and is highly unusual outside of close friends and family. Time Magazine also pointed out that it is mainly a big city phenomena.

Cheek kissing in America is quite unusual and normally only done between friends/family. Americans rarely initiate kissing.

Time Magazine stated in 2004 that it was a big city phenomena.


I remember reading a piece about these recently enough that I thought it was on here.

Evidently not.

Anyway, there are brands like Vapestick, which at least on their website state that it's legal to use them onboard.

I assume they'd get sued to infinity and beyond if that wasn't true, by now.

From their website : While it isn't illegal to smoke electronic cigarettes on planes, itcould definitely raise questions or cause other passengers to bealarmed, so you will need to approach the situation carefully if youplan on getting away with it.

However, further down the same page they also note that despite it not being illegal, many airlines do BAN it, so it's best to check with your airline first.

Electronic cigarettes on planes are banned by some airlines operatingin the US.

In the UK, you can still get away with it in most cases,but there's no way of knowing for sure.

The easiest way to smokeelectronic cigarettes on planes without raising any questions is tosmoke in the rest room.

Personally I find something mildly suspect about how they tell you to 'get away with it' and the like.

If there's a place in this modern world you really don't want to be upsetting people, it's onboard an airplane at 37k feet...

I can't give a definitive answer, however I suspect that you will not find any major airlines anywhere in the world that allow electronic cigarettes.

All of the airlines I've flown recently have specifically called our electronic cigarettes as not being allowed on their flights, either in the in-flight magazine, or by specifically stating them as not being allowed during the safety briefing.

Even if you ignore the potential confusion between real and electronic cigarettes, the fact that these devices potentially give of a harmful vapor which then gets passed into the recirculated air within the aircraft would be enough for any major airline to ban then.

This is an interesting social/legal questions which I expect will change in the coming years.

One airline that actively sells e-cigarettes on the plane is unsurprisingly Ryan Air (they'd do anything for an extra £/$/€).

Interesting article from the BBC about this subject back in 2012 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18734753

Consider that even if the airline ignored it, it is very unlikely that your fellow passengers would.

I would view use of an electronic cigarette as something similar to passing wind, with the exception that passing wind is not always avoidable for biological reasons.

I would certainly not consent to someone near me using one in an enclosed space such as inside an aircraft cabin.

Also, in some airspace jurisdictions it is illegal to smoke or release other gases into the cabin of a flying aircraft.

You may find the local police waiting to arrest you when the plane lands.

All international carriers that I have flown on, prohibit smoking on board flights and all have added specifically e-cigarettes to the announcement/safety video to explicitly state that these are also forbidden.

The US Department of Transportation prohibits the use of e-cigarettes and in addition, prohibits the charging of these devices on-board - which is also recommended by ICAO: U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration today issued an interim final rule (IFR) to prohibit passengers and crewmembers from carrying battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices (e.g. e-cigarettes, e-cigs, e-cigars, e-pipes, personal vaporizers, electronic nicotine delivery systems) in checked baggage and prohibit passengers and crewmembers from charging the devices and/or batteries on board the aircraft.

“We know from recent incidents that e-cigarettes in checked bags can catch fire during transport,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

“Fire hazards in flight are particularly dangerous.

Banning e-cigarettes from checked bags is a prudent safety measure.”

On January 22, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Safety Alert for Operators recommending that air carriers require their passengers to carry e-cigarettes and related devices exclusively in the cabin of the aircraft.

Also, on June 9, 2015, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) published an addendum to the 2015-2016 ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air prohibiting the carriage of e-cigarettes in checked baggage and restricting the charging of these devices while on board the aircraft.

Passengers may continue to carry e-cigarettes for personal use in carry-on baggage or on their person but may not use them on flights.

The Department’s current regulatory ban on smoking of tobacco products on passenger flights includes the use of electronic cigarettes.

Nevertheless, to prevent passenger or crewmember confusion, the Department has proposed to amend its existing airline smoking rule to explicitly ban use of electronic cigarettes aboard aircraft.

In effect this means that all US-flagged carriers prohibit smoking of e-cigarettes on board; all carriers prohibit charging of these devices on board; and could also possibly mean that any carrier flying into the US should also abide by these rules.

For Europe, EASA also has a similar safety information bulletin based on the ICAO bulletin which also has the same restrictions.

I should note that these restrictions go towards charging of the device as it has a heated element which is a fire hazard.

As far as I understand charging of the device is an integral part of the entire smoking experience - so it would make sense that smoking them would also be forbidden.

Finally, I don't know anyone who would assume vapestick (a manufacturer of e-cigarettes) is the authority on where they should be used.

Even if you ignore the bias, it is a very, very, very bad idea to smoke in the toilet of an aircraft.

It is the fastest way to get a fine, be banned from the airline, and possibly put in jail .

Question: Unfortunately, I am a smoker.In the 20th century things were easier and many airlines allowed smoking onboard which is  almost impossible now .   Anyway the electronic cigarettes were introduced a few years ago and I have heard that some airlines allow them onboard. What airlines do allow the use of electronic cigarettes onboard?

Are there any airlines that allow electronic cigarettes?

The US Department of Transportation  prohibits the use of e-cigarettes as well as carrying and charging them on board. It is unlikely that major airlines anywhere in the world will allow electronic cigarettes, and many specifically state that these are also forbidden in their announcement/safety video. Even if they were permitted, it is likely that other passengers would object. Despite this, Ryanair  is one airline that actively sells e-cigarettes on the plane.

Most airlines ban the use of e-cigarettes althoug, on its website, Vapestick claims that smoking e-cigarettes is allowed on planes. Certainly, Ryanair sells e-cigarettes onboard and, apparently, you can still get away with smoking e-cigarettes. However, passengers are not likely to be happy about people smoking onboard.

Electronic cigarettes are banned on most airlines and they specifically make this clear before the flight.

Vapestick claims it is permitted to smoke e-cigarettes on planes on its website.

Ryanair actually sells e-cigarettes onboard and , apparently, you can still smoke e-cigarettes on flights in the UK. The easiest way to smoke may be in the toilet.

Even if the airline allowed e-cigarettes, it is unlikely that other passengers would be happy.


Short answer - you'll need to ask the property to be sure.

All the mains tap water will be fine to drink everywhere in the UK and Ireland.

However...

Some hostels may have a tank which feeds some of their taps, so you may find that the taps in the kitchen are mains-fed and fine, but the ones in bathrooms (for an example) could be fed via the tank, and may not be as fresh.

The hostel will be able to tell you which ones are fine.

Additionally, there are some hostels that aren't on the mains water (eg remote ones in Scotland), so there may not be any drinking water there, other than what you hike in yourself.

In pubs - it's always fine to ask for a glass of tap water, and they'll give you one (it's in their license).

However, bottled water may taste nicer, so people not drinking eg beer may well often prefer bottled.

When I moved to London for a few years, almost all my friends had filters.

The trace calcium / limescale in the water will result in some people telling you it's "hard" water, or "soft water" depending on where in the UK you are.

Indeed, there's debate over where it tastes better or worse: Is there really a north-south water taste divide?

Many friends had these filters to try and remove the limescale, and you had to regularly clean your kettle to remove the build up of this stuff.

However, is it drinkable?

Sure.

No problems at all.

Most who buy the bottled water did so purely for convenience, or taste.

Tap water in the UK and Ireland is drinkable.

There are a tiny number of cases where it is not, but the place you are staying at should post notices on any indoor tap where the water is not drinkable.

Premises that serve alcohol are obliged by law to provide free tap water to guests so I wouldn't be shy to ask for it.

Nowadays they don't even look surprised when you order mains water!

BTW here is a list of some FAQs regarding British tap water (including your question).

It's not hyperlinked unfortunately but I used the ctlr+F function to look up this answer http://www.water.org.uk/consumers/water-and-health/faqs

The water from taps in Great Britain does vary in hardness depending on where you are as the map above shows.

Anywhere where food is involved the water will be mains supplied and quite safe to drink.

Mains water is carefully and continuously monitored by the Water Authorities.

This does not apply to water in washrooms/toilets etc.

Often this water is supplied from a storage tank in the attic of the property and is not potable (drinking).

This practice is rarer in modern properties but is quite common in older buildings, small hotels, lodgings etc.

Question: I would like to ask if the tap water in hostels of Ireland and England is drinkable.I never saw someone drink from there, and even in the pubs you have to order for a bottle.

Is tap water in Ireland and England drinkable?

All mains tap water will be fine to drink everywhere in the UK and Ireland, but some remote hostels are not on the mains water  and you should ask the property to be sure. Pubs and establishments serving alcohol are required to provide free tap water to guests.

Mains water in the UK and Ireland is safe to drink and properties not connected to the mains should put up signs indicating that you should not drink the water. Pubs, moreover, are connected to mains water and they are legally obliged to give you a glass of tap water if you ask for it.

All mains water in the UK and Ireland is safe to drink.

Some properties may not be connected to the mains but if water is not drinkable, there should be a notice.

Pub are obliged by law to give you a glass of tap water if you ask for it.


According to some studies, tomato juice, and many other foods, actually taste different (better in the case of tomato juice) under the low pressure conditions in an airplane than they do at home.

I used to drink tomato juice religiously on airplanes and never at home.

As I started to fly more, I stopped ordering it

but I still do occasionally for nostalgia.

The reasons are: it is more filling and closer to food than other juices, especially with a little salt and pepper

it's more expensive than pop or other drinks, which both makes you feel like you're getting more value on the plane, and explains why many people don't drink it at home a little goes a long way, which is another reason not to buy a large can at home

- I would be unlikely to drink it all before it spoiled.

at some point the whole thing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy "oooh, I'm on a plane, I should have tomato juice, that's what people do on planes" and somebody watching you learns that tomato juice is simply de rigeur on the plane

I should point out that grocery stores do sell both large and small cans of tomato juice, and they get plenty of shelf space, so clearly some people are drinking it at home.

When I worked as cabin crew, people who order tomato juice sometimes order it warm and they ask for salt and pepper

, I guess it is the closest thing to tomato soup.

I also think it is a rich juice which will help them if they are hungry, it is heavy and it will make them feel full.

I've also seen fellow flight attendants in their rest time on long haul flights heat it in the oven or microwave and put some lemon, salt, pepper and croutons and voila!

Tomato soup is ready.

Personally, I hate it for other reasons, if it's spilled on clothes, you can't just wipe it off and continue, you have to change it or it will smell awful in no time.

I'm astonished to see that nobody has posted the reason I drink tomato juice on planes -- they're an essential ingredient for a Bloody Mary !

(courtesy William Clifford, Wikimedia Commons)

Although I do usually reserve this indulgence for ass-crack-of-dawn flights on Monday mornings and/or last flights out on Fridays, and naturally this requires an airline that doesn't charge you up the wazoo for a minibottle of vodka.

Another hypothesis can be found in a Guardian article on how sound affects taste .

The hypothesis is based on a previous study where it is found that a loud background noise suppresses the perception of sweetness and saltiness.

However, one researcher thinks that tomato juice has an umami taste, which might not be surpressed by the loud environment: ...

Spence points out: "Have you ever noticed how many people ask for a bloody mary or tomato juice from the drinks trolley on aeroplanes?

The air stewards have, and when you ask the people who order, they tell you that they rarely order such a drink at any other time."

Spence reckons this is because umami may be immune to noise suppression.

Campbell's V8 drink is very popular and available throughout (convenience stores and such), while being basically a glorified tomato juice.

And people do drink it at home.

One may also consider, that a typical long-haul flight carries people from very diverse cultural backgrounds.

For example, tomato juice was a very popular beverage in former USSR, with vendors selling it by glass over the counter at every juice stand.

A further reason to those mentioned previously is that several sources have claimed tomato juice can prevent you from getting DVT (deep vein thrombosis).

According to, for example, the Daily Mail : Eating tomatoes can help prevent airline passengers developing deepvein thrombosis, British scientists have proved.

The research has shown, however, that tomatoes contain a unique chemical which similarly thins blood[...]

So it's likely that it may not just be the taste, but people doing it for a safety reason.

For me, I have it only while flying domestic in the US.

The reason is that out of the very limited selection of free stuff you can get from any US airline, tomato juice is the closest thing to some sort of savory, filling food-like substance.

This is especially true since these days they often don't even have peanuts or some of those mini pretzels or mini cookies for free.

In those other parts of the world where airlines actually serve you food and other good stuff, I have never asked for tomato juice.

And outside of a plane, I have drunk it probably about once a year on average, throughout my lifetime.

Of all the drinks that are offered on board, other than water - tomato juice is the one that affects jet lag the least.

Coffee (and other drinks with caffeine, like tea and mountain dew/energy drinks) will dehydrate you, which causes eye irritation and increases the symptoms of jet lag .

Alcohol does the same as above.

You are left then with natural fruit juices (difficult to find without added sugar); these tend to be too acidic as well.

Leaving you with humble tomato juice.

I have to say, outside the US I have not seen tomato juice offered (

at least, I didn't spot it on the cart).

Its usually some fruit cocktail, alcohol (if available), water, carbonated drinks and if you are lucky, ginger ale.

Question: Tomato juice seems to be a favorite drink for many travelers to have on board an airplane. I've seen this on almost every flight I've been on, but I have never noticed this same trend at ground-level.  What are the reasons for that? Is there an origin of this trend?

Why do people on airplanes often have tomato juice as a drink?

Tomato juice is filling and can be drunk cold or warm, sometimes with salt and pepper. It has a strong flavour, and according to some studies will actually taste different under the low pressure conditions in an airplane. Several sources have claimed tomato juice can prevent you from getting DVT (deep vein thrombosis), and it is less likely to cause jet lag than caffeinated drinks.

The popularity of tomato juice on planes may be due to a number of factors. First, some foods taste better on a plane. Secondly, many planes do not serve food, so tomato juice, being more like a food than other drinks, may stop people feeling hungry. Finally, tomato juice may have health benefits as apparently it helps prevent deep vein thrombosis and it does not make jet lag worse.

Some studies show that tomato juice tastes better in a plane.

Tomato juice is closer to food than other drinks and may stop passengers feeling hungry on planes that do not serve food.

Tomato juice is an essential ingredient for Bloody Mary.

Tomato juice helps prevent deep vein thrombosis and it is the only drink with water that does not make jet lag worse.


I've flown directly over the north pole on a route from ATL to PEK (beijing).

Here's a pic of the seatback flight map from a United 747, where I spent the entire flight with my face pressed to the window.

Amazing scenery from Hudson Bay north through Baffin Island and on.

It was July of 2008.

When we crossed the pole (as indicated in the flight map) the icon of the airplane began to flip back and forth, not knowing exactly which way it was pointing.

I thought that was really cool and shot video of it trying to establish it's direction over the course of about 3 mins.

Once we get a little bit of distance from magnetic north, the icon settled down and pointed toward Beijing.

In order to fly over the north pole (or more broadly just the Arctic), you'd have to travel to a city that is approximately across the globe as then the shortest distance would go over the north pole.

You can try out which cities satisfy this criterion with the distance tool of Google maps.

One possible route is for instance from the Middle East to the American West Coast, for instance this flight: Dubai to San Francisco .

A little more information about this can be found on the Wikipedia article Polar route and it seems those routes are fairly common.

However I think being based in Europe, there are not many flights over the Arctic.

Such a route from Europe would lead to the Eastern tip of Russia directly or to some of the Pacific islands, where there's probably only very few direct flights to.

Building on @user34936's answer, it seems Condor's direct flight between Frankfurt-am-Main and Anchorage could fit the bill.

Obviously the exact 'north pol'e could be as big or small as you wanted - is it a pinpoint spot that you must fly over, or a larger area, for example.

Wikipedia now has a list of polar flights today , as defined officially as polar flights.

However, it's also worth noting that the definition of 'polar flights' has changed: The American Federal Aviation Administration now defines the North Polar area of operations as the area north of 78 deg north latitude, which is north of Alaska and most of Siberia.

The term "polar route" was originally more general, being applied to great circle routes between Europe and the west coast of North America in the 1950s.

There appear to be several routes that fit this criteria: Polar routes are now common on airlines connecting Asian cities (Bangkok, Beijing, Dubai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, New Delhi, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Taipei and Tokyo) to North American cities (New York, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver and Washington, D.C.).

Emirates flies nonstop from Dubai to the US West Coast (San Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles), coming within a few degrees of latitude of the North Pole.

How close to the north pole do you want to be?

Since it is just a where the Earth's axis of rotation meets its surface , you'd have to be pretty lucky to fly directly over it :)

Besides, transcontinental flights usually try to take advantage of the jet stream , so I think you'd be better off renting your own plane and crew.

Question: I always like flying to/from north America, since the route usually goes over Greenland. I do like the idea that I am only 10 km away from this  inaccessible  land. I would love to be able to say that I have been that close to the north pole. Unfortunately, so far my journeys remained to the more southern parts. Do airlines fly directly over the north pole and if so what route should I take to have the best chance?

Do airlines fly directly over the North Pole?

In order to fly over the north pole (or more broadly just the Arctic), you'd have to travel to a city that is approximately across the globe as then the shortest distance would go over the north pole. These polar routes are listed on Wikipedia and are most common on flights connecting Asian cities to North American cities, as well as from the Middle East to the American West Coast.

Flight that pass over the North Pole are usually those between Asian and North American cities, e.g. Emirates flight between Dubai and San Francisco. To find out which flight to get on, you can now check Wikipedia that has a list of polar flights.

The main routes that fly over the North Pole are those from Asian cities to North America. There are several airlines that fly these routes including Emirates.

To fly over the North Pole you need to fly to a place on the other side of the world from where you are. Wikipedia now lists polar flights.


Such a map is impossible, or at least it cannot be consistent.

It might be possible on a 3D map.

Mathematically, I think this is because you cannot form a consistent metric based on travel distance since it cannot always satisfy the triangle inequality.

For example, imagine you have a mountainous natural reserve with a resort town in the middle, and around it there are 3 cities.

The cities are linked by fast highways or train lines that encircle the nature reserve, so traveling between the cities takes only 1 hour.

Each city also has a slow, winding road over which the resort can be reached in 2 hours.

On your map, the resort has to be twice as far away from each of the cities as they are from each other - but still be located in their middle!

That's simply not geometrically possible.

Interesting question!

It is not necessarily an impossible task to create an informative visualization that will satisfy your information need.

Yes if you limit yourself to old-fashioned 2d plotting, but in the world of Hans Rosling and d3.js a lot becomes possible, as long as you have the data.

It might be impossible today, due to obscurity most of that data is currently hidden.

With the same way of thinking I asked a question on quora .

I wanted to know what an average drive-through speed is of a given highway/road/route.

Once you have that data you can easily represent distances in terms of time.

In answer given, Inrix traffic is mentioned.

Unfortunately, INRIX is limited to the US only and I didn't find their core data yet.

So for now I am afraid that there isn't a generic approach globally.

That will remain until more and more data becomes open data.

It's been done, and here it is: Courtesy Uchida, H. and Nelson, A. Agglomeration Index:

Towards a New Measure of Urban Concentration , who came up with this for the World Bank’s World Development Report 2009.

Large version here .

Now the major caveat that this map is done with a very simplified model : a city of at least 50,000 people is bright yellow, and as the distance from all cities increases, the color changes to red (24 hours from a major city) and then black (10 days).

The white lines are major cargo shipping routes, which is useful if you're a container, but less so if you're a human.

So this doesn't actually account for roads, flight routes, etc

, it just approximates them by assuming that lots of people = lots of transport options.

Fortunately this is mostly true, although it's not hard to find bugs: eg.

coastal Greenland and most of Papua New Guinea is actually fairly easily accessed by plane, whereas much of the Sahara is not, and traveling in India isn't as easy or quick as traveling in (say) central Europe.

(Edit: Oops, just realized SpaceDog already posted this in a comment several days ago.

But IMHO it's worth a full answer!)

For travel time maps that uses actual connectivity information, but only work in some cities, check out TriptropNYC (pretty, but very slow and NYC only),

Transit Time NYC (rougher approximations, fast, again NYC only) and Mapnificent (lots of cities, but only shows a 'boundary' of how far you can get in X minutes).

It isn't a printed thing you can hang on a wall, but Microsoft's Streets and Trips has an interesting feature that can give you something really close.

Given a starting point (and assuming an automobile), it can draw a polygon of all points that are a specified number of minutes away.

If I were to give it my address and say 60 minutes, it would calculate the distance along every possible route from that point, then connect the dots to make a polygon of that time.

As travel times are always between two points, you would really need to approximate time to travel in such a fashion.

Trying to get a paper version of this would require a single starting point in any event.

As such, you'd have to find a visualization for each point that you might want to start from in order to color code appropriately.

Because this doesn't lend itself to the economies of printing, you can safely assume the thing isn't available for purchase.

That said, it doesn't mean you couldn't build it and print it yourself using a tool like this.

Isochrone maps for a bunch of European cities: http://emptypipes.org/2015/05/20/europe-isochrone-map/

Question: Based on this question  I started wondering if there is a world map (or local maps) that reflect the distance between points in terms of time to travel and not Km or Miles.  I know such resource is not easy and it depends on a lot of variables. It will also show a completely different world. But I think it can be very useful to choose destinations and start high-level travel planning.

Is there a map or resource that represents the distance in terms of time instead of Km or Miles?

This kind of map would be impossible or too inconsistent to present as a map that you could hang on a wall, but isochrone maps are available, including for a bunch of European cities.

Some maps based on time rather than distance have been made. These include Agglomeration Index, Microsoft's Streets and Trips and Isochrone maps for European cities.

It is not possible to make a map based on time rather than distance.