One option you have is to find a shopping mall or a supermarket that offers a photo booth.

For instance, in the UK there is a chain called Photo-Me that sets up such booths in major shopping areas, and where you can get 'correct size' pictures printed for visas.

On a per picture basis this is an expensive option but nothing beats its ease-of-use.

A more DIY method is to use an online service - there are many; ePassportPhoto being one of the major ones - where you can upload a digital picture taken by yourself and then it formats the picture into the correct size for a passport / visa for a given country as multiples on standard photo printing sizes that are supported by photo print shops.

You can either get this printed directly by them (this is how they make money) or just download the file and take it to a print shop at your convenience.

The site also provides guidance on photo requirements (such as glasses on/off, etc).

You can take your own photo at home using the general passport photo guidelines here.

There are tips on how to prevent shadows at the background.

The following are the checklist for generating acceptable passport photos: Frame subject with full face, front view, eyes open, mouth closed Center head within frame Photograph subject against a plain white or off-white background; Usually using smooth white cloth as background should be OK.

Position subject and lighting so that there are no distracting shadows on the face or background Encourage subject to have a natural expression.

No smiling.

As reported by timesonline, smiling babies contributed to 400,000 passport applications being rejected by The UK Passport Service (UKPS) towards the end of 2005.

So no smiling, just natural expression.

Ensure light on the face is even.

After you take the photo, upload it to 123passportphoto and select Switzerland (Schweiz) in the country list.

According the information at Yahoo answers , Schengen visa photo is 45mm high x 35mm wide, which is the same as Switzerland passport photo size.

Next, crop your photo using the online crop tool.

You will get multiple passport photos on a 4R sheet.

Download the 4R sheet.

Print it at home or any drugstore such as Walgreen.

After spending hours running all over town, we found a rep at CVS that could do it.

He said most reps do not even know it is available to them.

They must use the Apex machine, NOT the machine that does US passports.

Give them the country you need or the dimensions.

35mm by 45 mm, not a problem.

They printed out a sheet of 8 for 13.99!!

It is always advisable to use 35×45mm sized photos for Schengen.

I know a friend who sent 2×2 inch photos, and they were rejected.

See the link here.

Some consulates accept 45×45mm, 50×50mm (which is like 2×2 inch).

The best source is the instructions you get with your visa application.

Regarding getting photos in, say, 35×45mm size, I would advise against sites like epassportphot.com etc.

who offer free online cropping.

Most of our photos are not that well taken, so you need a full service passport photo website like Online Passport Photo who will enhance exposure, remove shadows and fix your photos to make them look like professionally taken photos.

Log on to iPassportPhotos.com and follow the instructions for getting your passport or visa photos.

All instructions for "how to take photos for passport at home" and how to order, is given there.

We just have to follow the steps.

There are three simple steps to get passport or visa photos in any size, for any country.

You can use either a digi cam or a mobile app to shoot a good high res photo.

I used https://www.idphoto4you.com to generate a Schengen visa photo.

(35mm by 45 mm) and then used https://makepassportphoto.com to create a grid of photos.

Later you can print it like a normal photo at your nearest photo service station and request them to use the photo cutter.

Question: I have a simple question. Where can I take photos with Schengen standards in US? (FYI, I live in San Diego, CA). I tried Imprint and Fedex office. Both told me that they only take 2x2 inch photo which is specialized for American passport. For Schengen visa application, I need 6x4 cm photo.

Where to take photo for Schengen Visa?

You can find a shopping mall or supermarket that offers a photo booth, or take your own photo that meets the guidelines. Digital photos are easier for this purpose, as they can be uploaded to services like ePassportPhoto or iPassportPhotos that format the picture into the correct size for a passport/visa for a given country.

Online apps are recommended for getting your Schengen visa photo. You can take the actual photo at home using a digi cam or mobile app. An alternative is a photo booth in a shopping mall.

Find a shopping mall with a photo booth to ge a photo for Schengen visa.

You can take a photo at home for the Schengen visa using the general passport guidleines and a digi cam or mobile app.

There are online services that provide the photos for passports and visas.


Allow me to recommend traveljournal.net .

It is developed by me , while traveling the world and optimised for use on the road.

It has all the usual features : blog, photo albums, map (you can upload GPS-logs), secure document vault, etc.

One of the things that really sets it apart from other options?

no advertisements whatsoever and designed to work wherever you are, even when the internet connection is slower than sending a postcard .

It is continuously updated/developed by someone who actually travels around and uses the service himself.

I eat my own dogfood , so to say : ) Update

The answer from unor talks about ownership of the content.

With TravelJournal.net , the writers are and will always be the owner of all content they publish (provided they do not republish copyrighted materials offcourse).

Also, because many traveller manage their journals over insecure, often publicly shared networks (wifi, etc)

every journal comes standard with SSL/TLS security build in.

So, whenever you login or otherwise perform any sensitive action, your connection is secured with the same level of encrypted as web shops use (or at least, they should) to secure payment transactions.

but there are a lot of blogs online about that stuff

and it seems pointless to add another.

There are never enough blogs on any topic.

See http://the-pastry-box-project.net/chris-coyier/2013-january-2/ .

What things to consider especially for travel blogs?

the backend (where you create your content and config your blog) should be accessible from mobile devices; if it's no fun / not easy, you'll probably don't post so much if a problem occurs, you should be able to handle/fix it on tour (or contact someone who can do it for you) backups should be done automatically

(e.g. send a database dump daily to a separate mail account) if you use internet cafés and/or untrusted networks

, your password could be stolen; don't use an admin account to post/edit content; but have admin login available for emergencies (e.g. to delete compromised user accounts) good suggestion by Andra : functionality to add new posts by email Self-hosting vs. 3rd party service Self-hosting advantages

you get exactly what you want

it's your content, you have full control,

you can backup it (some services allow this, too, but not all) no policies, no censorship, no rules, no service terms you can fix any problems yourself (and don't have to wait for the provider to do it) you can create/use accounts with lesser privileges

(security) disadvantages costs more time costs money (hosting) need to know that stuff (resp.

dig into it)

you have to update the software yourself (security) you need to fix any problems yourself ;)

3rd party service advantages

no setup, no configuration, no updates (usually) no costs disadvantages might not offer exactly what you need; customization possibilites are limited you don't "own" your content; (often) no backup possibility you have to respect their service terms (often) ads

you can't do anything if it goes down

(often) you have only one account; if your password is stolen, your account is lost risk of being deleted (for no reason), risk that the service might shut down forever

I would go for an "email approach".

Different blog platforms seem to support this feature, where you can provide the content for your blog by email.

I am an avid user of Posterous . , but I was told that wordpress plugins exist that do the same.

The workflow is easy, you post a blog by posting it to post@posterous.com.

Photo's, films and the like are added as attachment to the mail.

You register by sending an initial mail.

On the first email, your emailaddress is registered and you will get a respons explaining the following email.

Personally I dislike custom made blog platforms, for the simple reason that they often requires instant and good internet access, an asset not alway available while traveling.

With an email approach you can blog while being offline, by just writing an email in an offline email client such as Outlook, mail, eudora, thunderbird, etc.

The moment you have access, posting your content is just as simple as pressing "submit" or "send".

Especially in the case you need to buy internet time on an hourly base (internet cafe, paid wifi), you don't want to lose that time on writing blog content.

Weather or not

it is worthwhile, definitely!

You are right that there are many blogs around, but there is no such thing as "the" traveler, so the more blogs the merrier.

I am saying this because I am getting a lot if not

most inspiration and information form personal blogs.

Jekyll , or similar.

This generates the website on your computer, which means you can write and edit everything offline, like in your tent anywhere, and then upload it when a connection is available.

It also means you can write with a proper text editor, not some textbox in a webpage.

There's a third-party solution out there that's specific to bike touring journals: Crazy Guy on a Bike is a solution for touring cyclists to post journals.

It's also a community of touring cyclists.

There are forums and classified ads, and, most importantly, thousands of journals already hosted.

You can host photos there, and embed videos and maps.

Question: I am planning on going on a long distance bike tour, and I want to have a good website to blog on, post photos, twitter tweets, and videos. Does anyone have any advice for whether I should build it myself, or pay someone else. Is it worth it or should I just keep a personal journal? I do feel like it would be cool to communicate online, but there are a lot of blogs online about that stuff and it seems pointless to add another.

If I want to make a website of a long bike tour, should I make my own website or pay some one to do it for me?

You can try a blog platform where you can provide the content for your blog by email, or try  Crazy Guy on a Bike, which is a solution specifically designed for touring cyclists to post journals.

A cycling blog can be created using a platform that supports email uploading of content. Moreover, there is a solution specially made for cycling blogs called Crazy Man on a Bike. Keep blogging, there are never too many blogs.

Some blog platforms support an email approach where you can upload your content via email.

There is a special solution for cycling blogs called Crazy Guy on a Bike.


With small children, the only thing you can do is keep your attention on them at all times (to prevent accidents as much as losing them).

For older children or adults, nowadays the best way is for everyone to bring a cell phone (or buy a cheap prepaid one locally).

And as a fallback, agree in advance on an easy-to-find place where you'll meet if you lose each other.

In addition to the other answers, when I go with groups we always set a meeting point every time we go out to a new place.

A landmark or an easy place to reach will be perfect meeting points.

So if anyone is lost he/she directly will go there, the rest will go there as well in case some members are missing.

For kids, always teach kids the name of the hotel, so if they got lost the police can deliver them there directly or at least contact the hotel.

Another tip is to each one carry a map and to know how to back to hotel.

In case of visiting places crowded with big chances to get lost, is important to combine before a point to meet.

If it doesn't works, don't despair, at night you can find each one in hotel.

I've found a walkie talkie to be a very useful addition when hiking.

However: This might not be the ideal solution if you're in a place where reception might be weak.

I also don't think that a strap/buckle is a good idea, especiall in large crowds.

You're going to annoy other people when they're getting cought in your "setup" or you might even hurt yourself.

Bad idea.

No matter what you choose for staying in contact, you always should have a backup meeting point.

It's not that hard remembering "If we get separated, we'll meet at XYZ at 17:00".

As a side note: I prefer not to enforce the "let's stay together" rule.

In a crowded area this simply puts you under a lot of stress.

You constantly check whether your party is still with you and forget enjoying the experience of just "being there".

Give yourself some slack and arrange something

kike

"We'll try staying together

but if you wanna take a look at X or get stopped by Y then we'll meet again in two hours at Z".

A lot more enjoyable.

Of course this doesn't work that well with small children :)

I disagree with the other uses in a meeting place or a map.

Those are great ideas but eventually you're going to forget.

You're traveling, you're always in new places, seeing new things.

I would suggest getting a 1990's brick phone and traveling with that.

They last like 140 hours of battery life

so that's normally not an issue.

They are cheap, SIM cards are relatively cheap for a small pre paid one.

That way you can get in contact with each other regardless of where you got separated.

As the other people suggested, you should know where you're staying but cell phones are the best safety device in the world in my opinion.

Even in the age of mobiles there is always the possibility you will lose each other.

The country may not have many cells (third world), the connection can be bad(silent zones) or the country uses another band / is prohibitively expensive.

So what we need is a simple rule: If someone get lost, wait a predetermined amount of time (I used 15 minutes) at the last position all people were together !

Both people do know then how long to wait and if there is a chance you will meet easily.

But there is the possibility you cannot use the rule because you are traveling longer.

After that it depends what were you planning.

If both parties are independent(each has money, papers, but perhaps not the hotel keys), you will meet at thehotel in 3 hour intervals (12:00, 15:00, 18.00...).

If a party is dependent on the other and the 15 minute time interval failed,both parties will march straight to the main railway station at the main entrance .

If the location has no railway station (village), use the mostconspicous object inside the village (which will be here in Europe mostly a church).

At night time use the police station.

Although we had our share of disagreeing bystanders, we were quite happy with our buckles .

When it comes to small children you should care less what bystanders.

Question: Whether traveling with a child or friend, especially in large crowds, should one take precautions to avoid losing someone?  I will be backpacking, so packing light is important; however, I still thought it would might be necessary for me to get something like a walkie talkie. I have even considered using a strap/buckle and attaching it to the other person. This sounds ridiculous, but losing someone would ruin a great portion of the trip.

How to avoid losing someone while traveling?

A strap/buckle is probably not a good idea, especially in crowds. Instead, keep your attention on small chilren at all times to prevent accidents or losign them. Always teach kids the name of the hotel and arrange a meeting place in advance. A walkie talkie or cellphone is often the best way for older children or adults to stay in contact.

Most older children and adults can find each other again after getting lost using a mobile phone or walkie talkie. However, technology can fail so a backup plan, such as a meeting point, is recommended. When travelling with children, always keep an eye on them and make sure they know the name of your hotel.

When travelling with children, it is important to pay attenetion to them all the time. Children should always know the name of your hotel, in case they get lost.

Older children and adults can generally find each other using a mobile phone, walkie talkie or brick phone.

Technology can sometimes fail, so always have a meeting point as a backup plan.


In fact there is one - I don't think it's very well known though.

It's been around no more than about a year or two I think.

hostelzoo - Search and Compare Hostels /

A free hostel price comparison tool

Here are the claims they make on their front page:

Hostelzoo is the world’s largest marketplace for hostels.

We offer a free search and comparison service to our customers allowing them to book the right hostel at the best price.

Every hostel in the world that is available to book online is listed on our site.

We utilise the booking engines Hostelworld, HostelBookers, HostelsClub and Gomio to provide the most comprehensive listing available.

Hostels, Backpackers, Youth Hostels and Budget Accommodation, if they take online bookings, they can be found here.

Disclosure: I'm not involved in this project but a former employer of mine is.

No, not if you need anything near completeness

The other answers list some sites, but those are very incomplete .

For example, the Swedish Youth Hostel association members alone has 2–3 members in Kiruna , one in Luleå , one in Umeå , all can be booked online through webforms or e-mail.

None of the search engines listed in other answers list any of those, and no youth hostel I have ever stayed in is.

My only recommendation is to search specifically through the web, through tourist office websites, or through country-specific websites.

Norway has the extensive Reiselivsdatabasen (includes many categories of accommodation, including one for youth hostels and similar low-budget backpacker style), in Sweden many — but not all

— youth hostels are a member of the Swedish Youth Hostel association , and otherwise, it depends per country.

Perhaps the search engines are particularly incomplete for Sweden and Norway and more complete for other countries or larger cities — I have not made a thorough study.

You might find something through them, but do not conclude from a lack of results that there are no hostels.

Hostelz.com is the metasearch engine for hostels.

It combines information from Hostelworld, Hostelbookers, Hostels.com, Gomio, Hostelsclub, Priceline, and HI Hostels and lets you search for available beds and compare prices from all of the booking sites at once, and also shows you how the hostels are rated in each of the sites.

It also lists hostels that aren't in any of the booking websites, and includes directly contact info for the hostels (which the booking sites also don't offer).

It also has both user reviews and professional reviews (with photos).

The site has been online since 2002.

Here is a short list of the most popular sites to book hostels, but I don't know of meta-search websites, as there are not that many search engines: HI Hostels hostels.com hostelworld.com hostelbookers.com

Note that not all hostels are listed on all these sites, usually.

Also note that the last three websites are all owned by Web Reservations International , that might explain why there is no meta-search engine.

I actually find that on booking.com , when you do a search, you can choose between: hotels hostels apartments guesthouses b&bs vacation rentals

So as long as you check that, it'll search a variety of hostels as well.

However, personally I still find: hostelbookers.com hostelworld.com hihostels.com are the main three that find anything worth finding, in my experience.

Question: Is there a site such as kayak, but for hostels instead? There's so many different hostel booking websites, I don't even know where to start.  If there isn't such a site, what is the recommended course of action on finding and booking the most suitable hostel? (Suitable to mean what's needed for one's own needs.)

Is there a metasearch engine for hostels?

Hostelzoo are Hostelz.com are large search engines for hostels, and booking.com allows you to choose hostels or other accommodation types. Hostelbookers.com, hostelworld.com, hihostels.com and hostels.com are also popular sites.

There is a metasearch engine for hostels as well as specialist sites for hostels. In addition, booking.com also has an option for searching for hostels.

There is a metasearch engine for hostels called hostelzoo or hostelz.com. Booking.com also offers an option to search for hostels.

There are some specialist hostel sites, including hostelworld.com and hostelbookers.com


The simple answer is that it's because the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) - the global organisation that is responsible for settings standards for passports - recommends that they should be valid for no more than 10 years.

For example, the ICAO " Guide for Assessing Security of Handling and Issuance of Travel Documents " states that : Passport Validity Period

Recommended Practice 3.16 - Contracting States should normally providethat such passports be valid for a period of at least five years…Note1 —

In consideration of the limited durability of documents and thechanging appearance of the passport holder over time, a validityperiod of not more than ten years is recommended Of course the question then becomes why does ICAO have such a requirement!

In addition to the obvious reason that the biometric data on the passport (at a minimum, the photo) will be out of date after a period of time, the primary reason for expiring passports is likely to be that it allows the underlying technology to change without there being too many legacy passports in circulation.

For example, most countries started implementing "Machine Readable Passports" in the 1980's.

Given a maximum expiry of 10 years, that meant that by the year 2000 it could be guaranteed that people from most countries had an MRP, and thus countries could start to enforce their use - such as how the US did in the mid-2000's.

If passports had a 20+ year expiry, then even today there wouldn't be a guarantee that people would have MRPs.

The same is true for "electronic" passports.

For example, Australia started issuing these in 2005, which means by the end of 2015 countries will be able to enforce that Australian passports must be electronic.

Expiring passports also reduces the number of stolen/forged/etc passports in circulation - both due to the expiry of those that are in circulation, but also by enforcing newer anti-forgery standards for new passports.

First, the answer that states that passports expire because of ICAO rules is wrong, ICAO annex 9 (Facilitation) section 3.5.4 regarding passports is: 3.5.4 Recommended Practice.

— Contracting Statesshould issue passports with an initial period of validity of atleast five years, valid for an unlimited number of journeys andfor all countries, except in special circumstances. and section 3.5.5: 3.5.5 Recommended Practice.

— Contracting Statesshould institute simple procedures for the renewal orreplacement of passports and grant the same period of validityfor the new or renewed passport as for the initial issue.

So, there is no global limitation of the passport validity, there is a recommendation of 5 years initial validity.

There are some countries issue passports for 3 years, some other issue passports with a validity that exceeds 10 years.

It totally depends on the country, still most of them are following ICAO recommendations and issue passports of 5 years.

The reasons are: As in driving licenses, national IDs and other photo IDs, people's looks change over time.

So a fresh photo is required every few years to keep things up to date.

For some countries there are the security measures, the longer the passport design stays the same, the bigger the chance of fraud is.

Economic reasons, making more jobs.

Renewing passports is not free, the money for the passports are usually much more than the actual cost of passport while there is another recommendation by ICAO regarding this

but few countries follow that: 3.5.6 Recommended Practice.

If any fee is chargedfor the issue or renewal of a passport, the amount of such feeshould not exceed the cost of the operation.

finally, ICAO recommends the renewal of passports every few years, which is recommended to be five years as mentioned above.

The biggest reason.

Your appearance changes with age, so the fresh picture is needed.

In addition to the other answers, there may be laws local to the issuing countries.

For example, Germany prohibits creating unique identification numbers for people.

If the passport or ID card number would remain unchanged for a greater amount of time, this number could be used as an identification number (as citizens get at most one ID card and two passports), so documents with new, unrelated numbers have to be issued every ten years, and any documentation about the old number deleted from government databases as soon as the document is marked invalid (non-government databases are forbidden from storing the number at all).

The main motivation for passports to have an expiry date is to minimize identity fraud.

Not all immigration authorities are able to take extra identity check measures, and if passports expire in a reasonable amount of time, chances of identity fraud such as travelling on stolen passports will decrease.

Another reason is that, if passports expire, people will get new passports.

Because passport designs are updated, passport expiry will force people to get the new passports.

Updating the photo probably is not the biggest reason.

After all, photos are far from a reliable method to verify identity, and states/regions also rely on other measures to verify the person's identity, e.g. taking fingerprints at visa issuance & checking it at the border control (like the US).

Also, identity documents that never expire are not unseen (such as the Hong Kong Permanent Resident Identity Card).

The ethical reasons are: To update biometric information (photo) To permit adoption of new technology To minimize fraud

Question: Based on  this question , why do passports expire? What possible function does it serve to limit their validity in time?

Why do passports expire?

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) - the global organisation that is responsible for settings standards for passports - recommends that they should be valid for no more than 10 years.  The ethical reasons are: to update biometric information (photo), to permit adoption of new technology, and to minimise fraud such as travelling on stolen passports.

The International Civil Aviation Authority issues recommendations on passport validity, probably in an attempt to minimize fraud. However, as people's appearance changes over time, the need for a new photo could be another reason. Furthermore, updating the passport technology could be why passports need to be renewed every 5 to 10 years.

International Civil Aviation Authority makes recommendations about passports including their validity. Probably the main reason for this is to prevent fraud.

Appearance and the need for a new photo may or may not be the main reason for passports expiring.

Updating the passport os the main reason for it expiring.


One option would be to take easy bus from the airport to Baker street, London: From there you can take the Route Bus N205 from Stop D towards Stratford International.

Visit Transport for London to see all you options to getting from Baker Street to King Cross.

There is a night bus from Liverpool Street to Kings Cross N205 , so you can get to Liverpool Street with a train or a bus, and then take this bus.

Also, there is a taxi stand near Liverpool Street station, it should be reasonably easy to find a black cab there, it is not far from there (around 3 miles), so the cost should be <£15.

If nothing else works, it is 50 min walk according to Google maps.

The National Rail website says: TRANSFER 01:21 London Liverpool Street [LST]

London Kings Cross [KGX] 01:57

0h 36m

During times when the London Underground Network is closed customers are advised to use either Taxis or the Night Bus Network to continue their journey.

If you use the TfL journey planner it advises taking the 242 to City Thameslink and then the N63.

If you would prefer a single bus (saves money and is probably more reliable) you can replan the journey to minimise changes; this gives the N205 which runs every half hour.

From 2015 you will be able to make this journey on the Night Tube , taking the Central Line to change at Holborn and then the Piccadilly Line to Kings Cross.

From Stanstead to Liverpool Street you have it covered already, and once you are in at Liverpool Street, yeas 205 Bus all day/

all night - straight to Kings Cross.

When you are in London and need to check any travel arrangements, got to Transprot For London, http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/

this will save you a lot of time, there is also transit routes in google maps which are linked to the TFL data so either are good when you are on the go.

Make sure you don't spend too much time underground, you will defo cut down lots of journey times by walking or getting the bus, taxis are expensive too.

Oh and get an OYSTER card if you don't have one already otherwise you'll pay lots more to travel.

Question: Besides Taxi, how can i get from Stansted Airport to Kings Cross London after 12am? As I will arrive Stansted from Pisa at 11:30pm that late.  I have checked the national rail website, it guides me to take train to Liverpool street, followed by tube to Kings cross (leaving at 01:21). However, the last tube I checked on the tube website is 00:48. It's so confusing.

How to get from Stansted Airport to Kings Cross London after 12am

You can take Easybus to Baker Street or Liverpool Street in London, and bus N205 from there towards Stratford International. There is also a taxi stand near Liverpool Street Station, and the cost from there should be <£15.

You can find out how to get from Stansted Airport to King's Cross using the Transport for London website. There are two options available: Easybus to Bakers Street and N205 to King's Cross or train to Liverpool Street and then N205 or taxi to King's Cross.

To get from Stansted Airport to King's Cross at night use a combination of easy bus and bus N205 or take a train to Liverpool Street and N205 bus to King's Cross. Taxis are also available at Liverpool Street.

Transport for London will show you all the options.


If your parents travel with either a tablet or a computer you could consider using Skype-out to call landlines and mobile phones world wide.

Schiphol has decent Wifi connection throughout the airport.

With each device that you have with you, you can use the Wifi offered for 30 minutes twice.

So simply hook on to the Internet and call the phone numbers with your skype app.

You might suggest bringing a headset.

According to the Schiphol website there are a some public phones throughout the airport.

You will need a credit card, or euro coins.

Seeing the prices, I think it is far easier to have them call you by their mobile phone, or maybe send a text message.

Public telephones Public telephones are available throughout Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

They work on coins, a telephone card or credit card.

For the exact locations, please contact the information desks in the terminal.

The following rates apply for the use of public telephones at Schiphol:

The starting rate Telephone card € 0,00 Coins

€ 0,50

In addition to the starting rate, you pay a rate per minute.

This rate depends on the dialed destination.

Rates per minute •

The Netherlands € 1,00 per minute • Europe & North America € 1,75 per minute • Other Countries € 2,75 per minute Be aware that paying by credit card makes a phone call substantially more expensive Credit card payment:

Within the Netherlands: € 5,00 starting rate and € 1.00 for each additional minute

Having tried to connect at different airports in the world, including Schiphol, I would suggest to use their mobile phone for a very short message.

Either a text message or a one minute phone call will not break the bank and it will be easy, what they are used to and no fumbling with things in a different language or tradition.

Schiphol Wifi has English as one of the working languages but it will not be what they are used to.

And being reminded of the use of phones the old ways, just have them call your number and disconnect after a few rings, you not picking up the phone.

The number will show and you can safely assume they are somewhere they can call.

If they want to speak to you they can call a second time, where you will make the connection.

I personally think it is not worth it, international calls on mobile phones so much cheaper than intercontinental calls used to be.

When you are in the airport for a longer time, have adjusted and relaxed, you can still log on and use whatever online or app communication you are usually using.

I have seen the pay phones at Schiphol, they are expensive but if you as traveler are stuck without other means of communicating, you can still use them.

I would only use them as last resort, way after logging on and own phone on international use.

If you have network access with your smartphone (and the answer from @andra) suggest you will), I would recommend SmartVoip ( https://www.smartvoip.com/ ).

You need to buy credit before using it, with a minimum of 12 euros (about $16), but their rates are really cheap.

And, if you are calling to US you're lucky, as calls are free both to mobile and landline for 90 days.

I'm a user of this service for years and it is really awesome.

I use it to call to Ecuador with a low rate, or to Spain, UK and Germany for free (in these cases free only to landlines).

The quality of calls is excellent with a decent connection and with 3G works flawlessly.

Their best bet is to use the wifi with a smartphone VOIP service such as: T-mobile VOIP calling (easiest) or www.callcentric.com.

Good (but limited) alternatives for non-US travellers include: WhatsApp and Apple Facetime.

If the tactic is to use wifi, then one must consider the wifi limiations imposed by the airport.

If the parents have T-mobile simple choice plan, then text messaging is no charge and roaming calls are $0.2 per min via cellular: no charge through UMA / IMA voip calling.

If your concern is high: then may I suggest that you buy a TMO SIM card, exercise it in the US FIRST (important) and then mail it to them.

That way you can be in constant contact and you can call them the moment they hit the landing strip.

They can also use the SIM during their visit.

Did I mention that 3G data is include when roaming with TMO in the NL (I have verified this)?

I suggest that they practice with the wifi at home to ensure that when they hit the airport: all the learning / bugs should be worked out before arriving at Schiphol

Question: My parents are travelling to the US for the first time and have not ever been on international travels. They have a layover in Schiphol and I want them to contact me. I have never personally transited through Schiphol and do not know how things work there. What would be the options to call from there? Would they need to buy a calling card? Any idea of how much it would cost?

Calling USA from Schiphol (Amsterdam)

If they travel with a tablet or computer, you could consider using  Skype-out  to call landlines and mobile phones world wide. For smartphones, use a smartphone VOIP service like T-Mobil or Callcentric.com. Schiphol has decent Wifi connection throughout the airport with English as one of the working languages, and you can use the Wifi offered for 30 minutes twice per device. if using the Wifi, consider the limitations imposed by the airport. Another option is to use their mobile phone for a quick call or text, or use the public phones throughout the airport.

Calling from Schiphol can be done in many ways. Firstly, there are public phones at the airport. Secondly, there is airport WiFi so Skype calls can be made. However, for older people, it is probably better they use a device and system they are familiar with to avoid problems.

Older people travelling for the first time could use the airport WiFi and a tablet, phone computer to make a Skype call or a VOIP call with a smartphone.

It would probably be easiest for older people to use devices they are familiar with. Connecting to the airport WiFi may cause problems and the connection is not always the best.


Assuming they are not code sharing the identical flight :-).

While I have flown frequently in recent years, the following are "common sense" conjectures, not information based on knowledge of the deep inner workings of the system - as will be obvious when you read them.

Delta may be more honest or realistic than Air France.

Pilots quite frequently announce "we are eg 15 minutes earlier / later than expected due to ...".

Usually head or tail winds.

The mean or the median or the 3rd quartile or ...

trip times may all be valid figures to use.

The two airlines may use a different terminal at one or both ends with different taxi and processing times.

An airline may choose to fly a less aggressive more fuel efficient flight profile.

As boarding time is affected by actual departure time the airline MAY choose to alter projected departure times to manage passenger expectations.

I had meant to add (honest :-) ), but forgot, and it was pointed out by others subsequently - aircraft capabilities may differ.

Apparently, fastest by a nose, you'll get is ~+ 0.86 mach in a 747-400.

That's probably air speed

so ground speed will vary with altitude and wind speed.

There are various cost/speed tradeoffs and some aircraft will reward their operators more with lower speeds.

See list of claimed cruising speeds as a fraction of mach 1 at end of this post.

They may have different security arrangements.

For example, on some flights that I have taken, at some airports QANTAS have their own portable XRay machine and re XRay passengers luggage at the gate.

You'd not expect this to affect shown transit time but it could depending how they determine these figures.

Optimum cruising speeds:

These speeds are user supplied from a discussion here .

This provides a short but useful comment on variation of mach 1 with altitude.

Boeing 747-400

0.86 Boeing 787 0.85 Boeing 777 0.84 Boeing 767 0.80 Boeing 757 0.80 Boeing 737 -800 0.78 Boeing 737 - 300/400/500 0.74 Airbus 380 0.85 Airbus 340 -300/600 0.82 Airbus 330 0.82 Airbus 320 0.78 Airbus 310 0.78 McDonnell MD-11 0.85

The differing durations are a result of the aircraft that are used to fly the route by the two airlines.

Delta uses a Boeing 757 aircraft while the Air Frances uses the slightly faster Boeing 747 and Boeing 777 aircraft on this route.

Depending on plane ETOPS, route can be different, even if the planes have the same engine number.

777 has quite a big ETOPS... edit: To add some explanation.

ETOPS (Extended range Twin Operations) is a rule which allows 2 engine planes to fly over oceans.

Depending on how strongly the manufacturers promise that their engines are reliable the plane may be certified to fly routes where they are upto 120, 180, 330 minutes from the nearest airport.

A flight from the USA to Europe wouldn't normally be very much longer even for 120min ETOPS.

While this is just as much of an educated guess as all of the other answers, I would suspect that part of it is probably due to congestion at one or both terminals at the scheduled times of day.

You can see this effect even on domestic flights.

Even for the same cities on the same airline with the exact same model of aircraft, it's not unusual for scheduled durations even on domestic routes to vary by 5-15 minutes depending on time of day, especially at major hubs (which both Boston and CDG are.)

I do suspect that aircraft type also has something to do with it in this particular case, though.

As other answers have mentioned, the 757 cruises a bit slower than the 777 or 747 (at 35,000 ft: Mach 0.80 for 757 vs. Mach 0.84 for 777 or 747-400 .)

Edit:

My answer originally stated that the 757 was limited to 120 minute ETOPS (e.g. that it was required to stay within 120 minutes of a potential diversionary field.)

However, according to Boeing , 757-200s (both RR and P&W engine configurations) were upgraded to 180 Minute ETOPS certification.

I have updated the map below from gcmap to show areas where the 757 is allowed to fly under 180-minute ETOPS, which includes the entire North Atlantic.

As such, the 757-200 is not limited on where it can fly between BOS and CDG by ETOPS regulations, so ETOPS shouldn't be a factor in why the Delta flight takes longer.

Different airlines will estimate different times based on their own data.

As such, it is reasonable to expect a few minutes variation from one airline to the next.

Large variations between flights at significantly different times of the day can also occur (even for the same airline).

This is often due to the congestion of planes at peak times of day.

I recall an article (that I can't find at the moment) that noted one airline had more than an hour of extra time for a particular route that arrived at a very busy airport.

The same route earlier in the day didn't need the extra buffer.

For the example you illustrated, the flights nearly overlap.

However, the Delta flight leaves at 7:00 (a peak traffic time).

It could easily be that the Delta flight is anticipating sitting in "heavy traffic" waiting to take off.

Since departure times are based on the time leaving the gate and entering the queue to take off, this causes a longer flight.

Likewise, 7:00 AM might be a higher traffic time than 8:00 AM for the arrival airport.

I have observed within Europe , that some airlines tend to overestimate the duration that their flights take, for flights of 2:30 duration of around 10-12 minutes.

This way, even if there's unexpected delay, the plane will still arrive on time.

A pilot once told me that this has behavioral reasons .

People don't mind being a bit late, but being a bit later than expected, that's the worst!

Whether Delta does that, and to what extend they do this with long-distance flights, I am unaware of.

Question: I am looking at flights from Boston to Paris and I see that there are two non-stop flights with different travel duration:   For this itinerary, Air France takes 6h40 while Delta takes 7h04.  Why don't they have the same travel duration? Is it typically due to the type of airplane, the route, or something else?   Another example (2h10 difference):

Why can two different airlines have different travel durations for the same itinerary?

They may have different aircraft, flight profiles, security arrangements, taxi and processing times, departure and arrival terminals or levels of congestion at their scheduled departure and arrival times. Delta may also be more honest or realistic than Air France.

There are many reasons for a different flight time for the same route. Airlines may base their estimates on different criteria. There may be different conditions depending on the terminal used for departure and arrival. Airlines have different security arrangements. Finally, the flight profile chosen affects the travel time.

Airlines may have different security arrangements.

Airlines may use a more fuel efficient flight profile.

Airlines may use different routes or allow for waiting in heavy traffic to take off.

Travel time is estimated and airlines may estimate allowing for different things.

Airlines may face different conditions depending on the terminal used for departure-arrival.


External drives (or internal ones - same drive, different case) will have zero problems with commercial air travel.

X-rays don't affect them, and any in-flight vibrations capable of damaging a disk drive will also destroy the airplane.

Now that's assuming it's turned off.

Running drives don't like to be knocked around, but that applies on your desk too.

As Ital mentioned altitude is a factor for spinning drives, but the altitude limits are well above standard cabin pressure.

If the yellow masks pop out of the ceiling it's time to put your computer away anyway, as you will be landing very soon.

So unless you drop it down the stairs, or it falls off the baggage cart and gets run over by an aircraft tug, it will be fine.

Quoting this , this , and this : External disks are no different that internal disks, in terms of media and components.

Laptops have been going through X-Ray machines for decades without incident, so I see no issue with external drives doing the same safely.

It seems you have done your homework already.

The most crucial part is to avoid shocks which is why it is better to handle it yourself..

Turbulence can occur regardless, so it is best to keep hard disk drives padding in bubble-wrap or foam.

An anti-static bag would also help with an unexpected electric discharge, just to be safe.

The only additional caution I can suggest, is keeping them off .

This parks the head and is safer.

On most flights though, a hard-drive will generally operate safely as the cabin is pressurized quite well on modern aircraft except for very small ones.

When the pressure goes below about 68kpa, small-platter (2.5" & 1.8")

HDDs often fail.

A 3.5" one usually work as low as 56kpa.

This is why there is a maximum altitude rating of 10,000' for small drives and 15000' for standard ones.

You can also use storage case bags that are specifically designed to carry external hard drives such as this one :

Been travelling worldwide with my 3 Samsung 500 gig HDD's for over 5 yrs now and never experienced a problem.

Airport scanners include LAX, JFK, HKIA, Ben Gurion, and the dreaded "heathrow" (don't go there!!).

Modern hard drives put their heads in a safe position when the device is powered off.

This reduces the chances that moderate shocks damage the platters, contrary to what happens when a spinning drive is shocked.

As pointed out, the shock required to damage a hard disk that is powered off is enough to show visible damage.

The disk may have to call from the baggage store towards the floor.

At that point, a lot of different hardware will be compromised as well.

I still recommend bubbles anyway.

Question: I plan to take a few external hard drives from Boston to Paris (air travel). How can I safely transport them? Beyond backing them up, bubble wrapping them and taking them as in cabin-luggage, what else can I do to reduce the likelihood of damage? I am mostly afraid of screening machines and in-flight vibrations.

How to safely transport external hard drives during air travel?

As with laptops, x-rays will not harm them and normal in-flight vibrations will not be enough to damage them. The most crucial part is to avoid shocks which is why it is better to handle it yourself. An anti-static bag will help with an unexpected electric discharge, and it may be worth keeping them off.

X-rays do not represent a hazard for hard drives. Shocks, on the other hand, can damage them as can static so an anti-static bag is recommended. It is considered a good idea to keep them switched off while flying.

External hard drives are not affected by X-rays or the vibrations experienced in planes.

Avoiding shocks and static  is important, so an anti-static bag may be a good idea. It is safer to keep them switched off.


To deal with your various questions: Yes you can bring your car into Amish country .

While the area is home to many Amish families it is not run along Amish lines.

There are roads and shops and all the usual things you would find.

If you have actual business on an Amish farm then they are OK with you driving onto it, just as you would visiting any other private property.

Amish understand the modern world and its gadgets.

Choosing not to use specific technologies is not based on ignorance (nor, by the way, do they believe "technology is evil").

It is not illegal to take photographs but it is terribly impolite , just as you would probably consider it impolite if a whole bunch of tourists followed you down the street photographing you while you were going about your normal business.

The Amish are not tourist attractions and dislike being treated as such.

Some Amish do have religious objections to being in photographs, and you may find that if you point a camera at them some will turn away from you.

However you will not be arrested for taking photographs - you will just hugely annoy the people involved.

Amish are not hostile to strangers.

Hospitality and tolerance are part of their beliefs.

However they are also private about their beliefs and their lifestyle.

Behaving impolitely will not endear yourself to them.

Please try to avoid it.

Finally - please read up a bit about the people and their lifestyle before you visit.

You will get a lot more out of it.

I actually listened to a podcast on the Amish a couple of weeks ago, based on this article on Howstuffworks .

I'd recommend it for some solid background.

They're not idiots - they do have education, and they know fully what a camera is, but choose not to use them.

They generally would prefer you not to take photos - as DJClayworth said, imagine tourists taking photos of you while you were going to work or whatever.

Their faith and lifestyle means they're very open and hospitable, and from the sounds of it would have a very interesting perspective on life, if you chose to engage with them and find out more.

Not that I could live entirely in that lifestyle, but after the podcast, I could understand their views on some matters.

You're not dealing with idiots or religious fanatics.

Them not participating in modern conveniences doesn't mean that they don't know what those are.

There are sites like: Lancaster PA PA Dutch Country and various reviews and posts on Trip Advisor that will help you to plan your trip.

And just for kicks Amish are not a uniform group , so there are variations on practices.

Having grown up in a similar conservative Anabaptist community and now living near a large Amish community, here is my $0.02.

Rental car--absolutely!

As other answers point out, members of Amish communities own their homes/farms but not the roads.

Of course, be aware of the alternative transportation modes you will see, and slow down for buggies, scooters, bicycles and pedestrians.

Remember also that most horses do not appreciate cars coming too close to them--keep a nice distance away from them to avoid causing accidents.

Cameras--if you try to take photos without permission, you are likely to have the unsettling experience of having the Amish turn their back on you.

This is not because they do not know what cameras are or because they believe photography is evil, but because they take literally the Biblical injunction not to create an 'image' of anything.

If you choose to take photos anyway, it is respectful to do so discreetly and make sure there are no recognizable faces in your photos.

Finally, realize that these are people just like you, who have chosen to live a very different lifestyle.

They are friendly but reserved, and most members of these communities will do their best to answer your questions provided you are polite and respectful.

The other answers here are good, but don't fully address the photography question with the attention I believe it deserves.

Many (perhaps most)

Amish do actually have a religious prohibition against photography, and thus will likely be actually more offended by the taking of photographs than the average person being treated as a tourist spectacle.

This article discusses the issue.

The religious prohibition comes from the Biblical prohibition against "graven images."

How strictly this is interpreted will vary widely (not just among Amish, obviously).

Your best bet is not to take any photographs where people will be recognizable, or to ask permission first (but be prepared to have your request rejected).

Question: Am I allowed to bring my rental car into Amish country?Do they allow cameras for pictures? Will they understand what cameras are?   I know it's a very agrarian area but that's about it.    Is this a community that tends to be welcoming, tolerant, or resentful of outsiders who are passing through and exploring their part of the country?

Traveling to Amish country

Amish people are not ignorant of the modern world and are not hostile to strangers, so you can bring your car into Amish country. It is not illegal to take photos, but Amish are not tourist attractions and it could be considered annoying and rude if you followed them down the street photographing them while they were going about their normal business. Finally - please read up a bit about the people and their lifestyle before you visit.

It is not considered a problem to take modern gadgets into Amish areas. However, care should be exercised when taking photographs as many Amish have religious objections to having their photograph taken. It is considered best to ask permission before taking photos. Reading about the people and lifestyle before travelling is a good idea.

Taking a car into Amish country is not a problem. The Amish are not hostile to strangers, nor religious fanatics. They know what modern gadgets are, they just choose not to use them.

Taking photographs in Amish country is not illegal but it is a good idea to ask permission first as some Amish dislike it for religious reasons and others may simply turn their back.

It is recommended to read about the people and lifestyle before visiting.


TA Travel centers and similar truck-stop like facilities might be your best bet.

They cater to people spending lots of time on the road.

They often have showers and other facilities that go beyond regular retail restaurant/gas station

stops

You can buy a microwave that operates on 12 volts.

They aren't as powerful as mains voltage ones (600 watts or so, compared to 1500 watts) but they do the trick.

You can buy them from places that cater to RVers or mail order.

Here is one example Note that even at 600 watts, the current draw is 55 amps.

You should plan on wiring it directly to your car battery (bypassing the car's fusebox) and also make sure your alternator is up to the task.

I.e., if you plug it into the cigarette lighter (which is usually 15-20 amps), you will blow the fuse.

I would also be negligent if I did not take the opportunity to introduce you to the wonders of under-hood foil cooking.

Perfect for tandoori chicken on the road.

In addition to the other excellent answers, from personal experience when you are farther away from larger highways there are less likely to be large "truck stops" and travel centers.

However, gas stations are generally run by clerks who are usually bored and generally friendly, and they rarely if ever object to you using the gas station microwave for your own bring-in food.

Just as when stopping to use the bathroom, it's polite to buy some small item like a bottle of water, soda, souvenir, snack, etc, or just to top off your vehicles tank with gasoline.

That way you are officially a "paying customer", and it is extremely rare that anyone objects (or cares)

if you use their sink, microwave, bathroom, etc.

Indeed this can be a good way to save money and eat healthier while on the road, while still respecting individual business owners hospitality and good will.

When in doubt, just ask something like "do you mind if I use the microwave to heat up my lunch/snack while I'm here?

" If you do this while in line to pay for your gas/small items, I have never been turned down or given a disapproving look.

Just clean up after yourself and you should have little to no trouble, and if they say "no" then you can likely just drive a block or so and try again at another station.

I bought the Microwave and we use it on long trips.

It was a little tricky getting the connection to the battery, but once that was done, it works very well.

It also can be used in motels when you stop.

I went back to find a link for you guys, but the AC/DC model is now marked as discontinued.

They still sell the DC only model.

Here is the link.

http://www.roadtrucker.com/12-volt-microwave-wavebox/12-volt-microwave.htm .

It's not cheap, at $300, so before spending that kind of money you might want to take a look at the other cooking items they have which are much cheaper.

Also they do take a lot of power, but with the high output alternators in the cars today you should not have any trouble.

There was a little stove that we bought about 5 years ago that was only about $30, maybe $40 bucks and that worked pretty good.

You could plug that into the lighter.

It took a little time to heat up food, but you could keep driving until the food was ready.

Whole foods almost always has public microwaves in the eating areas of the restaurant.

Next sentence I also have found 7-Eleven sometimes have customer accessible cents

next sentence

I do that I'd eat healthy on the road all the time

and I'm always looking for my Ruede since I bring my own food next sentence courteous and buy something that's expensive specially at whole foods next sentence another place it's

another sure when our place is college campuses we have public microwave for student so if you go to a college campus somewhere and find the cafeteria specially community college there's always a microwave there so to summarize since I do this all the time

and I'm all stars in my car for

lunch Whole Foods always has them and college campuses always have them

so I make a point of working at those places

also some employers have accessible cafeterias that might grocery store

Some coffeeshops may also have them.

For example it seems that some Espresso Royale branches (Midwest) have microwaves.

For chains like Espresso Royale, I don't think the staff there will really give a damn if you microwave your curry for a few minutes; indeed, they probably won't even notice.

I found one at Arco gas station with a food mart.

I bought some drink and they let me use the microwave oven.

It's so much better than to buy food from some shitty restaurants: healthy, economy, good taste from own cooking.

I don't know if this also applies in the US, but I've notices that Mcdonald usually have a microwave in their fast food restaurants.

I think they are meant for heating baby food.

Question: I'll be driving almost non-stop (no hotels).  I have some frozen curry and other things I'd like to heat up as I travel on down the line.  Where is it possible to use find a microwave to use?

Where to find microwave on the road in the US

You can buy a microwave that operates on 12 Volts, which you can take with you on long trips. However, you may be able to use a microwave at travel centers  and similar truck-stop like facilities, the eating areas at Whole Foods, some coffee shops, or McDonalds. Some gas stattion attendants will be happy to let you heat your food in the microwave there.

Many places have a microwave that the public can use, including gas stations and TA Travel centers. However, a microwave that runs on 12 vots is also available for use on long trips.

Many places, such as gas stations, TA Travel centers, coffeeshops and Whole foods, have microwaves for public use. Mcdonald also has them in some countries.

There is a microwave available that runs on 12 volts and can be used for long trips.


You are a stateless person or a refugee with a Refugee Travel Document I-571 issued by the United States and wish to know if you must obtain a visa to travel in the Schengen area on your Refugee Travel Document.

Generally this varies both by the country you wish to travel to, and the country that issued the refugee travel document.

Some examples: Germany does not require US refugee travel document holders to have a visa .

They also state that since this rule is little-known, you should bring a copy of it to show both your airline and to German immigration officials.

But this is listed in Timatic, so the airline should be aware of it.

Italy appears to have no exceptions and requires all persons traveling on refugee travel documents to apply for a visa.

(Italy is also having a major issue with refugees right now

and there have been some political noises about cracking down on them.)

For Poland, you cannot use a refugee travel document to enter visa-free unless you are a resident of Ireland or Romania .

According to this official document (Microsoft Excel required), among Schengen countries, US refugee travel documents are accepted for visa-free short term travel to Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy 1 , Slovakia and Slovenia.

(Netherlands is missing from the spreadsheet entirely due to an apparent clerical error.

Its visa exemption is apparently still active and listed in Timatic.)

However, if you enter Schengen via Germany and happen to take a short side trip to Italy this might not be a practical problem, provided you don't cross a passport control.

While there are mostly no border controls within the Schengen area, there may be occasional random checks especially on public transport, and border guards in countries other than Germany may be unfamiliar with the situation.

This case is so unusual that it's not really clear what would happen, though I would guess they would see that Germany admitted you and send you on your way.

However, it is possible that you could be detained and removed from such a country as Italy.

Note that there are still land border controls around Switzerland, primarily for customs purposes (while Switzerland is part of Schengen it is not part of the EEA).

And while you didn't ask, I expect someone will

: The UK is not part of Schengen, and its rules are: The UK requires visas of refugee travel document holders, except those issued by the UK, and so you will need a visa to visit the UK.

1 Italy accepts the US refugee travel document, but whether a visa is required depends on the nationality shown in the document.

Netherlands also allow visa free for travellers with USA travel document, some many of my friends has flow to holland with there USA travel document without a visa.

Germany, Hungary and Slovakia are so far the only Europe countries that allow visa free entry for US Refugee Travel Document holders.

Belgium too does not require a visa for refugee travel document holders.

One more country to add to the list: Georgia.

You get a 360 day stamp on arrival into your I-571 Travel Document.

So far these are the countries that wont require I-571 holder to apply for visa:

Germany(i confirmed) Belgium (i confirmed)

Netherlands (i confirmed) Croatia Slovakia Hungary Requires Visa: Austria Finland Italy France Switzerland

Question: I just want to double check to make sure I won't run into any issues at the border of entry.  I'm a permanent resident of the USA with a green card and I have a travel document issued by the USA (I-571). Will I have any issues traveling around in the Schegen countries?  Do I need a visa? Do I have to pay any fees?

Travelling through the Schengen area with a Refugee Travel Document issued by the USA

Generally this varies both by the country you wish to travel to, and the country that issued the refugee travel document. Germany, Netherlands, Hungary, Belgium and Slovakia allow visa free entry for US Refugee Travel Document holders, but you will need a visa to travel to Poland, Italy or the UK.

USA travel document holders can travel to a number of EU countries without a visa, including Germany, Belgium, Hungary the Netherlands and Slovakia. Travel document holders wishing to visit Italy, Poland or the UK, on the other hand, will need a visa.

You may or may not require a visa in your USA issued travel document, depending on the country you want to visit. Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and Belgium do not require a visa.

Italy, Poland and the UK definitely require travel document holders to hold a visa.


TL;DR ->

No, not really On the plus side, a sauna can get you accustomed to sweat.

But a typical sauna session of 20 - 30 minutes will not include the activities you would undertake in a visit to Africa.

It's also not the same kind of sweat you get in a tropical environment.

Some evidence for acclimation is given by examining how the military trains soldiers for desert operations.

For Americans, this involves rotation to the Fort Irwin National Training Center (in the Mojave Desert, shown in the photo above) for exercises that simulate a deployment.

British troops also use the same facility .

The British army also trains 3 battalions a year at both desert and tropical locales in Kenya.

And the archetype for desert deployments, the French Foreign Legion , trains in the field at Djibouti .

None of the training regimens above indicate that a sauna is an acceptable substitute.

This includes training for their tropical counterparts.

Same thing for football acclimation .

Adding Military training is not discussed because it is recommended for you.

Instead it is discussed because it is one of the logical sources of how people train for harsh environments.

If these regimens used saunas, then the answer would be a trenchant 'YES, because there's a body of credible evidence on the ground indicating that saunas work'.

But instead, neither the military nor athletics use the sauna to train for harsh environments.

I tried the sauna idea myself before moving from the northern hemisphere (in the middle of winter) to the equator.

There was no 'control' in that experiment, so I can't clearly say whether it worked or not.

But another aspect of this is psychological.

What seems unpleasant or normal depends on what you are used to.

The strain of exercise feels normal to people who exercise regularly, but feels dangerously abnormal to people who never exercise.

Sitting in a sauna may not prepare your body for a hot climate, but it may help you not freak out when you get into a hot climate.

You won't sweat any less, but you may be less bothered by the fact you are sweating.

The military training comments are very interesting, but unfortunately out of scope for most people.

2nd best/3rd

best solutions may be the only viable solutions for most people.

I don't know anything about preparing yourself or the physiology of it all

but I can tell you that a sauna does not feel like a typical tropical climate at all .

Of course, “tropics” is quite vague and covers many different areas but many places in Africa or South-East Asia are also very wet and, from experience, it's not like a sauna (which is very dry).

while it is possible to train yourself to endure harsh climatic conditions(such as cold or heat), is not something easily accomplish, as Lewis mentions first of all you have to be on a place where there is enough room for move or emulate your activities there not just sitting, also it is a process that takes much time(not a month or two

more like some years) to get fit to the environment, as well if you are not going to move there

it might not be what you are looking for.

And finally remember before doing any kind of training (since this is training) that you need a medical opinion and follow the right routine for your needs

otherwise you might end really bad and with several Health problems .

remember that sauna is a controlled environment.

heat, humidity, activity etc.

is different in african dessert.

It would be better if you will train yourself in outdoor endurance activities such as running, biking.

Question: I am curious if it is possible to prepare my body for the heat during the African summer by visiting saunas. Would visiting humid or dry saunas on a regular basis "harden" my body for humid heat in the tropics or dry heat in the desert?  I live in mid-west Europe where temperature reaches max. 33° Celsius, but this does not happen often. Planning to go to southern part of Africa during their next summer.

Can visiting saunas make me more prepared for heat in desert and tropics?

A sauna can get you accustomed to sweat, but it would be better if you will train yourself in outdoor endurance activities such as running or biking.

A sauna will get you accustomed to sweating but not to life in a hot country. A better option would be to train in outdoor endurance activities.


As Jonathan's answer mentions, pretty much all police officers open carry firearms in the U.S. (pistols on their belt.)

Other than that, however, seeing people visibly carry their firearms is very rare in the U.S. (unless you're at a gun range or some such thing.)

I live in one of the most gun-friendly parts of the U.S.

and I almost never see a firearm carried openly in public, other than by police.

Lots of people carry firearms, but nearly all of them carry them concealed where you will not see them.

It is also very unlikely that you will see armed soldiers carrying rifles patrolling in public in the U.S. as you may have seen in France.

The only times I've ever seen that in person in the U.S. were when the President was about to step off of Air Force One within sight of where I was sitting and briefly in airports after 9/11 (and ceremonially at Arlington National Cemetery, if you count that.)

You will not see armed soldiers in airports nowadays, though, except in very rare situations (such as the President landing there.)

Soldiers patrolling airports in the U.S. only happened for maybe a few months to a year or so after the September 11 attacks.

Every single police offer in the US carries a visible firearm as a part of their uniform.

Therefore it is extremely likely that you will see multiple handguns during your visit as most urban areas are regularly patrolled by policemen.

It is extremely unlikely that you will ever run across a normal citizen walking around with a gun strapped to their belt, even in open-carry states.

You will see police officers with guns strapped to their belts, that's about all you're likely to see.

There's a lot of over-hyped media attention to open-carry laws, and during some protests, pro-gun owners will make a point of exercising their constitutional right to carry firearms by bringing their guns out in public in a non-threatening manner.

However this is extremely rare, and can be easily avoided by just avoiding conservative/right-wing political demonstrations.

(Not that you'd be in any danger, whatsoever).

To add a case not mentioned yet: in many rural parts of the US, hunting is legal and popular.

I'd include rural areas of Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada in that list (California less so).

If you travel in those areas, and especially if you spend time outdoors in certain public lands such as national forests, you are likely to see gun racks on trucks, meet hunters carrying rifles and shotguns, and hear gunshots.

Handguns are still less likely, though.

You mentioned Arizona.

I don't live there anymore, but I grew up in Arizona and lived there for over 25 years.

I hardly ever saw people openly carrying guns.

Every now

and then I'd see someone with a gun on their belt, it was not common-

maybe a couple of times a year.

You could probably visit Arizona for a month and not see anybody carrying a gun, other than police officers, of course.

On the other hand, in some cases, gun owners in Arizona can get a permit to carry concealed weapons.

So you really never know who has a gun with them and who doesn't.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, I did see armed soldiers for a while in places like airports in Texas, Colorado, Tennessee, etc.

However, I think that has pretty much been phased out for the most part.

I haven't seen any soldiers like that in years.

It is generally recognized that concealed carry is advantageous to open carry in public.

Most gun owners who carry, do so concealed.

In all honesty, you will most likely be around guns, but will not see them.

Most of the time, people that tend to carry openly (in urban areas), do so when they do not have a concealed carry permit.

Source

Question: This winter, I am planning to go to the USA for the first time. One of my concerns is the presence of weapons in public. I just came back from Paris and the sight of armed soldiers patrolling public spaces made me very uncomfortable (I come from a country where you can live for 100 years without having seen a gun in real life). So I'm wondering, in open-carry states, can you see people carrying handguns in their belts?

How common is open carry of firearms in the USA?

While most urban areas are regularly patrolled by policemen, who all cary a visible firearm as a part of their uniform, nearly all civilians who carry a firearm will keep them concealed. In addition, you will not usually see armed soldiers at airports as you would in France. On the other hand, if you travel to some public lands you are likely to see gun racks on trucks, meet hunters carrying rifles and shotguns, and hear gunshots.

It is very unusual to see people other than policemen carrying guns in the US, even in open-carry states. Moreover, armed soldiers do not patrol the street or stations and airport. On the other hand, you may see hunters carrying weapons in rural areas.

The only people tourists are likely to see carrying guns in the USA are policemen, who carry a gun as part of their uniform. Other people usually carry their guns concealed, even in open-carry states. Moreover, soldiers are not usually seen on the streets or in public buildings. In rural areas, however, tourists may see hunters carrying various types of firearms.

It is very unusual to see individuals carrying guns even in open-carry states.

Soldiers do not patrol public building or spaces in the US, so seeing armed soldiers is unlikely.

In rural areas there are plenty of hunters who carry firearms for hunting.


Yes MasterCard works in Italy.

The question really should be does your bank's credit card work in Italy.

Is it a chip & pin card or a chip & sign card (primarily US banks) or a swipe only card?

Having a chip equipped card is essential in Europe as most POS (point of sale) terminals are set up for chip cards not swipe cards.

Does your bank impose any restrictions on overseas use, lower daily limits, etc?

These are questions you need to ask your bank in advance and at the same time notify them where and when you will be traveling so they are aware of potential foreign transactions.

My recent experience as an American tourist in several European countries, including Italy (Rome and Trieste): MasterCard is widely accepted.

If your card is a "swipe" card (ie, it is neither chip-and-signature nor chip-and PIN), it will work in slightly fewer places, but will still be adequate for your trip.

If your card is a swipe card, read on for some advice and my experience using such a card in Europe: Swipe cards usually work in places with humans running the point of sale, but NOT ticket or other machines, with the important exception of ATMs, where they almost always work.

So, in the context of your question, you could likely make do with a swipe card in all situations except paying for transportation, when it would likely not work.

However, there's a small (maybe 5% in my experience) chance some impossible-to-diagnose error will happen when you try to pay with a swipe card, and you'll be stuck with cash as your only payment option; there's also a larger (10-20%)

chance the cashier or salesperson handling your transaction will be unfamiliar with swipe cards, and you'll have to deal with the point of sale machine yourself, including swiping, possibly entering CVV number, following prompts in a foreign language, etc.

It's a hassle, but it's manageable and easier than opening up a new account if your bank doesn't issue chip cards.

Never rely on a swipe card as your sole method of payment in a critical situation, but make frequent visits to an ATM and you will be fine with a combination of cash and (chip or no-chip) MasterCard.

You Will Need an EMV Supported Credit Card EMV stands for Europay Mastercard and Visa.

This is the new standard for security related to PCI compliance in Europe.

This standard has been adopted in the United States and is currently being rolled out and is behind schedule.

Most large banks support this standard in the US, Europe and most of Asia.

You can goto your bank if you have not already been issued this type of card.

They are frequently referred to as 'chip cards'.

Many banks are increasing their daily withdraw and charge limits if this type of card is being used due to the decreased financial risk to the bank due to the technology.

You will want to discover if there is a delta between a standard card or an EMV card if this is important to you.

I've owned a chip-and-pin MasterCard credit card issued by an Italian bank for several years.

I've used it all around the Italy and in neighbouring European countries.

The only instances in which credit cards might not work, regardless of the payment circuit they use (Visa/MasterCard), is at automatic machines such as the ones found at 24h petrol stations, and some train ticket machines like those found at Malpensa airport.

Swipe-and-signature cards are usually accepted in places where chip-and-pin cards are too.

Indeed the machine will tell you to swipe the card if inserting it in the chip slot doesn't work.

You need to ask your bank; as they are the only ones that control where your card works.

It may be true that all MasterCard-network cards work in Italy, and the widest acceptance is that of EMV "chip" enabled cards; but despite this your bank may block the use of the card.

So, before you travel: Inform your bank that you will be traveling to Italy.

Ask them if there are any special instructions regarding your card.

They may have some agreements with banks for lower fees for cash withdrawals; or other restrictions (for example, maximum amount you can withdraw, maximum POS transaction limit, etc) that you may need to be aware of.

Question: I have a Mastercard and I want to know if they work in Rome or not.  Mainly I want to buy food, pay for entrances, and transportation, and buy gifts and some stuff.

Does MasterCard work in Italy?

MasterCard does work in Italy, although the EMV chip-and-pin cards are much more widely accepted. Swipe cards usually work in ATMs and places with humans running the point of sale, but NOT ticket or other machines.

Chip and pin Mastercards work in Italy. Swipe Mastercards also work byt there may be some issues, especially in automatic machines. The use of Mastercards in general may be blocked by the issuing bank so it is better to check with them before travelling.

Mastercard with chip and pin works in Italy.

There may be issues using a sipe Mastercard in Italy. However, it seems to be useable in some places.

Some banks block card use in certain countries, so checking with the bank before travelling is a good idea.


For UK based routes (this is where I think you are, judging by your profile)

you can use CycleStreets .

It’s also available as an app on most phone platforms (Apple, Android, Windows Phone).

Input your start and end points then when you get a route select the "Quietest Route" tab.

That should give you either cycle paths or quieter roads.

I've always quite liked http://cycle.travel - UK oriented but the map interface is OpenStreetMap based so can handle overseas as well.

Website not an app, but may still be useful.

It defaults to low-traffic-roads (calculated from known traffic data, not simply road classification) and includes a very useful height mapper display, so you can tweak a proposed route to avoid steep hills.

It also offers randomly generated "short tours" - given a defined start point and distance, it will try to come up with possible cycle routes in the local area.

For example, " twenty miles round trip to something near Cambridge ", or " a hotel fifty miles from Leeds with a route there and back ".

Quite a clever idea, IMO, though I've not tested any of them out...

I use Strava for ride route mapping, and it works okay.

Some local knowledge helps avoid possible pitfalls.

It doesn't specifically avoid main roads, but the "use popularity" switch will favour roads where cyclists go.

You can also "minimise elevation"

if you would rather go around than over something.

Example - here's our planned lunchtime route at work tomorrow.

https://www.strava.com/routes/4970649 Note: This question would be better asked on https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/ where it would be on topic.

Software is deemed off-topic for https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/

Take a look at GPSies , people share routes there and you can find one fitting your criteria.

You may also like to combine it with OpenStreetMap.org and Wikimapia.org to select the most appropriate route.

Google Maps has that capability.

It is probably not the greatest in the world, but free, and many people have it anyway.

After you have chosen you target and directions as usual, you can switch to different locomotion modes; car is on the very left (and the default), but there is also public transportation, pedestrian, bicycle, and plane.

in addition you should probably choose the option 'avoid

main roads' My experience is that it is pretty good (good enough for me, I use it)

I've used Google Maps for cycling in the US.

So far it's been great

- it gives you cycling roads and avoids the more "dangerous" roads, gives you a small graph of the hills you need to go through, works on the phone/watch etc.

Hope that helps!

TomTom (App, Hardware Devices) have the capability to choose "winding road".

This is mostly aimed ad motorcyclists, avoids busy roads and tries to choose "interesting" roads instead.

I would assume that these routes are also better suited than normal car navigation.

Also choosing "shortest route" on navigation systems gets one usually away from big roads.

It also seems to be a pretty reliable way to meet mapping errors ... which shouldn't be a problem on a bike most of the time.

Specific "cycling modes" so far semm only work in well mapped urban areas of the western world.

Question: I want to go for a short cycle tour but I want to avoid main roads. Is there an app for that?

Is there an app that will calculate a route off main roads for cycling?

Google Maps has that capability, but you can also use http://cycle.travel, which is based on OpenStreetMap, Strava or TomTom. GPSies has routes shared by other users that you can try.

Google Maps can be used for mapping a cycle route. However, there are so more specialised apps for this purpose, such as cycle.travel and Strava.

There are a number of apps tha can be used for cyclingroutes, for example Strava and cycle.travel.


There is no requirement to have €10,000 when you are in Europe.

It sounds like someone is confusing two things: The requirement to have enough money to support yourself for the duration of your trip.

This amount varies according to the duration of your trip, and according to the kinds of things you plan to do.

The requirement to report cash if you are importing or exporting an amount whose value is greater than €10,000.

The first requirement is not universally enforced, but a well prepared traveler should be ready to handle the question.

It is not necessary to have cash; a credit card will normally suffice, possibly along with evidence to show your bank balance.

The second requirement in fact implies that it's better to have less cash than €10,000 worth, since that will save you from paperwork and possible questioning about the provenance of the cash.

When you apply for a Schengen visa, the officials will try to admit genuine tourist or business travellers and refuse entry to illegal immigrants.

They want to know if you intend to leave again after your visit, or if you intend to overstay and work without paying taxes.

They can't know that for sure, so they are looking at the premise of your visit and your conditons.

The visit will probably cost more than a thousand Euros.

Is it reasonable that somebody in your circumstances would spend that much money on a vacation?

An illegal immigrant might sell everything he owns to afford the trip, and even borrow money.

A tourist who expects to go home again doesn't usually do that.

The best case for visa applicants is a steady job with enough income to save a couple hundred Euro each month and a bank account with a few thousand Euro.

If you don't have that, you have to explain how you want to pay for your trip.

Simply having money in the account isn't enough, and it might even be a very bad sign if there is no explanation where the money came from (that's called funds parking ).

And it is entirely normal for young people to take vacations even if they could not afford them on their own .

Then it becomes a question of who really pays, and if it is reasonable for them to pay.

If the money comes from your parents, do they have a steady job and enough money in their account so that it looks normal if they give the money to you as a gift?

Same for other relatives.

All this needs to be explained and documented.

Yes , it is okay to have less than €10,000 when visiting Europe, to a point.

In the Schengen Area, you must have an a means of substinence -

however the amounts vary between countries, lengths of stay and age.

A full list can be found here.

However, there is also a maximum amount you can bring into the EU undeclared, which is €10,000.

Any more than that

and you will have to declare it and have a valid reason why you are bringing such a large amount.

You can find more information here.

Please note that not all EU countries are part of the Schengen Zone, and not all Schengen Zone countries are part of the EU.

These countries will also have their own separate rules.

Short answer:

I don't think it is true.

Reason: When I arrived in Amsterdam in October 2014, no one asked me how much money I had.

(It was about a hundred euro.)

Spain, May 2015 and April 2016, no one asked.

Wales, June 2015, they asked if I were capable of supporting myself but didn't ask what I had.

Iceland, July 2015, no one asked.

İstanbul, October 2014, no questions asked.

I am citizen of USA through no fault of my own.

When I get low, I draw a little from an ATM, never more than €250 and usually much less.

I have never in my life had five thousand US dollars at one time in banks.

You don't need any cash for a vacation, I went to EU 4 times this year and only once did I have any Euros on me when I entered.

You might be confusing the requirement to prove that you have enough to support yourself for one year if you are moving to the EU on a work or study visa.

For example, when applying for a study permit in Canada you need to show proof that you have at least $10,000 to survive while living there for a year.

Question: I want to travel to Europe but someone told me you must have 10000 euros. I don't really have that much money available. I wish to visit many places in Europe by the next year, but there is no possible way that I could come up with that much money. Is this going to be a real issue?

Is it okay to have less than 10,000 EUR when in Europe?

You might be confusing the requirement to be able to support yourself if you come on a longer-term student or working visa, but there is no requirement to have €10,000 when you are in Europe. However, you should be able to show that you are a genuine tourist and that you have enough income to support yourself while you're in the EU.

Tourists in the EU do not need to have 10,000 EUR. In fact it is quite unusual for immigration officers to ask about money. However, when applying for the visa, you need to show you can support yourself during your stay: a credit card will do. On the other hand, people moving to the EU for a long period need to show they have sufficient financial reserves.

Tourists do not need 10,000 EUR to visit Europe. Moreover, immigration officers usually do not ask how much money you have.

When applying for the Schengen visa, you simply need to prove you can support yourself during your holiday. Credit cards are fine.

You do need to show how much money you have if you are moving to the EU for a long period, for study or to find work.


I think you have covered all the typical reasons; I would also avoid T-Shirts with images of guns, explosives, etc.

The link you shared with a woman with very short shorts could be seen by some as underwear.

But back in the day, Southwest Airlines in the United States used to have their "Stewardesses" wear hot-pants.

That depends on the cultural background of the country you are flying (from and to), and how relatively conservative or liberal the decision maker is.

Generally, if it gets you in a good restaurant (in that country), you will have no problems on the airplane.

Edit: I should have said 'medium level restaurant', I didn't mean 'upscale', just not 'cheapo' either

It is easier to answer the question the way you worded it than the other way around.

Finding a list of items that will get you kicked out of a plane probably depends on local customs and the pilot's mood!

What will not have you kicked out of a plane is easier.

For men, trousers without holes which cover entirely undergarments.

A woman can wear pants too but long skirts are acceptable.

In many places one can go shorter but if you are connecting through some more religious countries, keep it below the knees.

Wearing a top which covers your upper body, including the shoulders also not get you kicked off the plane unless it is transparent or features offensive words or imagery.

Even if you transit through some country where women cover their hair, a tourist is rarely asked to do with on the plane or in the airport.

As for examples that will get out.

This will vary greatly, if you take a charter flight to beach destinations for example, you will often see people in shorts and bikini tops.

In many other I areas, I suspect this be enough to get kicked out.

Very shear materials or belly-tops are also likely to be frowned upon.

It's not a rule on paper that decides what's allowed, it's a human with their own history and beliefs who has that authority - if you can't board the flight it doesn't exactly help you that the airline apologizes to you afterwards because the decision to throw you off was clearly wrong.

People get thrown off flights for the most ridiculous reasons , so my personal advice is: Dress like you always do, don't bother with the small chance that you'll meet someone wanting to abuse their power, and if bad luck hits you, revel in the fact that you now have a good story to tell, while the power-tripping simpleton who threw you off the plane is probably getting fired for it.

If you want to be more specific: Anything with a political slogan.

Anything with a religious slogan.

Anything that can be misunderstood as a political of religous slogan.

Anything that can be seen as hate speech (no Metal band t-shirts)

No ripped T-Shirts Anything that associates you with a socially accepted target of hate speech.

Anything that is somewhat sexual in nature (no breast hair).

There are a wide variety of reasons why you may be denied boarding.

I described some of the alleged security reasons here with references: Physical appearance and clothing, do they affect the passenger's chances of getting on the plane?

In the example in question, the reason was not security (or a pretence at security), it was (allegedly) decency.

From the article: The airline’s policy states that they have the right to remove anyone from a flight ‘whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive’.

Personally I don't think the clothing is 'lewd', 'obscene' or 'patently offensive', but it's not up to me.

The airline in essence has the right to deny boarding for any reason; if you ask on avation.se they will tell you the pilot will make the final call.

I would expect that if you flew with an Iranian carrier, the standards they would apply would differ substantially from (e.g.) a Swedish carrier.

I think your quest for 'definitive examples' is not going to be fruitful, as this is a judgment call.

However, the link above will take you to some ridiculous decisions.

It is illegal for civilians to wear camouflage clothing in Trinidad & Tobago, so if you're heading that way you should avoid wearing clothing (or carrying luggage) that features any camouflage patterns.

When I flew there (from the UK)

last year we were advised that we would not be allowed to board our flight if were so attired.

Question: Although I do not find anything odd about the clothing  on this person (might be considered NSFW) , I find it surprising that a pilot can ask a passenger to change their clothes before letting them on.  What are some of the definitive examples of inappropriate clothing when flying (keeping aside the obvious choices of travelling in undergarments, T-Shirts displaying controversial political/religious beliefs) that can make the pilot/crew ask me to change ?

What kind of clothing will not get me kicked off a flight?

It depends on the cultural background of the departure and arrival countries, but in general you should avoid anything with political and religious slogans, violent, sexual or hateful imagery and wording (including metal band T-shirts), ripped jeans or anything that associates you with a socially accepted target of hate speech.

What clothing is or is not allowed onboard a plane depends to a great extent on the airline and country involved. However, it is generally considered wise not to wear clothing with slogans or a religious or political nature, ripped clothing or clothing that may be construed as sexual.

Clothing with slogans of a political or religious nature may result in a person being barred from boarding a plane, as may ripped clothing or sexual clothing.

What clothing is or is not allowed onboard depends to a great extent on the airline and the country involved.