Collecting bagage is normally after immigration control, but before customs.

Looking at the INIS site only if you stay airside

you do not need a visa.

Collecting bagage implies you have to go through immigration so you would need a short stay visa.

Text from the INIS site: When you arrive in Ireland, you will remain 'airside' of the border while you wait for your connecting flight.

You must apply for a short stay Visit Visa if you want to pass through border control, eg if you are transiting overnight and want to stay in a hotel.

If you do not have a short stay

Visit Visa, you will not be allowed to pass through border control.

I find it odd that you wil have to claim your bagage at Dublin, must be a reason for that.

This may be true if you booked this journey as two separate journeys.

In that cases they can not check you through.

The other answers are all good, I am adding my own to add another caveat worth keeping in mind.

You mention that the airlines are requiring you to collect and recheck your baggage

- this indicates that most probably you are travelling on a multiple ticket itinerary.

Both Paul Palmpje's and JonathanReez's answers cover the fact that you need a transit visa in order to collect the luggage, as the luggage collection point is after immigration control.

A more pressing issue is that because you are not booked on a through-itinerary, the airline carrying you to Ireland will almost certainly not board you due to a lack of a visa and a lack of an ongoing-travel itinerary with them.

They will treat you as if Ireland is your final destination, because to them it is.

Normally you would be exempted thanks to your Canadian visa, however you mention that:

According to the airlines I will have to collect and recheck the baggage at Dublin Airport.

This means you will indeed need a transit visa as the luggage collection takes place after passport control.

My experience.

Indian citizen with a U.S. visa.

Flying through Chicago to Dublin and connection from Dublin to Europe (within two hours in afternoon)

- transit visa not required.

Flying back from Europe to Dublin.

Connecting flight to Chicago is after 20 hrs.

Arrived in Dublin airport at 4 PM.

Cannot stay on the airport in the night as the airport is closed.

Have to pass through immigration.

Transit visa is required but do not have it.

So, immigration office scolds and stamps an entry permit and warns not to repeat the case.

Once the passport is stamped, left the airport, stayed at a hotel in the city centre, returned back to airport, passed through immigration and boarded the flight.

Had asked both the airline (Aer Lingus) and the Irish Consultate in Chicago before boarding, if I will need a transit visa on return.

But no clear response from both of them.

Summary - You need a transit visa to travel through Dublin if you land in Dublin on Day 1 evening and your connecting flight is on Day 2 morning.

You cannot stay at the airport (not even airside).

The airline doesn't stop you from boarding the flight to Dublin if you don't have a transit visa, but once in Dublin you need to have it.

As stated in Timatic , the database used by airlines: TWOV (Transit Without Visa): - Holders of onward tickets for a max.

transit time of 24 hours.

Not applicable to nationals of Afghanistan, Albania, Congo

(Dem. Rep.), Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Moldova (Rep.), Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

So far it looks good, but the defintion of TWOV is: Passing through an international transit area of the airport in order to board a connecting (or to proceed by the same) flight, without entering the country (i.e. clearing immigration) .

So unfortunately, you do need a transit visa

Question: I hold a Canadian visa on an Indian passport.   From India I will be arriving at Dublin on Ethiopian Airlines and after a 3 hrs 40 mins layover will catch WestJet Airlines to Canada from the same terminal at which I will have arrived at Dublin Airport. According to the airlines I will have to collect and recheck the baggage at Dublin Airport.  Do I need a Transit visa?

Do I need a Transit visa at Dublin Airport if my transit is through the same terminal of the airport?

You will have to go through immigration to collect your baggage, so you will need a transit visa. Since you are not booked on a through-itinerary, the airline will not stop you from flying to Ireland but you will be prevented from continuing the flight without a visa.

A transit visa is definitely needed if you plan to change flights in Dublin and have to collect your baggage and re'check it, as the luggage collection is after immigration. However, there is some concernas to whether people without a transit visa would even be allowed to board their flight at their departure airport.

A transit visa is needed to collect baggage in Dublin even if you have an onward flight as luggage collection is after immigration.

There is some debate as to whether or not a passenger without a transit visa fro Ireland will be allowed to board a flight if the onward flight from Dublin is with another airline.


May I suggest before departing Japan, visit one of the Temples/Shrines.

You can deposit your coins in the box just inside the grounds.

The other thing you could do with them is to put them in a smallish envelope and hand to a homeless person.

In Japan, it is customary to place money in an envelope before we give to someone.

I don't think it would be polite to give a bunch of them

to cashier Foreigners always overthink "politeness" issues in Japan...

Handling payments, in whatever (legal) form, is their job, they will dutifully do it without any issues.

Just try not to do it during busy times, out of consideration for other customers waiting behind you.

If you want to donate them, many businesses such as your nearest McDonald's have donation boxes for various causes, this will be very much appreciated.

This is a problem I frequently find myself with as well.

One thing I do to reduce the number of 1 yen coins I have left at the end of my trip is to use them whenever possible.

One way I make this easier is at the end of each day sorting the 1 yen coins into a separate part of my coin purse or wallet.

When I go to a store and have to pay for something, it's easier to take the 1 yen coins out when they're sorted.

I typically use them in situations where I need less than ten 1 yen coins as it typically doesn't take too long to count out that many, given that I've sorted them previously.

They're also good in situations where you would prefer larger change, like if an amount is 2003 yen but you're paying with a 5000 yen note.

In this case, I typically put down 3 yen to get an even amount in the end.

I'm not sure if this is something people typically do in Japan, but no cashier has ever refused this when I've done it.

Of course, donation boxes are also a great option if you find yourself unable to use them.

I find one-yen coins to be extremely helpful -- but not as coinage, but for electronics repair.

Because they are soft aluminum but also on the thick side, you can use the ¥1 coin to open the "coin battery slots" on many toys and devices.

They are soft enough that they won't damage metal or even most plastics and furthermore, they don't have any serrations that would also damage the coin slot.

If you bend the coin, you're out ¥1.

So I always keep a couple after a trip to Japan.

The best way to deal with one-yen coins is to never receive them in the first place !

All you need to do is two things: Top up your Pasmo/Suica rechargeable smart card and use it at convenience stores, fast food restaurants etc.

At grocery stores, larger restaurants

etc, pay by credit card.

This will eliminate 95% of cases where you'd get one-yen coins in change, since most cash-only places (small restaurants, attraction entry fees etc) don't want to deal with one-yen coins either and round up their prices to the nearest 10 or even 100 yen.

I don't think it would be polite to give a bunch of them to cashier.

It is impolite to use many coins at the casher.

In fact, you can only use up to 20 same coins; otherwise the clerk has the right to refuse it.

That said, most people don't know about this law nor would not like to get involved in a redundant argument, so they would start to count and accept it anyway.

But as long as you use up to 20 same coins (even 1 yen coin), it is fine.

Arguably the best way to avoid having a lot of 1 yen coins is to use them more aggressively.

Theoretically, you should have up to four 1 yen coins in your wallet as long as you make your payment more carefully.

If you still find too many coins left in your wallet, you might put them in a charity box in front of a casher in a convenience store.

Also note that you must not throw them away on the road or even in a trash bin; this is a violation against the law as well, though no one bothers to report it to police.

In some towns outside of Tokyo you can use them in the buses.

Look for those buses where you get a numbered ticket when you come in and deposit money into the machine based on your ticket number when you come out.

Most of those don't care for the type of coin you use, so you can dump all your one yen coins there.

Just make sure you count them beforehand so that you have the right amount for the fare.

Edit: Since it seems that some wouldn't believe this, here is a quote from Kyushu Sanko bus company website: 「

Q.運賃は1円玉や五円玉が入っていてもいいのでしょうか

A.1円･5円硬貨を混ぜてのお取扱いが出来ます。しかし、運賃箱の「詰まり」の原因にもなりかねませんので、硬貨のご使用は20枚程度を目安にお願い致します。」 Q.

Can I use 1 yen and 5 yen coins to pay the fare?

A.

We can handle metallic currency that includes 1 and 5 yen coins.

However, please aim at using no more than 20 coins at once, since it may cause the fare box to get stuck.

Source: http://www.kyusanko.co.jp/g_others/qa.php Similar source for Entetsu Bus: 「

バスで運賃を払う時に、1円玉や5円玉で支払ってもだいじょうぶ？」

"Is it possible to pay the bus fare with 1 and 5 yen coins?" 「お支払いただけます。」

"Yes / We humbly accept your payment in such way" Source: http://entetsubus.lekumo.biz/faq/2006/11/a4_15_e1ac.html

My experience is that most local buses that have that kind of system are able to process one and five yen coins.

I guess that it is because they function on an honour basis.

That is, the machine is not actually counting the coins, so it can take anything.

Question: It seems that I always end up with a wallet full of one yen coins when travelling in Japan. What would be the most convenient way to use or exchange them?  Vending machines don't accept one yen coins and I don't think it would be polite to give a bunch of them to cashier. I wouldn't mind donating but even that feels cheap somehow.

What to do with one yen coins when traveling in Japan?

You need to travel between airports anyway, and it is very doable. You could travel by taxi, but public transport would also be possible and much cheaper.

In Japan there are many opportunities to spend/donate your 1 yen coins, whether it's through different variations of donations, using certain modes of transport or toping up your personal smart card.

Japan has many opportunities to donate your 1 yen coins in the form of charity including temples, handing them to the homeless and charity boxes that can be found in local stores and businesses

Your 1 yen coins can be used to top up your Pasmo/ Suica smart card

Some modes of transport aceept 1 yen coins as payment i.e certain busses


Most cycling

you will be doing will be on roadways with motor vehicles.

Unlike the Netherlands, Spain does not have a national network of long distance bike paths.

Is it safe?

Yes it can be assuming 1:

you as the cyclist know how to ride your fully loaded bike in traffic and know when to command the road or share the road; 2: you stick with secondary roads as much as possible, not numbered big highways.

Is it safe?

No, not at all.

It's been already said in other comments and answers, but I feel it has not been stressed enough: as of today, Spain is NOT adapted to cyclists.

On the road: 99,9% of the road network does not have any separate lanes or roads for bicycles, period.

Most roads with big enough shoulders are forbidden to bicycles.

Secondary roads usable by cyclist don't have proper shoulders and you have to use the same lane than cars and trucks.

You'll even need to leave the road from time to time to give room for tractors etc.

which are also forced to use the side of the road.

On cities : Cities' bike lanes are usually just painted on the sidewalk, no physical separation from pedestrians whatsoever.

Most bike lanes on sidewalks were added many many years after the sidewalks were built, with no planning at all, so: you might find trees, light posts, road signals etc.

blocking part of the lane; they tend to be short and you'll have to make extensive use of pedestrian crossings and sidewalks to get from one bike lane segment to the next.

Pedestrians are legally allowed to, and will use the bike lane for jogging, running, baby carriages... or just because they feel like it, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Most will let you pass if you use e.g. your bicycle bell, but still.

Finally: at least 21 cyclist were killed by cars in Spain just in the first 5 months of 2017 .

That's almost one cyclist killed on the road every week .

So no, not safe.

Rather the opposite of safe.

EDIT

(as per the comments below): I'm not saying Spain is any more dangerous for cyclists than other countries.

I don't have info about other countries.

I'm just saying that Spain is, objectively, not safe: it lacks the infrastructure, it lacks the regulation, and it lacks the culture for cyclists to be able to ride safely on roads and cities.

EDIT 2 :

A couple more facts.

According to a 2009 study on cyclists' safety made by RACE (RACE is Spain's equivalent to Netherlands' ANWB or UK's AA): 80% of cyclists said good roads don't exists; 72% said cars don't keep legal safe distance of 1,5 m.; 56% said cars don't slow down when overtaking them; 44% said cars don't respect right of way of cyclists; 99% said car drivers' attitude must change for cycling to be safe; and finally, 72% of Spanish cyclists declared to find themselves in danger frequently or very frequently while riding.

A Spanish system which approximates your "bicycle roads" is called Vias Verdes.

A few of the routes are more than 50km long, but as you can see on their map

they're not especially helpful for your route, with the possible exception of the section Sierra de Alcaraz to Albacete.

(They're mainly if not entirely replacements for disused railway lines, and the Spanish railway system, like many others, is principally designed around radial connections to the capital).

There are other bicycle lanes, but I'm not aware of any site which aims to map them all.

Safe is never absolute, and with proper planning I'd do it.

I've ridden quite a lot in the UK and much less in Spain, so would be cautious to start with (even between different cities a few hours ride apart in the UK

the culture of drivers around cyclists varies -- as does cyclists' behaviour/culture).

A couple of tools that may be useful to you: Strava's route builder (you'll need to log in

but it's free and not onerous)

has the setting "global heatmap" to show which routes are popular with cyclists, it also has an option to "use popularity" and automatically route along commonly-ridden roads.

I've found it to be unresponsive when trying to route more than about 100 km, so you'll need to apply some manual planning (possibly using Google routes to pick which towns you'll pass through) OpenCycleMap shows official routes and cycle paths.

This is based on OpenStreetMap (i.e. crowd-sourced) data.

Here in the UK that's very good for cycling, but I'm less sure of the situation in Spain.

Statistics are collected on cycling deaths by the European Commission.

From this we see many, many things including that

Spain has a fairly low rate per million population but its deaths seem to be concentrated less in urban areas than the EU norm.

Of course what these figures do not adjust for is the number of journeys made by bicycle in each country.

Question: I have a dream about a long bicycle trip in Spain from Malaga to Barcelona. It is about 1000 km. Is it safe? I mean, does Spain have enough bicycle roads to drive or would I drive on common roads with cars? Google Maps doesn't show any bicycle roads.

Is it safe to travel by bike between cities in Spain?

Unlike some other European countries, Spain does not have a national network of long distance bike paths or a culture of safe cycling on roads, so you would be cycling on roads with motor vehicles.

Spain is not one of the safests places for cyclists to go on long distance cycling trips especially as they do not seem to have any long distance bike path networks in the country. Most of your cycling will be done on road with other vehicles

Spain does not have anational network of long distance bike paths so most cycling will be done on road

In most cases spain is not a safe place for cyclists


Everything we want to know about Spity Valley trip: available in this blog .

Quoting few important points I have noted in this blog In early November, when the temperature dips down to -10˚C, the hotels are closed for the tourists and the first spell of snowfall stops the government bus service from Kinnaur.

The road from Manali closes much before that.

The NGOs working to develop Spiti and some for their own development, postpone their activities for the next tourist season, leaving the people of Spiti to face the harsh winters head.

Difficulty Level –

Extreme Winter is not an off-season in Spiti.

Living here in winter is expensive for a Spitian.

So, bargaining at the home-stays with your logic of off-season prices is not only rude, its inconsiderate.

Water needs to be carried from the hand-pumps.

Add to it the cost of wood to keep you warm and the cost of fuel to cook food and tea for you.

No one is giving you a place to stay to earn profit in the winters.

They don’t want you to freeze.

So I will advice you to be generous and grateful.

November is unfortunately a wrong time to visit Spiti, as most of the routes that lead you to Spiti will be blocked due to snow.

Rohtang pass closes for travelers in November.

The most ideal time to visit in my opinion is after monsoons - July-August or before that.

I hope this helps.

November is actually not a bad time to be in Spiti.

It will be very very cold though, but still bearable.

And roads from Kinnaur side are completely open at this time but not those via Manali/Rohtang.

I'm pretty sure you won't have any problem with public transport reaching Kaza.

The local buses within Spiti might not be as frequent, and so about that best to check locally with some hotel there.

Taxi, etc will be easily available though.

Have a great time in Spiti!

July is the best time to visit Spiti valley.

November is not recommended.

Last November we went and it was awesome.

The sky was clear snow started in the end.

Got places to stay everywhere.

Less crowded.

I am planning to go on this November as well.

Last time visited Chitkul, Pin Valley, Kaza, Langza Vallley, Chandrathal, Kunzum Pass, Rothang Pass and returned via Manali.

Beautiful and amazing journey.

If you like real adventure (with the possibility of getting stuck), yes it is a good time.

According to me April/May is the best time to visit as you will see snow and clear sky.

The transition from cold harsh winter to moderate climate is worth visiting.

Check the blog.

It captures the experience nicely.

Question: I am planning to visit Spiti Valley in Himachal Pradesh, India on this November first onwards, and planning to be back by the end of the month.  How is the road condition now? Local transportation is available. Direction in Google Map

Is this November is a good time to go to Spiti Valley, Himachal India?

Roads from the Kinnaur side are completely open at this time, but the road from Manali will already be closed in November due to snow.

In November there are a few roads closed such as the road from Manali and the Rohtang pass, however there is the road from Kinnaur side that are completely open.

In november a few roads from certain areas are closed such as roads from Manali and Rohtang pass.

Roads from Kinnaur are completely open in November.


A Frappuccino is considered a liquid.

For carry-on luggage , the UK only allows a single small resealable bag of liquids holding containers 100ml or less.

Your Frappuccino would not qualify.

You cannot bring it through airport security.

If there is a Starbucks past the security checkpoint, you can buy one there and bring it on board.

You can't bring a coffee through security since, as the other answers say, it violates the rules for what liquids can go through security.

However, you can buy a coffee after security and take it on the plane.

It seems there's no Starbucks after security at Edinburgh

but there's a Costa and a Caffe Nero ( map ).

Indeed, even before the current restrictions, you couldn't bring coffees through security: I tried it once and had to bin it.

They can't put your coffee through the X-ray machine because of the risk of spills; visual inspection won't detect any objects you might have hidden in it.

As the other answers have pointed out: a frappuccino is a liquid; Liquids are only allowed through security in containers holding less than 100ml, and all of those containers must fit in a single small resealable bag.

So the obvious solution is to take a large number of small bottles and decant your frappuccino into portions smaller than 100ml

(you'll probably find a tiny funnel helpful).

Give it a go and let me know how you get on. :)

A somewhat facetious answer, but the only way to get your 100+ mL or hot drink through security is if YOU are the container.

Drink up in the queue and bin the cup at the top of the line, and everyone is happy - although you're more likely to need a "pitstop" somewhere before your destination.

It's even become a 'newsworthy' checked item, and not just for the liquid content.

Firstly, it's liquid (even fraps), so while a tiny espresso or macchiato might be under the 100ml rule , most coffees will not be allowed through.

Secondly, even if bought after security, some Starbucks drinks are now being checked for explosives (!!).

You won't be able to bring a liquid you bought before security because of the 100ml liquid rule, as has been pointed out.

However it's usually fine to bring a coffee you bought on the secure air side on to the plane.

If you are concerned about spills you could bring an empty travel mug or similar with you and transfer your drink.

I've never flown from Edinburgh specifically

but I regularly fly trans-Atlantic and the only time I've encountered an airport that didn't have a coffee shop air side (maybe not Starbucks specifically but some sort of purveyor of liquid caffeine) was when the terminal was being remodelled and all of the shops were closed.

Question: I’m traveling to Paris from Edinburgh next week and confused whether I could get a frappuccino from Starbucks for the flight? I'm not sure if I could get one because of security?

Can you take a coffee on a plane if you purchased it before security?

You will not be able to bring a coffee through security, since the UK only allows a single small resealable bag of liquids holding containers 100ml or less. However, you can take a coffee bought in the departure lounge onboard.

You cannot take a Frappuccino through airport security, however you can buy one after you have bipassed airport security if there is a coffee shop present.

You cannot bring a coffee, Frappuccino etc. through security as it breaks the 100ml container rule.

You may buy a coffee and bring it on board after airport security


While you may be close, you are not a family unit and should approach separately.

If airport staff directs you to separate lines, just go with it.

As to whether they know you're travelling together, maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter.

There's nothing at all unusual about friends travelling together.

Important point, if you're asked if you are travelling with someone, don't lie .

Just say yes

and if asked, point out your friend.

When I travel together with someone (whether my mum or a friend), it's always been natural for us to approach together, including in the UK, France (including Guadeloupe and Martinique), Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, North Cyprus and Georgia (in fact I will often hold both of our documents).

So far no one has ever given us grief for that.

However, anecdotal evidence suggests officers may not allow it if you aren't family, but unless you're in an ultra-sensitive country like the US, where you risk getting sent back over the slightest error, the worst thing that can happen is they ask one person to back off while the other one is processed.

If you absolutely don't want that to happen, stay together in the queue, try talking to each other so the officers realise you're together, but let one approach the officer first, and if asked about the other person, point to the other person.

the Immigration and Customs officers, would they be able to know if we booked our tickets together or is that information not available to them?

In some advanced countries like the US, they may know once they scan your documents, because of advance passenger information.

In general, though, no.

It depends much more on the place you are travelling to than on your relationship status.

On my last trip to Russia, for example, that customs officers told us clearly that the signs "approach individually" also apply to married couples.

In general, approaching seperately is always the safe option.

Anyway you will have separate visas and passports.

For Thailand approaching together might work, for Japan

I dimly remember the same as for Russia above was true, but it's been 10+ years since I travelled there.

We always approach separately because it is faster.

However, after landing in Japan (Tokyo-Narita), my girlfriend came to the officer and he asked if we had traveled together, then he prompted me to go, so we went through immigration at the same time.

I can't see any problem with going separately: both of us had a form with address of hotel we planned to stay (actually, it was Airbnb apartment), passport and a ticket.

Japan immigration is very professional and helpful, just asking about the purpose of a visit and sometimes inspecting luggage.

Since you are not going to the US, I wouldn't sweat it, though I would expect the Japanese to be a bit alert, especially if you are younger, since you are coming from a country that is known as a source for drugs.

Sometimes they want people "traveling together" to approach together, sometimes only family, sometimes only individuals.

If this is a typical vacation trip, then all should go very smoothly and the Thai and Japanese officials are always very polite.

If your traveling companion is behind you there will be no problem.

There may be cases where people pretend not to know each other and go through separately, so I would avoid the appearance of that.

As to US, here is a typical experience from this site: I've entered the US from Canada (@ YVR pre-clearance) a few times with friends, and I've had the officer get angry with me for both situations. 1)

Walk up alone, friend stands behind red line: (Officer looks up at friend standing behind red line): "

Are you two traveling together?"

"Yes, sir."

"Then why ISN'T HE UP HERE WITH YOU!?!?!"

(Friend hustles forward.)

Another time, walk up together, friend stands next to me.

"Are you two a family (sneer)?"

"No, Sir."

"The GET BACK BEHIND THE RED LINE!"

Question: I will be traveling to Thailand and Japan with my friend/roommate. We booked our tickets together. My question is, when going through Immigration and Customs at our destination, do we go through together as a 'single family' or is it okay to go through separately? We live in the same apartment, but we are not related.  Another question (I'm just curious), the Immigration and Customs officers, would they be able to know if we booked our tickets together or is that information not available to them?

Traveling with friend/roommate, do we go through Immigration separately or together?

It would be safer to approach separately as you are not a family unit, but the airport staff might direct you to approach together, or to separate if you approached together. The travel documents may indicate that you are travelling together, so the official will know and can decide.

It is adviced that you approach the customs officer seperately unless you are family members. If you are told to separate just go with it and there should be no problems. As for whether or not they know if you booked your flight together, there may be a chance of that in advanced countries once they scan your documents i.e like in the US.

If you are not family the is anecdotal evidenc to suggest that you approach the customs officer seperately.

When travelling with family memebers or what appears to be a family member i.e girlfriend/boyfriend then there is no problem approaching the officer together ad in some cases you are even asked to approach together.

In some adanced countries like the US they MAY know you booked your flight together once they scan your documents.


Anything is possible, of course, but it is overwhelmingly, vastly, immensely more likely that this is a scam, and that the source of this email or message is not actually your daughter-in-law, but instead someone else trying to get you to send them money.

In this day of easy Facetime and other video connections, you'll want to have an actual chat with your daughter-in-law to make sure it's her

and she's really in need.

This SE thread and this ABC News story discuss the issue further.

I do not think this is commonly possible, because Jamaica seems to require proof of onward travel.

This means that the immigration in Jamaica will check that arriving visitors have a valid ticket for somewhere else within their visa window (a return ticket or somewhere else outside of Jamaica).

Because airlines generally lose money for arriving with passengers who fail immigration checks, they also commonly check before they will even let you onto the plane to get to Jamaica in the first place.

Since most of these checks are done electronically, they are very hard to fool.

Also generally if you did somehow arrive in Jamaica and then fail immigration, what would happen would be that you would be returned by the next plane back to your original airport.

I can think of some extremely uncommon scenarios, for example if you have a legitimate ticket but your airline suddenly goes out of business (Primera Air), or if you deliberately return your return ticket for a refund; and of course you could be temporarily stranded for weather delays or plane maintenance or anything along those lines.

Conclusion:

Unless you already knew that your relative planned to be in Jamaica at this time and have significant conversation with her to verify her identity, this is most likely a scam.

(My grandparents almost fell for a scam like this, and fortunately held on for long enough to get in contact with my cousin and verify that he never left home and definitely was not stranded in a foreign country!

These scammers are very sophisticated, used details from social media, and even convincingly acted on the phone.)

It is possible, assuming you have a very loose definition of "round trip", for example:

You bought the ticket to Jamaica from a reputable airline.

Once you landed there, you bought another ticket from some less than reputable source.

Your second ticket could be pre-sold or "fake", but these days of electronic everything, it seems highly unlikely.

There are lots of other scenarios that may lead to someone being left at the airport or otherwise delayed:

Flight is overbooked and the person is bumped for a later flight.

In case the airline bumps a passenger, they are obligated to compensate you (the exact kind of compensation varies wildly).

The flight is cancelled due to technical issues, weather, etc.

In most cases the airline will reschedule you as well usually for free.

Immigration / customs issues may lead to detention and delay.

You got stuck in traffic or simply missed the deadline to check-in.

There is very little chance of a genuine "fake ticket" scenario.

As David mentions in his answer shown above , this is highly likely to be a scam to get you to send money - especially if it is through an anonymous source like Western Union.

Anything is possible.

It's however highly unlikely, certainly if she bought the ticket through an airline or a reputable travel agency.

Most likely then, it's a scam and the email is not coming from your daughter in law but from someone else entirely.

Which should be easy enough to check by comparing the email addresses of the sender, reply-to address, and any known email addresses of your daughter in law.

She should also have other means of contacting you, like telephone, to verify whether the message was indeed sent by her.

The text of the message is also a clue, does it mention actual correct names and addresses?

If not, it's a dead giveaway that it's a scam.

If it does, are they correct?

If they are, it can still be a scam especially if your and her name are relatively common.

So contact her through other means, verify that it really is coming from her (99% chance

it isn't btw, especially if you didn't know before getting this message that she's in Jamaica, most people wouldn't go abroad without telling their family after all.

And if they get in trouble while abroad would call their direct family first rather than their in-laws).

I've had a round trip ticket issued by an airline (charter) when all I bought was a one way ticket.

I was puzzled, and I asked - I was told that they automatically issued a return trip to avoid issues at immigration (proof of return ticket or onward travel).

I had not asked for it, I didn't even need it as I had residency at my destination, but for some reason they did it automatically.

I'm not sure how they would handle it, or if it was legal.

I suppose, but I don't know for sure, that they would routinely cancel the return leg before its date.

While not strictly counterfeit, or not strictly fake, it indeed was a return flight that I didn't book and that I didn't pay for, and that the airline would never allow me to take anyway.

Whether or not this applies to your situation is hard to tell, but it's not very likely, as the traveler would be well aware of such an arrangement.

Question: Is it possible to buy round-trip tickets to Jamaica where the return ticket is counterfeit?  My daughter-in-law says she's now stranded there. Is this possible?

Is it possible that the return ticket of a round-trip is counterfeit?

While anything is possible, this is considered to be highly unlikely, especially  if the ticket is purchased through a reputable agent and considering that it seems that  Jamaica requires proof of onward travel. Although uncommon, return travel could be affected if an airline suddenly went out of business or if the definition of a round trip was vague, but there is little chance of a genuine fake ticket scenario.

Counterfeit tickets are not very likely, but anything can happen.

Counterfeit return tickets are possible but unlikely.


Saguaro cactus are native specifically to the Sonoran desert .

This photo outlines where the Sonoran desert is located.

According to this TripAdvisor thread , you will not see them 20 minutes north of Phoenix.

They seem to stop growing above 3,000 feet above sea level.

You should be able to see them south of Sedona, along I-17 interstate highway.

You can find Saguaro in South Mountain Park on the south side of Phoenix.

Here's a screenshot from Google Street View showing a couple:

Your segment from Palm Springs to Phoenix will probably be along I-10, which passes through Blythe at the Colorado River between Yuma and Lake Havasu City.

There will be scattered saguaro all along that stretch of road and more densely populated patches just off the highway, especially to the south-east of Blythe in southern Arizona.

When I lived in Phoenix 50 years ago, the town (now "city") was lousy with saguaro, cholla, barrel cactus, and prickly pear characteristic of the Sonoran Desert.

The stretch of I-17 just north of Tucson is always a great place to see loads of them, but that is not part of your stated route.

I also suspect the Colorado River valley between Blythe & Lake Havasu City will not be part of your itinerary; if it were, you'd see all you'd want and more...

Leaving the Phoenix area to the east along Highway 60, there are many many Saguaro between Apache Junction and Superior.

Leaving the Phoenix area to the south along the I-10, once you leave the developed area (not too far south of Chandler), you again can see many of them, and can continue to see many of them all the way until you hit the border of New Mexico.

Leaving the Phoenix area to the west along the I-10 will have some visible near the interstate, though not in the profusion to the east or south of Phoenix.

Leaving the Phoenix area to the north along the I-17 will briefly have some visible, but the elevation rapidly climbs several thousand feet out of the valley, and you won't see many after that.

Your chosen route seems to be too far north to enounter Saguaro.

There is also Ethel M Botanical Cactus Garden 10 miles away from downtown Las Vegas.

According to the pictures from Google Maps, there are some big cacti there

(I don't know whether they are Saguaro or not).

Those cacti are not quite "in the wild", but the question as I stated it does not specify whether I'm looking specifically for cacti in the wild.

(In fact I am, but nevertheless this answer may be useful to someone.)

The drive on I-17 between Sedona and Phoenix has wonderful views of saguaros from a car, but not places to hike among them.

You should definitely stop at the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix; they have great specimens and information.

The South Mountain Park and Preserve in SW Phoenix has some great hikes with plenty of saguaros.

You can't go to Phoenix without seeing saguaros!

This isn't answering exactly what you asked, but if you are travelling through Palm Springs, and interested in the unique flora of the American southwest, you should make a side trip to Joshua Tree National Park , home to the a desert plant just as iconic and even more restricted in range than the saguaro.

( image source )

Question: I was wondering if there are any huge cacti like these:   (I believe they're called Saguaro or something, but I guess similar cacti are fine too) that one can see (in the winter) somewhere along the following route?  San Diego - Palm Springs - Phoenix - Sedona - Tusayan - Page - Panguitch - Springdale - Las Vegas - Badwater - Los Angeles  I'm aware about Saguaro National Park, but it's too far from Phoenix.

Finding big cacti between Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles

You will not see Saguaro 20 minutes north of Phoenix as this is too far north. However, you will find them in South Mountain Park on the south side of Phoenix. Scattered Saguaro can be found all along the proposed route and especially to the south-east of Blythe.

You will not see Saguaro north of Phoenix, but they are in South Mountain Park and off the highway in southern Arizona.

You will not see Saguaro to the north of Phoenix.

Saguaro are scattered just off the highway in densely populated areas.


There are only two German airports that have non-stop service from San Francisco: Frankfurt and Munich.

Frankfurt is closer by about 170 miles.

The official flight time difference is not meaningful

: 11h 10m vs 11h 15m.

Random factors, like wind, weather, gate traffic, taxiing, etc is going to make more of a difference than the actual distance.

Technically Hamburg is the closest German international airport, but there is no non-stop service, so it's not the shortest flight.

The most commonly used airports for such a trip are: Frankfurt International Airport (FRA) Dusseldorf International Airport (DUS) Both are served by US-American Airlines from the US.

There are also non-stop flights to Frankfurt, which you may want to prefer. Airport Cologne-Bonn (CGN) is actually closer, but less commonly used for such trips.

Trying to use it for a transatlantic trip typically leads to higher airfares in my experience.

One option you can consider is that Lufthansa has a partnership with Deutsche Bahn , the German train operator.

You can go to Lufthansa.com and make a single booking consisting of a flight from San Francisco to Frankfurt (operated by either United or Lufthansa) and a train ticket from Frankfurt to Cologne, with a guaranteed connection in case your flight is delayed.

In this example, "flight" LH3612 is actually a train from the airport to Cologne, but your air ticket is valid for this train:

You'll have to research whether this is cost-effective based on your travel dates.

For some random dates I tried next February, the combined air+rail journey to Cologne was $10 cheaper than just the flight to Frankfurt alone, so there could be some savings booking together.

There's also a separate program called Rail&Fly .

With this, you book a flight to Frankfurt (or elsewhere in Germany) and then click the "Buy train tickets" button to purchase deeply discounted train tickets to/from any station in Germany valid for the dates on or near your flight dates.

You can check all of these options to see which is cheapest and/or more convenient for your travel dates.

Alternatives for Frankfurt, which has the best connection to Cologne, are Amsterdam (AMS, Schiphol airport, the Netherlands) and Paris, (CDG, Charles de Gaulle, France) and likely a couple more I did not check.

The travel time from the USA to Europe will be about the same, maybe a bit less, but not a lot.

Both cities I mentioned have direct trains to Cologne and train stations right at the airport, but neither airport seem to have those direct trains, you will have to change between trains if you fly there.

So while it may be a good alternative if you have trouble finding well priced tickets to Germany, it will not be better than a good second place.

I used the Bahn.de site for the train information, they will also sell German and international train tickets online.

Frankfurt Airport has a long distance train station attached to the airport, with a direct link to Cologne.

The train Frankfurt - Cologne is pretty much the fastest train run in the country.

It is one of the few places in Germany where the ICE actually runs at 300km/h

(I have a picture to prove it!), and there is only 1 stop in between, the trip takes about an hour.

Munich is 3 hours away from Cologne, at least, and you are still 45 minute away from Munich station, the airport is quite a distance out of the city in the middle of nowhere.

You can check the train times on www.bahn.de

Question: What is the shortest distance Airport to Germany From San Francisco considering I will take a train to Cologne from there.

What is the shortest distance Airport to Cologne Germany From San Francisco

There are only two German airports that have non-stop service from San Francisco: Frankfurt and Munich. Dusseldorf is also commonly used. Cologne-Bonn airport is closer, but less commonly used for such trips.

You can fly to Frankfurt, Munich, Dusseldorf and Cologne-Bonn.


According to this article the rate of bags lost in Europe is about 8 per thousand.

That's less than 1%.

It goes on to say that 85% of bags reported as missing are delivered within 48 hours.

Choose your layover on whatever basis you like, but lost bags shouldn't be an issue.

I cannot imagine 10% of luggage ever misconnected in AMS.

This just seems sooooo much higher than anywhere else.

Moreover, it would imply that KLM as the major user of the airport would have a rate of mishandle luggage at around 10%, which would have put them in an untenable business situation.

More importantly, what matters is the mishandled rate now, not way back when: the rate for 2017 was 5.57 per thousands, and Delta now uses technology where they claim to handle 99.9% of all bags perfectly (as reported by the BBC here ).

Given that AMS is a major Delta hub, and KLM is so intertwined with Delta, it is unlikely that the DL performance is much worse than announced when connecting to a KLM flight.

As an aside

: I avoid CDG as much as I can.

I have always found AMS to be much more passenger friendly:

clean, with a logical layout, and spacious wait areas, all things which CDG is NOT.

Last year I was part of the software team of sections of the baggage handling at Schiphol.

From the data I saw there they never reached the 10% you claim.

The year I was working the number of lost bags was 0.75%.

Which is lower than the European average of 0.8%.

Though that might be because of the number of significant digits.

From my own limited experience (fly once or twice a year, always from Amsterdam), luggage handling was very bad in the '90 but is good now.

On returning home i hardly ever have to wait more then 15 mins for the luggage to arrive on the belt.

Only once had two bags misplaced, they were sent after us on the next plane, this was about 15yrs ago.

It used to be in the '90

we had to wait for 45 mins normally and very often

they would forget to unload or would only unload half the suitcases.

Than after complaints and some more waiting the rest would come.

As others have stated the loss rate you quote is probably a misquote, and these days probably irrelevant.

Faster connections <1h increase the risk of luggage missing the connection, but they'll send it to you on the next flight.

So if you're worried about late bags, pick the airport with the longer layover.

Or better yet, plan your flight so the connection has 2h-3h as a layover.

On a personal note, i agree with the comments that AMS nicer than CDG, but that is personal taste.

Also AMS is more in English then CDG, which is french after all.

I think I remember from years back when there was a strike or a system failure there was a huge backlog of luggage in Schiphol, it may even have happened a few times when they were installing the current luggage system.

But that was years ago

and I have not heard about system failures for a long time.

If there was a 10% luggage delivery failure it was to deliver in a timely manner, all delayed luggage got send on bar for a small percentage which had lost tags.

It was also always short in duration, like a 24 hour strike.

So while there might have been a time when the 10% luggage lost was mentioned in the news, it was never a long term number.

Strikes can happen but are much less likely in the Netherlands than in France, so based on that alone

I would avoid Paris.

I have written this answer from memory, living near enough the airport that news like that makes the small, free, local newspapers and the local gossip.

Question: Years ago, 10% of luggage going through Amsterdam Airport was lost.  Is that still true?  We have a choice to fly through Paris or Amsterdam to Prague on Delta.

What is the incidence of lost luggage in Amsterdam Airport?

It is reported that the data shows that Amsterdam airport never reached the 10% you claim, and that in one year the number of lost bags was 0.75%.

The rate of luggage lost is far lower than 10%, last year it was 0.75%.


This is enforced the way most rules are enforced: catching the low hanging fruits, deterring others and generally making it more costly/statistically less likely to succeed even if you cannot stop everbody.

That's true even in normal times and for some borders outside of the Schengen area or many other type of rules.

Short of miliarizing a border East-German style (and even then), you cannot stop each and every person who wants to evade controls.

Just like most of the other lock-down measures (including shop closures and restrictions on movement inside countries), the goal is to reduce contacts, not stop them entirely.

And it's still allowed to cross these borders for many purposes (cross-border work, returning to one's residence, goods transport)…

This also means the goal has never been to prevent people who are ready to make significant efforts to circumvent the restrictions (nor should it be) but mostly to impress upon everybody that movement is not desired.

Stops on the motorways are perfectly adequate for this, in fact they might not even be really necessary, reducing rail and air traffic already achieves most of the desired effect.

Depending on the Jurisdiction, many of the former border guards were integrated into a national police responsible for internal security.

In Germany, where state police are responsible for local law enforcement, the Federal Police are responsible for railways since they cross the state borders.

These forces, togeather with Customs and state police, have always remained active in one form or another behind the border.

Customs may check anyone within a 30 KM distance from a customs border, checking for goods allowed in one country but not allowed in another.

Between Germany and Poland this often occurs for checks against weapons, fireworks or fertilizers - where different standards exist.

Simple barriers are placed on road or bridge crossings:

river/mountain borders are easy to control (Germany / Poland, polish side) City bridge

Frankfurt(Oder) /

Słubice, Polish side, 2020-04-06 Land border (Germany / Denmark), less so

There are still national and customs borders depite the European Union, only their tasks are now much more simplified than they were before.

In most cases most people don't notice it (which is the intention), but the infrastructure is still there, but have been scaled down.

Such measures cause a strain on such resources, but it is intended only for a short term and the amount if people out and about are much less than normal.

Well, the German-Danish land border has recently been equipped with a fence against migrant boars ...

This fence (1.5 meters high) was built between January and December 2019.

You will also find such (lower) fences on the German / Polish border, where the river in not very wide.

Fürst Pückler Park, Bad Muskau, Sachsen, August 2019

Also in Berlin it is also not uncommon on the river front to forests, where until the opening of the border, the the border fortifications were an effective barrier (Western Berlin was until then rabies free).

At this time, there are police patrols along the German and Dutch border, both sides.

The border is not completely closed, Germans who insists have to be allowed into the Netherlands, while Dutch who want to go into Germany have to proof a very good reason and cheaper petrol or shopping is not a good enough reason and fines are given.

I have heard of other countries that have the same kind of police patrols near the borders, but there may well be other variations as well.

I am in the Netherlands but nowhere near the border, it was on the national news on the radio.

I live about a 5min drive away from the Austrian Border.

You can cross the border if you have an important reason to do so.

(like work) About twice a day there is a helicopter of the armed forces checking for attempts to bypass the efforts.

Where borders have been closed, as far as I have seen on the news, they simply put up a barrier and a “no entry” sign as for, say, roadworks or public events.

I have heard of police presence, but this does not seem to happen at all border crossings and not all the time.

Border closures vary from member state to member state: Not all states have closed their borders.

Some have closed their borders to some neighbors but not to others, or in one direction but not in the other, and there are various exceptions for crossing the otherwise closed border for a valid reason.

Also, some member states have restricted people from even leaving their home, except for a valid reason (such as grocery shopping, going to work or to get medical treatment).

If such restrictions are in place on either side of the border, people would not even be able to travel to the border and/or away from it.

Anybody moving around in public might be stopped by police, no matter what side of the border they came from.

Enforcement in such cases tends to take place where violations are most likely to happen (say, in public parks and the like).

Lack of public transportation across borders is also a kind of enforcement: people who do not have a car and do not live near the border have hardly any way of crossing the border these days.

Lastly, the fact that something is unlawful, subject to fines and will be enforced (even if just sporadically) is enough to keep many people from doing it.

(After all, most people observe speed limits most of the time.)

All of these things together reduce cross-border movement sufficiently to prevent COVID-19 from spreading, which is, after all, what all the measures are about.

Question: In the past month, all Schengen countries announced strict border controls even within the Schengen area and even for EU citizens. However European borders are extremely porous given the large number of border towns and small international roads that go across forests and fields.  So how are these Schengen borders enforced in practice?    NB: I am not in the Schengen area currently, nor am I planning to go there and cross any borders.

How are border closures enforced in the Schengen area given the large number of crossing points?

The borders are generally enforced by catching some offenders, deterring others and making it more costly/statistically less likely to succeed even if you cannot stop everybody. However, there are police patrols along both sides of the German and Dutch borders as well as helicopter patrols by the armed forces.

Authorities typically catch the most obvious offenders, though police patrols exist on the German/Dutch border and armed forces helicopters are also used to patrol borders.

Authorities catch the most obvious offenders as a deterrent.

Police patrols exist along the German/Dutch border.

Armed forces helicopters can be used to monitor borders.


In the core alps (Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and Austria), you can drink water almost everywhere directly without filtering.

There are only two exceptions: If there is a thing or something like this that forbids drinking it, or if you can see an obvious reason not to drink it, like for example a strange smell or abnormal color.

In the other countries in the Alps (France, Italy, etc.)

I would only drink water unfiltered if you can drink it directly from the source, i.e. glacial lakes or the source itself.

If you're on an extended trip away from civilization, I wouldn't recommend it anywhere except directly from a spring coming out of rock.

If there are animals in the area, you can be sure they some have died, or done their business in the water and it could be contaminated.

While water in the alps is likely safer that rivers or lakes in most areas, I wouldn't risk it.

My understanding is that anything above 4000 metres you can drink due to there being a low chance that anything living will affect the water i.e. animal faeces and bacteria etc.

I suppose you mean outside of village, so you are talking about streams and sources.

In any alpine areas (France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria) I drink water unfiltered when I assume that there are no alps (place with cattle during summer) upstream, which worked for me.

Of course you usually cannot be 100% sure about it, but almost so.

If there is cattle upstream, you have a quite a chance of getting diarrhea.

I did it twice until now when I was just too thirsty and once came to regret that decision :)

Many people attribute diarrhea to glacier water, which I cannot confirm.

Unless you drink it constantly, the lack of minerals is not a problem either.

For dwells in towns in Switzerland you can drink always unless there is a sign telling you otherwise.

Sometimes such a sign is present as the water is not officially tested, that also very often the case in alpine huts, while the water is fine.

But you cannot know, so unless you have somebody trustful to advice you, keep away.

I'm Swiss and I've been drinking water from mountain streams all my life, without any altitude restriction, while observing three basic rules.

You can drink the water if: the river is small enough to jump across it there is no cattle (alpage) above, where cows, goats and sheep may poo into the water

there is no human settlement above

Drinking this water is one of my favourite things when hiking

and I mostly go hiking carrying only a minimal amount of water to drink on the peaks where there are no rivers or sources.

I hike often (in Ticino) and managed to survive for 44 years :-)

At a water faucet?

I would filter any untreated water in the Alps, and filter or boil melted snow.

Question: In some places,  the Swedish Lappland  for example, it's perfectly fine and even recommended to drink water directly from streams.  Is it also recommended whilst hiking in the Alps, and if so is it only in certain areas?

Where in the Alps is it safe to drink the water without filtering?

Some people say that you can drink anything above 4000 metres as it is unlikely to have anything living in it that can harm you. Others say it is fin to drink from small streams providing that livestock is not kept upstream, which may be able to contaminate the water. Finally, some say that untreated water should be filtered and snow should be boiled.

You can drink water above 4000 metres where there is no risk of faeces in the water. Filtering water, boiling melted snow or drinking from a faucet are also advisable.

You can drink water above 4000 metres, anywhere where there is no risk of faeces in the water.

You should filter any water, boil melted snow or drink from a faucet.


In addition to xpda's answer : Any time you're out sailing and hat or something falls in the water, it's time to practice a MOB drill.

Run the full protocol, including yelling out "MAN OVERBOARD"

(even it's

it's a female hat).

Set up deliberate drills by throwing a fender overboard.

Practice in a variety of conditions (especially wind strength) and various points of sail.

If you use a motor and you're unskilled, you could hit the MOB with the boat or prop.

Don't do that!

You can rescue a MOB under sail, and it's a good way to improve your sailing skills.

There are many approaches, and sailors like to argue which is best.

Maybe you tack, maybe you jibe.

Approach from below the MOB, so you can point in to the wind and come to a stop just at the MOB (much like docking under sail).

This gives you time to try multiple attempts to get the MOB out if necessary, whereas a downwind approach lets you have one try at it.

To get to the downwind side, usually use a figure 8 pattern - this makes it easier to keep eyes on the MOB.

To pull someone out of the water when they're wearing a PFD: Grab by the shoulders of the PFD Push down

They will pop up; use the momentum to help pull them in to the boat.

Know which part of your boat will be easiest to pull someone in by.

On a small tender boat, that may be over the transom.

If your topsides are high, you may need to use a rope.

Tie a large bowline to go around the MOB's chest.

If there is another person person onboard, have them do nothing but watch the person in the water.

They should point a finger at person in the water and never take their eyes off.

Toss out life buoys, life slings, floating cushions, etc.

If you have it, hit a man overboard button on your GPS.

If not, make a waypoint.

Stop the boat, lower the sails.

Motor back to the person in the water.

If possible, drag a rope with a float (life jacket, life sling, etc.)

on the end to the person can grab it.

If that's not possible, throw the rope or get close and try to get the person to swim to the boat.

If at all possible, do NOT get into the water.

Only if the person is incapacitated or incapable of holding into a rope

should you consider it.

Think about doing this at night.

If the boat is beyond swimming distance of shore, be sure everybody on the boat has a life jacket (and hopefully a harness) with a strobe whenever they are on deck at night.

It's pretty difficult to climb onto some boats from the water.

You should find out the best way to do this in your boat.

Losing someone overboard is probably the most dangerous thing in offshore sailing, and it is almost completely preventable.

Addition to the other answers: when a man is overboard, one man must always point at him with the finger, so not to lose sight.

Throw something visible as soon as possible, such as a floating flag.

when you approach the victim, keep the man downwind.

The natural inclination of the boat under wind will push the downwind side closer to the water, making it easier to haul the man up.

Extremely Important

a man overboard may feel ok, but within two or three hours water produced by the body in response to seawater inhalation may start forming in the lungs, basically drowning him/her from the inside with a delay.

Treat a MOB always as a full medical emergency, and organize for a trip to the hospital regardless and as soon as possible.

Better safe than sorry.

To actually load a person onto a boat, try a parbuckle .

This may be a rope run from a forward cleat over the side of the boat into the water with the aft end secured and wrapped around a winch.

The over board party may sit, stand or drape themselves over the rope which is then pulled taught by the winching in of the line over the side of the boat.

When the line is tight fore to aft, it should assist in the crew or the swimmer in recovery.

Quick stop method.

MOB QuickStop (YouTube) Watching this video will not enable you to do this when you actually have an MOB.

Like any other aspect of boat handling, it must be practiced continuously.

As compared to any other aspect of boat handling, it's as critical as tying a knot or turning on your motor.

The odds are small but the consequences are steep.

Again - there is no substitute for practice (use a cushion, not a person though ;)

Question: If someone falls overboard from a sailboat, it is firstly imperative not to lose sight of the person since finding a man in water, especially when there's waves, can be very difficult.   What techniques are there to direct the sailboat to rescue the man?

When sailing, how do I rescue a man overboard?

Throw something visible as soon as possible, such as a floating flag. If you have it, hit a man overboard button on your GPS. If someone else is available, have them keep watch for and point at the man overboard.  This should be treated as a medical emergency. Try a parbuckle to load the man overboard onto the boat.

This is a medical emergency. One person should keep eyes on the MOB, floating flags and the MOB GPS button can help. Parbuckles can be used to load someone onto a boat.

Floating flags and hitting the overboard button on your GPS help.

Have one person watching the MOB if possible.

Treat this as a medical emergency. You can load someone onto a boat with a parbuckle.


You need an antihistamine cream, there are many different brands available, but you'll find them all similarly effective.

Have a look at AfterBite , it is a treatment for insect bites and stings.

You can apply it to bitten areas, provides relief from mosquito, ticks, fleas, horse flies, black flies, etc.

Note: I am not affiliated with this product in any way, shape, or form.

In case you don't have anything to put on your bites, I found out the following.

If you got snow around you, put a piece of metal (I prefer a spoon) in the snow or cold water, and wait for it to nearly freeze.

And then just put the freezing cold spoon on the bite.

You can also heat a spoon (or just use a lighter directly) and as soon as you won't burn yourself anymore, hold it against your bite, it will sting a bit, but it's very effective

Nonetheless I prefer the electric method.

You can just buy a lighter with a Piezocrystal, an then you disassemble it to get only the spark.

If you get bitten just put the spark against your bite and "Fire it"

this will destroy the protein and neutralize the itching.

If you're lazy or prefer a bought solution you can also buy something like this .

But I still prefer the lighter method, because in my opinion it feels "a lot better".

A friend of mine got severely bitten while we were traveling through Central America together.

After trying a number of more conventional treatments without success we picked up Itch-A-Way while in Belize and she said it worked wonders.

Don't scratch!

Mosquitos inject an anti-coagulant under your skin as soon as they puncture you

, this is to prevent the blood from clotting so their noses don't get glued to the inside of your dermis while they're sucking.

This is what makes you itch, scratching spreads the anti-coagulant around over a greater area and makes the itch worse than if you had just left it alone.

Your natural immune system will have a much easier time containing and eliminating the annoying toxin if you simply do not touch the area around the bite, the itching will not last as long, and you may not even show a bite.

It takes some mental training and some will power to overcome the urge to scratch, but you'd be amazed how fast they go away when left alone.

Of course there are times when you don't know you've been bit until after you've already unconsciously scratched the area.

To alleviate things, I've found that you can control the itch by 'containing' the anti-coagulant.

This can be accomplished by gently scratching towards the bite from just outside the perimeter of the itchy area, but don't scratch the bite itself.

This accumulates the anti-coagulant into a smaller area, the smaller area the itch covers, the less itchy it will feel.

I use Solarcaine, which contains a local anesthetic, on both mosquito bites and sunburn.

Just don't get any in your eye, nose, or other tender areas.

It's sold for sunburn relief but works just as well for preventing itching.

It's readily available in Canada and this page

lists some brand names around the world for the same active ingredient.

Put some sort of thick covering that prevents oxygen from reaching the bite.

Popular options include Vaseline.

There is a very simple way to relieve the itching for a while.

Press firmly on the bite with your fingers or thumb for 20-30 seconds.

The pressure causes the body to release endorphins that will suppress the itch.

This is not a cure, the itching returns after an hour or so - just press again.

Of course, this is only practical if you have a small number of bites.

If you have several, it is not realistic to press on your whole body.

Clove oil applied to the bite will help.

Boil down a strong solution of cloves.

Test it on your skin to make sure it doesn't burn or feel too hot.

If it does, boil it for longer until it reduces down.

Put it on a wet cloth and place the cloth on the bite.

Clove oil is a minty, slightly camphorous and strong smelling essential oil that repels bugs and also treats bug bites.

It is rich in eugenol, an aromatic compound that is analgesic, anti-inflammatory and rich in antioxidants.

Clove oil can help relieve itching, reduce pain and decrease swelling from all sorts of bug bites including bee stings, wasp stings, ant bites and more.

Source-Top 10 Essential Oils for Bug Bites

Should insects get the best of you, herbal treatments can ease the discomfort.

Many commercial bug-bite products contain plant-based counterirritants that stimulate sensory receptors in the skin, creating a sensation of warmth, coolness, or reduced pain.

These include camphor, derived from the essential oil of the camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora); menthol, the chief constituent of oil of peppermint (M. ¥ piperita); and oil of clove (Syzygium aromaticum).

Source-Herbs for Health-Treat Insect Bites and Stings

In addition to stopping itching, clove oil is a great pain killer, which you sometimes need for those bites.

It's only one step below Novocaine as a pain killer.

I have found calendula cream to work well.

It's the Neosporin alternative if someone is allergic to the active ingredient in it.

Being a cream, it is also a bit cooling, so that may be what helps.

What I found useful when nothing else was on hand: putting a short layer of toothpaste on it.

The menthol gives a cool feeling, thus reduces the itching.

Question: There are a lot of options for trying to prevent mosquito bites (DEET on skin, permethrin on clothing, mosquito nets while sleeping, etc.), but what about after you get bitten? What is the most effective way to stop or reduce the itching from mosquito (or other insect) bites?

What are some effective ways of reducing itching from a mosquito bite?

Antihistamine cream, AfterBite, clove oil, calendula cream and Solarcaine are all recommended. A thick covering to prevent oxygen from reaching the bite may help. Otherwise, press firmly on the bite with your fingers or thumb for 20-30 seconds, and don't scratch!

Creams, treatments, clove oil, pressure, coverings and avoiding scratching all help.

Creams, treatments and clove oil are effective.

Applying pressure, avoiding scratching and putting a thick covering on are helpful.


Hiking blisters are from friction.

When things shift, your sock is more likely to stay with your boot than your foot as the two fabrics (or leather and fabric) will catch each other.

This leaves the sock moving against your foot, which causes friction.

When you wear two socks, specifically a smooth liner and a wool hiking sock, the outer sock moves against the inner sock instead of against your foot and less friction is created.

Less friction = fewer blisters.

For the same reason, two pairs of wool won't work as well as what you currently do because the wool is likely to bind and behave like one sock instead of two

There are a lot of unspecified variables involved here... type of socks, fit of the shoe/boot, type of shoe, conditions you are hiking in, etc.

But in general, double-socking may offer the following which may help prevent blisters:

reduced friction - assuming one sock is a thin slick liner sock which tends to stick to your foot while the outer sock sticks to the boot thus keeping the rubbing happening between the two.

moisture control - a liner sock can help wick moisture away from your foot.

Dry feet are happy feet.

additional padding - can prevent hot-spots and pressure points (or can create them, depending on the fit of the shoe) can help take up space - shoes that fit too big can rub more leech control - two pairs of tight woven socks have served me well for 2 years in the tropics warmth - adds additional insulation (though if your boot is a tight fit, this can actually work against you as you decrease circulation/air space...)

If the question is whether double-socking is better , that is unanswerable and totally a question of personal preference.

If 2 socks work for you, and reduce blisters, go for it.

For other people's feet / shoes, 1 sock may be better.

I've even worn 3 socks when my shoes were big enough, and I have hiked with people who wore no socks without issue...

If the question is whether two socks are proven to reduce friction - even that depends on the fabric of the socks, the material and fit of the boot, the foot, and the environment (hot, cold, wet, dry, etc...).

FWIW Ten years ago everyone in the Canadian Forces were issued wool socks.

Now they are all issued two-pair sock systems.

Personally I never once got blisters with wool socks

but I always kept my boots tight.

Two pairs of socks reduces friction and absorbs more moisture, both of which help prevent blisters.

Personally, I prefer thin neoprene socks underneath thick wool socks.

The esoteric "answer": Try footwraps . Advantages: dirt cheep can be wrapped in any preferrable way, to provide the most padding against the most aggressive edges of Your shoe at a short break(5min) - re-wrap the footwrap in the opposite direction i.e. the cloth,

that is wet from the sweating feet goes up against the ankle and calf to dry out and vice versa at lunch break(30min)

- put the footwraps in the sun and wind.

A footwrap has a lot more surface area than a sock! at night - let the footwraps aerate - they will be fine for another day, due to abovementioned property a (clean) rectangular piece of cloth could have much alternative uses than a ... pair of socks

Disadvantages: can take up to 1 minute to put them on

I have heard of only cotton as materilal.

If you can afford proper technologically-advanced socks, I would expect foot wraps to be inferior (provided breathable boots are used).

stolen from Wikipedia

I wear two socks every day.

In fact they're just cheap cotton socks that I buy from Walmart.

Although my friends think I'm ridiculous for doing this, it does decrease friction, it aborbs sweat, my feet blister much less, less callouses, more cushion, less stink.

My friends even challenged me to go back to one pair of socks for a while, but it bothers me too much, so after trying it, I never went back to single socks again.

Again, this is just experience with cheap cotton socks.

Question: From personal experience I tend to wear two pairs of socks, normally some running socks and then my hiking socks on top of that. It helps me avoid blisters. Quite a few of my friends thinks this is nonsense. But with well worn-in boots I always tend to get more blisters if I wear only one pair. Does anyone know if there is any  scientific reason  for this? or is it just an old wives tale?

Is it better to wear one pair or two pairs of socks while hiking?

Some people claim that two pairs of socks reduces friction and absorbs more moisture, both of which help prevent blisters.  Although some may disagree, it can decrease friction, absorb sweat, blister much less, cause fewer callouses,  cushion more and smell less. When you wear a smooth liner and a wool hiking sock, the outer sock moves against the inner sock instead of against your foot and less friction is created.

Wearing two pairs of socks reduces friction and absorbs moisture.


The other two answers mention 'summer camp' type environments.

My answer is more focused at family camping, but has some relevance to both: With younger children it can be very simple, although possibly not the most comfortable

:You sleep across the doorway.

For any child to get out at night they need to climb over you.

If you think they could sneak around you (if you have a tent with a wide door, for example), you could look at putting a string through the zipper with a loose bow, but I'd tend to advise against this as in an emergency it could cause confusion.

With older children (I'm thinking 7 to 10 year olds) you can run a brightly coloured cord from the tent to the latrine area, and depending on the environment, you could leave a couple of night lanterns at the tents (this has its drawbacks in attracting insects)

Above that age, as long as they are sensible, just make sure they have some obvious signposting - natural features etc - which they can use to navigate back.

As long as you aren't in dangerous country (bears, cliffs, etc.)

older kids want to go exploring at night.

In any case, make sure they have good torches (flashlights) and a whistle before going out alone.

My experience with children summer camps says the children are so afraid of the dark that they won’t go into the night unless their bed is on fire, and even then very reluctantly.

When they need to pee they’ll go the least possible distance from their tents and if they have to visit the latrines, they will wake up their mates or rather wait until morning (which doesn’t always work, but that’s a different story).

I think the only real possibility is some kind of sleepwalking.

That would be quite hard to guard against, as no amount of schooling will make a difference.

If you really do want to cover this scenario, I think you would have to resort to keeping guards or employing some technical solution like this (randomly googled).

Pleased to see no-one's mentioned locking the door in some way - just to reinforce for anyone that may come across this question, that's definitely what not to do, since in an emergency you want to be able to get out as quickly as you can.

My first instinct is to ask if it's even a risk that's worth accounting for?

Unless you're talking about particularly adventurous or mischievous children many will be too scared to venture out into a dark, unknown, unlit area without knowing their way back.

If you decide it is then there's a number of things you can attempt to do, though realistically the only thing that's going to be dead set in stopping them is sleeping in shifts.

First, make sure the adults sleep closest to the door and the children closest to the back - this way they'll struggle to get out unnoticed if they have to climb across 2 or more fully grown adults without waking them.

You could also use a GPS / radio signal tracker, but this relies the child keeping it on them which they presumably won't do if they think they're not allowed out.

Another point in relation to this though is to lay down the ground rules, and lay down the consequences.

If they know the possibility of them getting caught is there, and this possibility would result in wrecking the trip somehow for them all, they'll generally be a lot more cautious about attempting to sneak out!

If it's a large number of kids or if they aren't your own kids then yes, parents should work in shifts.

You're responsible for them and you can't be certain of their behaviour.

Otherwise, kids should follow the same discipline as at home, which is that you don't leave your room/tent after you go to bed, and that if you do have to get out to go pee or whatever that you stay within eyesight, or ask an adult to come with you.

If you're really worried, give them all whistles and have them wear them around their necks.

Any system which relies on preventing kids form exploring while outdoors seems to be both self-defeating and unlikely to work.

My advice is to talk to them about what they should do if they do get lost so they can help in their own rescue.

Similarity putting too strong a prohibition on wandering off is only likely to make them more prone to panic and forget safety instructions if they do.

Simple things can make the campsite easier for anybody to find if they do get lost at night. set up a perimeter line with high visibility (even glow in the dark cord)

this gives a bigger target to find in the dark

Put out a safe light overnight in a visible spot, a chemical or solar powered lantern is ideal have an agreed system for signalling, for example if you notice somebody is missing blow a whistle 3 times every minute and set up extra lights ideally a strobe.

Ideally 'home' lights should be coloured eg blue or green to make them more obvious and avoid any confusion with lights from roads towns etc.

Give everybody a whistle and key-chain light on a string if you put it in a bracelet

then kids are more likely to keep it on.

It is also a good idea to conduct a 'lost' drill early in the trip, it should be easy enough to make this a game.

For anybody getting lost the biggest danger is panic so going through the emergency procedure in a fun way will greatly improve their confidence.

Teach kids that if they realise they are lost they should stay put and shout out.

I would also endorse the 'buddy' system from a previous answer, pair kids off and encourage them to look out for each other,

emphasise that if they are worried about their buddy they should ask an adult for help.

My own feeling is that giving kids a bit of agency in looking after themselves and each other is by far the best way both for them to get the most out of the experience and keep them safe.

Question: When camping in more remote areas with young kids, how can you make sure they don't take a stroll and get lost in the middle of the night?  We won't be near lights, established "bathrooms", etc.  The adults will be asleep as well, and I'm hoping for a solution that does not involve sleeping in shifts.

How can you prevent kids getting lost at night while camping?

Giving kids a bit of responsibility to look after themselves and each other is the best way for them to get the most out of the experience and to keep them safe.  It is important to lay down the ground rules. It is a good idea to conduct a 'lost' drill early in the trip and teach them to shout out if they are lost. Adults should sleep closer to the door and parents may choose to sleep in shifts. A perimeter line may be useful as well as a night-time safety lantern

Giving kids agency, talking to them and conducting lost drills can help. Adults can sleep closer to the door, work in shifts and arrange lights/perimeters.

You cannot stop kids from exploring, but you can set ground rules and give them agency.

You can conduct 'lost' drills and prepare kids, though they will generally be afraid of the dark.

Parents can work in shifts and sleep closer to the door. Lights and perimeters can help.


Here's one data point , also based on the Grand Canyon.

I'm a 40 year old male, of average fitness and slightly overweight (5'10", 215 lbs.), and ascending the Grand Canyon (4320', ~1300 m)

took me almost exactly one day.

By contrast, the descent took me 3 hours.

(The rule of thumb at the Grand Canyon is that every hour down takes two hours up.)

Later that same trip, an elevation change of 2100' (from the base of Zion Canyon to past Observation Point, ~640 m), took me a little less than 4 hours - from 4:30 in the afternoon until just before sunset around 8.

In my 20s, I trekked from Pokhara to Jomsom (in Nepal), and ascended Poon Hill (elevation gain = approx 1200m).

The climb up took a day, the climb back down, about half a day.

(The stairs at Ulleri are killer!)

The elevation to Tukche is then about the same, but the straight line distance means that it takes another two days.

In my 30s, it took about 4 or 5 hours to climb to the top of Yosemite Falls, approximately 3000'

(~900 m) to the top.

It then took about 2 hours to climb back down.

I give these data points not as an average, but to illustrate a few points:

Heat is a huge factor.

Grand Canyon took me all day, because it was 122 degrees (~50°C).

I had to take frequent rest breaks.

Elevation is everything, and altitude is something.

Parts of the Jomsom trek take you high and get you winded quickly.

Age, Gender, Fitness Level, what you are carrying, etc...

all play a part.

The "average" is meaningless - the real question is, what is 'your' fitness level.

Finally, its mostly about how much you want to cover in a day.

On every single one of the hikes I mention, I asked myself, 'Can I do this in a day (or do I need my sleeping gear?)?'

and then did it.

Just about any National Park will have guidelines for the duration of just about every 'hike.'

I wouldn't plan on climbing anything for more than 8 hours a day - or even straight-lining for that matter.

The point is that's good enough for your planning.

Any extra time is gravy.

Since people's capabilities vary enormously, I'm going to answer in terms of AMS - altitude sickness.

Although susceptibility to AMS also varies, there are some general rules of thumb for how much a person "should" climb in a given day which are worth knowing.

For starters, at up to about 3000 meters, you don't have to worry about it too much.

What I mean by this is that theoretically, you could ascend from 0 to 3000 in a day and not be at excessive risk.

An example of this would be hiking to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and back up - 1700 meters each way - which, if you're in great shape, is possible without risking AMS (but crazy for all the regular physical reasons).

At higher altitudes you pretty much have to go gradually to let your body acclimate.

If you're planning a trek to the Everest Base Camp (5380 meters) in Nepal, a rate of 300 meters per day is generally suggested.

Less than that means that though you might be fine for a while, eventually the change will catch up to you and then you'll need to stop until you're better.

I know that some people climb Mount Whitney (4421 meters, in the US) in a single day, but I wouldn't recommend it - at 4000 meters changing altitude rapidly is very likely to make you sick.

They manage to do it because they both ascend to the summit and descend in a single day (AMS symptoms usually begin after a few hours delay) and therefore are back at lower altitudes before the symptoms kick in.

I'll close with some personal experiences.

On the way to the Everest Base Camp, I decided to "skip" a day and walk to segments back to back- 600 meters change, at around 4200 meters

altitude-

and I became sick that evening, although my companion was fine.

In a later trek (a few years later) my companions and I averaged about 500 meters/day to a maximum altitude of 4000, and all of us were fine.

Like many other things in the "Great Outdoors", it's best to plan conservatively until you feel comfortable with the subject and have more experience.

It Depends.

Actually, it depends on pretty much everything: Weather, terrain, fitness, group size, and of course, how long a day is.

It's better to think of 'How much can I do in an hour, and how many hours do I want to walk/climb for?'.

I'd start using Naismith's Rule .

But, as you get experience about your own group's speed and fitness, adjust it up or down as appropriate.

Figure how much this guy covers in a day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vx7GKAUDC0 :-)

Here's one I didn't know about until today: Alex Honnold solos

Mt. Watkins, El Capitan, and Half Dome in 18 hours, 50 minutes. Speechless. O_O

In good terrain, I use the thumb-rule: 10 minutes per km of distance + 10 minutes per 100m of altitude.

This works on easy trails in moderate conditions (no heat, no high altitude, etc.), and often translates to roughly 400m/hour.

This does not include breaks; at this pace, I need a ~15 minute break every two hours.

I've never done more than 2000m in a day, though.

Question: Are there some numbers on how much vertical distance can people make in a day’s hike? I know that greatly depends on fitness and other factors, but I’d be happy with some statistical curve that would say something like 80 % of people should make 1000 meters up and so on.

How much vertical distance is it possible to make in a day?

This depends on many factors: weather, terrain, fitness, group size, and of course, how long a day is.  Finally, it depends how much  you  want to cover in a day.   The "average" is meaningless - the real issue is your own fitness level.  Most National Parks will have guidelines for the duration of every hike. A rule of thumb is 10 minutes per km of distance + 10 minutes per 100m of altitude.

You can follow National Park guidelines. Also, altitude, weather, terrain and fitness can determine the distances you can cover.

A lot depends on fitness, terrain, conditions and how much ground you want to cover in a day.

National Park guidelines can give you an idea, altitude can affect the ground you can cover.


Someone who has overweight isn't normally able to carry more, so weight isn't as important.

The height would be more adequate...

Muscle strength isn't much important when you go on long hikes...

Strength doesn't translate directly to endurance, often it's the opposite - people with smaller muscles are more endure and are actually able to carry more on greater distances.

The most practical solution is not to care about fairness, but of outcome for the group.

If someone is doing poorly that day, stays behind etc.

, take some things from them and give it to the best performing members of the group.

As the result, the fastest will go a bit slower, the slowest will go a bit faster and the group as the whole will perform much better.

When I go hiking with my wife or a mixed group, we don't use any fixed figures of x%.

Instead we all know roughly what weight we are happy carrying, and if someone feels they could carry more they will offer to help out someone who appears to be struggling or overloaded.

In general, if you are experienced hikers, you will have your pack size/type pretty well nailed for most occasions so shouldn't need to do this, but you may have an inexperienced member of the team, or someone may be a bit off their usual strength through illness etc.

My advice - just work it out between you.

Dividing loads between your trek-mates is a good idea.

A better one would be to pack light.

In case you want to collectively gain by individually reducing the weight, then my suggestion would be to go by the comfort level of the individuals involved.

A strong person might be able to haul more load.

But the same one might not be able to perform the same way the next day.

The division of labor changes dynamically during treks.

For example:I am used to carrying heavier backpacks during my treks.

I usually carry over 15Kg over treks spanning 7 days or more in the Himalayan regions.

Whereas, during a weekend trek, with a backpack of just over 3Kg, I whined like a baby (my bad).

Hence, when deciding on dividing your backpacks, think about the current day and the stronger person(s) on the given day.

DO NOT go by weight or gender.

That never works out.

Happy trekking!

I face this problem not for hiking, but for portaging.

That is a slightly different situation, but not entirely different.

We often went as two families: 4 adults and as many as 5 children.

Not only could some children not carry anything, some of them had to be carried.

Our approach: separate kitchen packs from tent packs.

Kitchen packs have food and cooking equipment and never go in the tents.

Tent packs have tents, bedding, clothes etc.

Typically the kitchen pack is much heavier than the tent pack.

each family was responsible for their own tent pack, but we split supplies across the kitchen packs

There is a LOT of stuff you only need one of.

Pots and pans, stoves, firewood saw, first aid kit, repair kit, water treatment, binoculars, ... we either worked out in advance who would bring something, or moved things between packs before setting off.

(And often, the family with less children had some shared stuff in the tent pack, too, like books for bedtime stories.)

We also balanced out the food as it got eaten.

For ease of finding things, one bag held snack foods (jerky, nuts) and an entirely different bag held meal ingredients.

Knowing where to find things when 4 or more bags might hold it sounds like a nightmare to me.

As the children got larger we had bags for them to carry, but could always clip those things to an adult pack if we needed to.

In the same vein, a mixed-strength group should pack in a way that makes it easy to take something (the [whatever] kit, the rope bag) out of one person's pack and put it on someone else's.

Remember, too, that you may start a trip as a matched group, then a minor injury or illness may afflict one of you, and splitting up the load may be the key to continuing.

Different people have vastly different styles.

Some people carry a lot more weight, some a lot less.

If you're interested in cutting your pack weight or moving toward a more lightweight or ultralight style, a good web site to check out is http://backpackinglight.com .

I think many people do use percentage of body weight as a criterion, e.g., I recently hiked with a very small woman (who, BTW, kicked my ass hiking), who had a certain strict figure --

she never carries more than x% of her body weight.

(This was just her rule for herself.

The three of us on that trip all brought our own gear and didn't re-divvy-up anything.)

If you want a figure for comparison, I practice a pretty lightweight/ultralight style for summer in the Sierra, and my normal setup has a base weight (i.e., not counting food or water) of about 9% of my body weight.

I think that a fair way to split the weight between group members is ... everyone to carry their own.

Including food, clothes, bedroll, part of the tent.

This prevents the inexperienced and unfit new hikers form bringing a ton of cosmetics, drinks, clothes.

Question: Assuming equivalent fitness, what is a fair way to split up weight when hiking as a couple/in mixed gender groups? Should the weight be proportional to the individuals weight? Are there other considerations?

Splitting up weight hiking as a couple/mixed gender group

A fair way to split the weight between group members is for everyone to carry their own, but dividing loads between your trek-mates is a good idea. You all know roughly what weight you are happy carrying, and work it out between you for the outcome and comfort level of the group. Weight or gender are not good guidelines. Packing light is recommended.

Weight is not so important, pack light and work out loads between you.

Work this out between you based on what's best for the group.

Weight is not important, packing light is key.


I believe the conventional way is to use a double (triple) fisherman's bend .

This has the advantage of being and relatively compact.

The main disadvantage is that it can be hard to undo if you need to.

Other options include the figure of 8 bend which is bulkier than the fisherman's but easier to untie.

You could also use a (double) sheet bend or even a reef knot but these definitely fall into the less secure category.

I use the (double) Fisherman's knot for such cases.

It's easy to tie and has a clear and concise form (easy to check if done right).

As already mentioned in nivag's answer , it can be hard to untie if it was heavily loaded.

One of its drawbacks is that it is not applicable for webbing as it is not possible to tighten it there to be stable.

Here the waterman knot comes in handy.

Coming from a climbing and industrial rope access background, the double fisherman's is the recommended way to make a loop using rope/cord.

Undoing the knot was never part of the question, however under body weight loading

even this shouldn't be too difficult.

The figure of eight would work equally as well

, I'd use it more for joining ropes for long abseils where undoing it afterwards is essential.

Once you've made your prussik loops though there should be little reason to alter them.

Stay away from the sheet bend, this is not really for climbing.

Reef knots again, not really for climbing.

Use with caution and back them up with a stopper hitch to stop slippage.

I alternate between the double fisherman's (which everyone has already talked about) and the flat overhand .

Lately I've been leaning towards the flat overhand.

The benefit of the flat overhand is that it's much easier to tie, inspect, and (most importantly) untie after it's been loaded.

When properly tied and dressed, the flat overhand has been shown to be more than adequate for joining two ropes together (or creating a loop) in climbing applications.

Being able to untie a loop can be very useful and provide more flexibility.

For example, you can turn a long cordelette into bail gear during a descent, or use the cord for an application where it would otherwise be too short.

How about a Figure 8 Bend ?

Easy to untie even under heavy load.

We use them all the time in rock climbing.

Question: What's the best knot for turning a piece of cord into a loop? The cord would then be used for a  prusik  so needs to be very secure and load bearing.

Knot to turn cord into loop (load bearing)

Figure of eight, flat overhand, double sheet bend, waterman knot, and double fisherman's knot are all suggested.

Figure 8, double fisherman's work well. You can also use the flat overhand, double sheet bend, reef knot and waterman knot.

The flat overhand, double sheet bend, reef knot and waterman knot work.