Talk:Munich Voyage Tips and guide

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 17 Apr 2006 and 23 Apr 2006.

Contents

Hey! I noticed that the Munich articles (besides Munich/City center) are lacking maps. In the next few days I would go forward and draw a city region map and some Munich district maps. However, there should be a decision on how to segment the city first, as the official districts don't necessarily make any sense for a visitor (and I find it quite terrible what they have done to the German version of the article for that matter). To separate the historic center is good as it is - maybe in combination with the area directly to the east (Lehel). To combine Schwabing, Maxvorstadt and Englischer Garten within Schwabing in my oppinion is a bad idea, as Maxvorstadt with its universities, galleries and museum is distinctivly different from upscale residential Schwabing. A seperate article for the Olympic area/Olympiagelände is ok too I guess. But where to go from there? In my oppinion the following partition would make sense from a travellers perspective:

• map of the entire city with districts
• City Center & Lehel
• Schwabing (Schwabing-West, Schwabing part of Schwabing-Freimann & Englischer Garten)
• Maxvorstadt
• Olympic area (Am Riesenfeld & Milbertshofen, eastern part of Altmoosach, Schwere-Reiter-Straße, Oberwiesenfeld)
• Neuhausen-Nymphenburg
• Ludwigsvorstadt-Isarvorstadt (Ludwigsvorstadt-Isarvorstadt & Schwanthalerhöhe)
• Haidhausen (Au-Haidhausen, Untergießing & and smaller parts of neighboring districts)
• South-West (Sendling, Sendling-Westpark, Thalkirchen-Obersendling-Forstenried-Fürstenried-Solln, Harras, Laim, Pasing-Obermenzing, Allach-Untermenzing, Aubing-Lochhausen-Langwied)
• North (Feldmoching-Hasenbergl, Moosach, Milbertshofen-Am Hart, Freimann part of Schwabing-Freimann)
• East (Bogenhausen, Berg am Laim, Trudering-Riem, Ramersdorf-Perlach, Untergießing-Harlaching, Obergießing)
• maybe: own article for Munich airport???

Any critical thoughts on that proposal are welcome? If there are no objections I would go forward and draw some maps. Please let me know!

Sorry! I forgot to sign... Tbp386 (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Something like this Tbp386 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

A question about this article's subject has been asked in the tourist office. Please consider copying any useful information across to this article. You can find the question and its answers here: Wikivoyage:Tourist_Office/Archives/March#Places_to_see_in_Munich.3F -- Nick (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

It looks like a lot of listing content in Munich belongs in the district articles.

Is anyone monitoring this? If so, any objections to me making a start? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is something you need to wait for a consensus on. The article already has "move to district" messages on it. So please do start on it, and thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Ikan. Although I know that WV articles do not belong to any one person, I still like to give a 'heads up' to whomever may be interested. I actually lived in Munich for a few years so although my experience is not recent, I believe it is fine for ensuring the right listings go in the right districts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead, there is really no need to wait for consensus (and there aren't many contributors working on the Munich pages anyway). I began migrating some of the listings earlier this year, but got tired doing so and stopped altogether. If you would give me a heads up, when you think you are finished, I could check up-to-dateness of the entries, though!?

I have to add to this thread at this late date. At some point, people started adding specific listings in listing templates in this article. There should be no listing templates on this page, only summaries with pointers. Please fix things accordingly. (I have neither the time nor energy to do it, and certainly not tonight.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey guys, I was looking at the four northern districts we have now (Schwabing, Olympic area, Nymphenburg and North) and I can't help thinking this is too much for an area which in fact contains only a few major attractions, although spaced apart. IMHO, it is easier for a traveller to digest a more limited number of districts, even if they are quite large, than a number of small districts that are easily confused between themselves. I also see a number of unifying characteristics among those districts.

I started working on a proposed unified article under User:PrinceGloria/Munich-North and you are cordially invited to help me cut down the verbosity and make it more useful and to the point. More importantly, however, I would like to hear from you what you think of the general idea of merging the districts. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would support such a merger. I contributed quite a bit to all of those articles, and actually only kept this rather arbitrary division, because there was nobody else working on it to discuss the matter. I wouldn't touch the four central districts, though. Tbp386 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that - would be brilliant if you would care to continue your brilliant work and contribute to the merged article - I am trying to cut down on obvious redundancy and then to add more useful content. I believe the City Centre / Altstadt, the Maxvorstadt, Ludwigsvorstadt-Isarvorstadt and Haidhausen are absolutely fine as they are, perhaps in need of adding more POIs and content, especially Heidhausen. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a former resident I do not agree. Schwabing should be kept as its own article, since this is a specific area the tourist would visit with the English Garden and a lot of other things as well. Otherwise no problem to merge Olympic area, Nymphenburg and [[Munich/North|North]. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your opinion Andrew! I am afraid, however, I feel I disagree. I believe we have a case here of "it is prominent so it needs a separate article" - Schwabing indeed is a prominent part of Munich, but even if you look at the German article on it, it relies on listing every church in the area or museums in the Prinzregentenstrasse (which I would rather place in Munich/City Centre) to populate the article.

From the point of view of a tourist, keeping Schwabing as a separate article is of little benefit, as it is a heterogenous district spreading far north but over a relatively narrow strip of land. Going to the English Garden or exploring Schwabing requires an extensive amount of time, more than the usual occasional visitor to Munich has (I can speak from my experience of a trade fair participant). If one has that time, why not also consider Nymphenburg and the Olympic area?

Moreover, if you look at the combined article I am trying to create, much of the information for Schwabing and other districts in the North is actually quite the same. A separate article on Schwabing, which by definition will always be quite meagre in content (compared to the inner districts, not other currently existing northen districts) is be an invitation to add unnecessary verbosity and inflate the article in a way that is not really helpful to a traveller, just makes the district more confusing and less easy to grasp.

I am not sure I can get my idea across well after a short night, but I believe that while Schwabing and the English Garden will indeed be the centre of gravity of the combined article and should be featured most prominently, there is not enough to see either there or in all of the other northern districts together to keep them separate. The only reason would be Schwabing's prominence, but this can be reflected in highlighting it throughout the article and the main Munich article rather than keeping it separate. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem with disagreement :) I'm possibly too close to this subject as a non-tourist, however I'm used to quickly going all over this area by bike. If I try and objectively look at the English (not German) Schwabing article then there is already a lot of information about Schwabing and the English Garden, and if anything I believe more should be added just about this district. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

My question would be - is there anything more to add? I believe we could actually substract, as there seems to be a bit of redundancy and verbosity in this article. We could list a few churches but to me that's it, and it does not provide for an especially impressive guide on its own. I see no loss in merging in the scarce attractions from other districts therewith, and the added benefit of combining get in and get around information. The combined article would also have the benefit of giving the traveller less places to look for Eat, Sleep and Drink suggestions. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would be great to have some further opinions on this. I think PrinceGloria and myself have stated our positions clearly at this point. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm still in favour of merging the articles, although - as a current resident of Munich - I understand both your stances. May I suggest another idea to solve that argument: How about merging the current Schwabing article with the Maxvorstadt article - I was responsible for the division in the first place (ages ago on wiktravel). And I got to admit, that I see now that I more or less created a stump (the Schwabing article). The merged article should include the current Maxvorstadt article and maybe only the parts of Schwabing, that are located within Mittlerer Ring (as the locations outside are mostly not really interesting for the average traveller). Any thoughts on that? I hope I didn't make that argument even more complicated... Tbp386 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like that suggestion. Merging Maxvorstadt with the Schwabing area below the Mittlerer ring makes sense and everything above can go into the 'Munich North' proposed by PrinceGloria. Although some rework is required, I do support this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

<indent reset> It seems like one must have indeed lived in Munich to understand why that would make sense. To me, as a tourist, Maxvorstadt is a perfect article, much like the other two "inner outer district" articles (Ludwigs/Isarvorstadt, Haidhausen) - it is an area that is compact, easy to navigate and cover on foot or using public transportation when you have more than just a few hours to explore Munich (which is when you should concentrate on just Altstadt+Lehel). It is also quite tightly packed with attractions - not as much as Altstadt, but reasonably so, so that one an see quite a bit while not moving around that much
Adding a massively massive and vastly expansive area with sparse attractions, i.e. everything below the Mittlerer Ring, to Maxvorstadt completely spoils that concept. The density of attractions there is sparse, distances considerable and it sure is not recommendable to cover the area when you have just a few more hours of extra time. You need at least an extra day or two for it, and carefully pick and mix to avoid running around and riding trams and U-Bahn like crazy. A district like that would not be useful at all, even if the Monachites regard it as one.
Moreover - what is the logic of having the entire Schwabing-West glued to the Maxvorstadt, but not the Olympiapark and Nymphenburg? It would be good to see a muster of the combined article to understand the benefits of it. For now, I see it as a idea that might be good to picture how the residents of Munich view their city, but certainly not useful to a tourist. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
PS. Just to make sure what I mean - to me currently it is a quite easy choice as to what to see/do in Munich:
# If you have just a few hours / less than a full day (free afternoon when visiting for the trade fair or otherwise in business, long layover etc.) - just the Alstadt and Lehel
# An extra few hours / one full day - add any or all of the three "inner outer" districts - Maxvorstadt, Haidhausen, Ludwigsvorstadt-Isarvorstadt - depending on what type of attractions you are mostly after. Given the density of attractions, Maxvorstadt is clearly the no. 1 most recommendable choice among them.
# More days, more free time, after some leisure and not just sightseeing - start exploring beyond the inner districts. This is where the North, with the English Garden, Olympiapark, BMW Welt and Nymphenburg shines. You can catch an interesting sight or enjoy an out-of-the-way cafe, beergarden or diner on your way there as well. Similarly, you could choose to go South or East, but to me those are clearly second-best choices.

I guess the problem is that with your line of reasoning, consensus could never be achieved for any old style city (such as Munich) because personal preferences for area boundaries will be by naturally individual by nature.

If I could adapt Tbp386' suggestion a little, how about adapting Schwabing to the existing official district of Schwabing-Ost and basically cover the area along Leopoldstrasse between Universitat and Munchner-Freiheit as well as the English Garden next to it? Then all other Schwabing areas could be taken into the potential Munich North article? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. I don't see it as "personal preference vs personal preference", on the one hand we have the established official boundaries (I find Maxvorstadt as it is administratively OK for tourist purposes) and the ability of a tourist to cover the area easily, on the other we have apparently the local residents' preference to highlight Schwabing. I do believe we can easily agree as we, as a larger community, have done for many other cities. It is usually that administrative boundaries sometimes make little sense and we need to cut across them in the interest of the tourist, but this time, for Maxvorstadt at least, they actually do.
2. I am not quite sure if I understand your idea well. The Ortsteil of Schwabing-Ost is pretty tiny and detached from Maxvorstadt itself. When you started to name the streets and places it appeared to me you mean a different area though, which is still a significant piece of Schwabing extending northwards from Maxvorstadt. This would run in the way of having the Maxvorstadt article cover a compact, walkable area that is roughly contained within a regular rectangle, as it would add a protruding extra rectangle at its northwestern extremity.
3. What is most important to me, however, is finding out what POIs would that add to the Maxvorstadt article - is it possible for you to create the proposed article in your userspace to show what would be added to Maxvorstadt and how its area map and "getting around" section would look like when the extra POIs are included?

Thanks! PrinceGloria (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS. Just to make sure: I do believe the detailed description of the English Garden should best be kept separate from the description of urban city districts, such as Maxvorstadt and Altstadt, as exploring it is fundamentally different from exploring the urban areas - it is not about sightseeing, museums and densely-packed POIs, but rather typical park recreational activities and dispersed POIs one can intertwine into a walking/jogging/biking itinerary. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe there is a confusion on district boundaries. I'm pretty sure Schwabing starts at (or very close after) the Universitaet u-bahn station on Leopoldstrasse.

Also another concern! I think the Schwabing-Ost area actually is a very good partner for the English Garden (at least the south part). The reason being is the someone can walk between Leopoldstrasse and the garden at many points with great ease.

Could we get some other viewpoints on these subjects? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you present a proposed merged article in the meantime? It is getting really hard to make out what you propose. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. There won't be any other oppinions, than those of the three of us. I'm surprised that this article is getting this much attention at all.
2. There is no such thing as a official district Schwabing-Ost.
3. I'm actually in favour of merging the districts of Schwabing-West and Schwabing-Freimann into the North article.
4. What I am concerned about is dumping Englischer Garten (which is part of Schwabing-Freimann and Altstadt-Lehel and closer to Maxvorstadt than Schwabing) in such an article. Englischer Garten actually touches the city center and then we want to move it to the north? (When I say Engischer Garten I'm thinking of the southern part, south of Mittlerer Ring - the part that is actually interesting for a traveller to visit, even on a weekend trip.)
5. In my oppinion, a combined Maxvorstadt & Englischer Garten (south) article would make sense not only geographically, but also from a traveller's point of view. Tbp386 (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for Schwabing-Ost. I thought I had seen this Bezirk on Google maps. Please disregard. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would not be that pessimistic, Tbp386. I was actually intending to notify a few users active in editing articles on German cities of this discussion in case they missed it.

As a tourist, I find the English Garden markedly different from Maxvorstadt. Maxvorstadt is densely urban, with many museums and otherwise indoor attractions. It is good for winter and for visits when you are short of time and/or do not want to cover large distances. It is also easy to grasp on its own, as it is compact and contained, more or less, within a rectangle.

The English Garden is expansive, best for people who want to relax and enjoy walking, biking or jogging, have more time and is generally a summery attraction. In that, it is similar to Olympiapark and Nymphenburg, even if it starts right at the edge of the Altstadt - but to get into it, even only as far as the Chinese Pavillion, requires a considerable walk or a bit of biking, one can't take a tram or U-Bahn there.

Again, if you would rather have the English Garden and Maxvorstadt together, how about presenting a merged article with a dynamic map to dispel any misunderstandings? PrinceGloria (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am against the merge and creating artificial districts that don't exist in practise. Vienna faces/faced the same issue with the english wikivoyage conglomarating districts that have nothing to do with each other using names that no Viennese knows or ever has heard of (e.g. Vienna Inner South). --Axisstroke (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Axisstroke, this is not an encyclopedia, we are not trying to reflect the districts of Munich here. We are trying to create a guide to Munich in an easily digestible format. Munich seems too large (not in areal but number of POIs) to be covered in one article, so it was split into districts based on their relative attractiveness to the traveller. We might go by administrative district boundaries in some cases, as they often make reasonable sense to denote different areas plus, in some cities, are easy to follow on publicized maps and street signage. But there is no obligation for every district to have a separate article. A standalone guide to Munich's Bezirk 22 would probably not be very interesting... PrinceGloria (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

PrinceGloria, my critic is not about absolute coverage, but about the relevance of the proposed split, which you dissmiss too easily. Best --Axisstroke (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am not proposing splitting anything, just merging the description of Bezirke 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 24 into one guide article, given the amount of content we have on each of them. If anything, Tbp and Andrew are suggesting to cut through 12 and 1 and add parts of it to 2. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

PrinceGloria please, this is no fun. By split of Munich in the context of above I of course mention your proposed merge. As I said I don't agree that it makes sense to merge all of them. --Axisstroke (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments Axisstroke. If I understand correctly, then I think we are moving to the idea of not dividing Schwabing at all. Additionally your point about creating areas that a Muenchner or Weiner would not recognize is important because visitors will frequently ask locals for advise no matter how good WV is.

We have recently been working on Seoul, and we have been merging districts there that have relatively few tourist listings.

However for Munich/Neuhausen-Nymphenburg and Munich/Schwabing I don't actually see a strong reason to merge at all. They may not be awesome articles yet, however not being awesome is not a reason to merge. They do stand by themselves.

Munich/Olympic_area could potentially be merged into a neighboring article because objectively there is not a huge amount to see here. (It could be a few extra listings in Munich/Neuhausen-Nymphenburg for example) Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think a reader would have a problem with recognizing Schwabing or Nymphenburg when this would be prominently mentioned in the article's body - see again my proposed article at User:PrinceGloria/Munich-North. I do not think a district needs to be mentioned on the banner or have its own article for a traveller to be able to ask locals about it. I believe this argument to be void.

If anything, I find the Olympic area more packed with universally appealing attractions than Nymphenburg or Schwabing, so if we decide to keep the other two, let's keep the status quo. I still believe, however, we are making it unnecessairly complicated for the reader when in reality all there is to say is that beyond Maxvorstadt, there are a few green and recreational areas in the North of Munich, each with its own characteristics. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, I do find your User:PrinceGloria/Munich-North article to be quite good. My contention is just that it covers such a large area and that there is no compelling reason to merge. I restate that each article (as they are right now) do stand by themselves.

Perhaps we do not need more opinions from people who know the city and rather opinions from 'neutral' observers who can help decide which would be most helpful if they visit the city for the first time in the future:

• Status quo of existing three articles (my preference)
• Merging of three articles into 'Munich North'

Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looking at your User:PrinceGloria/Munich-North article, I must say, you actually convinced me - it's really rather good. And with only 17 attractions (neatly subdivided into smaller groups) there is actually not much sense in keeping 4 separate articles with 3-5 POI each. I remember some policy of a rule of 9 (or 7+-2?) or something like that...

Well, I don't want to drag out the discussion anymore. I change my position to supporting the implementation of the User:PrinceGloria/Munich-North article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both! I would like to kindly ask User:Axisstroke to present their concerns in more details. Would you care to elaborate so that we could address them? PrinceGloria (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm doing some translation of German articles, and I do note that German language articles are very much more focused on technical accuracy and categorization of their articles than we seem to employ in the English ones. I believe this might be where User:Axisstroke is coming from. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello PrinceGloria, Please do not consider my opinion a blocker. My main argument is that Munich North doesn't exist, but the ad hoc "distrification" may make it easier to look up things for the random visitor in the merged way. Thank you for your work and the article itself is well written indeed! --Axisstroke (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Support merge, much better than the number of districts on the German site, which is fine for a government official but a lot of annoying clicks through many spars pages for a visitor. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Guys, thank you for your support. I plunged ahead and executed the merge - please do see if I did it the right way and feel free to correct it if it was wrong. The merged article still needs a lot of work and I count on you to chip in. Moreover, we need a new district map of Munich - does anybody feel like doing one or knows anybody who does nice Wikivoyage maps like the one currently in the article (I don't either, sadly :( ). Merry Christmas / Frohe Weihnachten! PrinceGloria (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nice! The map has been my work and I'm going to redo it in the next days. Tbp386 (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've visited the page a few times and the current banner still doesn't work for me. Although the banner picture is nice in itself, the silhouette doesn't really say 'Munich' to me. It is just my opinion, or would others agree that another picture (Summer in the English Garden would be my choice, or perhaps a clear picture of the Frauenkirche) could be used as the banner? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would say we need a new district map first, but if we are to change the banner, I would say that any view of the English Garden would not be easily identifiable as a view of Munich to all but the people who know it well. I believe the best thing would be a panorama of the Altstadt's skyline, including the unmistakable salt-and-pepper towers of the Frauenkirche, with Alps in the background. I am now looking for a picture like that in the Commons that would work as a banner. Alternatively, I found this. PrinceGloria (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks PrinceGloria. I'll address the district map separately.

I'm really fine with a banner shot of the Frauenkirche with the Bavarian alps in the background. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Great to hear we agree on that, and thanks for your readiness to do the map, there was another user who volunteered to do this sometime ago, but as participation here is voluntary and dependent on one's available time and personal priorities, I don't want to call them out regarding that.

Regarding the banner, I have a particular view in my mind, but to my chagrin despite Munich being one of the best-photographed cities in the Commons, we seem to have a shortage of pictures that are really nice and appropriate for cropping to banner size (2100x300). Here is the selection of what I find comes closest to ticking all the boxes, would be great if you found something better:

• File:Altstadt München mit Frauenkirche, 2008 - Panorama.jpg - frontrunner, but no Alps
• File:Frauenkirche in München.jpg - a bit too narrow to allow for a nice 2100x300, and too may cranes
• File:Vista panorámica desde Olympiapark, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 03.JPG - colouring and angle a bit off, and one of the towers covered in scaffolding

Any better candidates? Or perhaps we might want an alternative view? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I took the liberty to create a gallery below of your suggestions. I'm actually thinking the third one is close to being my preference, although for some reason the perspective of the Alps doesn't look right. (the mountains are not that close, although perhaps the Munich 'Foen' can sometimes create such an optical illusion. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• 
  frontrunner, but no Alps
• 
  a bit too narrow to allow for a nice 2100x300, and too may cranes
• 
  colouring and angle a bit off, and one of the towers covered in scaffolding

How about this one, made out of File:Alpenpanorama 20081005.jpg. I could not download the full resolution of the file (guess it's too large for Commons to handle it well), so I downloaded the 18000px and cropped a 2100x300px out of it and edited the hell out of it using the simple software I have here, i.e. doing blanket changes to general parametres. I bet one can do better, but given what results of trying to crop the above proposals (let me spare you the gory results I got - in short, they are too narrow to provide for a good crop), I believe this is the best starting point we have. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The new banner you put up is more 'Munich' to me now, thanks! Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Andrew the only district lacking a banner is Munich/South-West. Do you have something in your mind? Would be nice to be complete in all districts. The Zoo is in the area and the Isar island, so something catchy would be great.jan (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Below is a selection of banners for the article. I personally prefer banner 2 over the current banner 1, thus changed it. Feel free to undo this change, if you do not agree. The small disadvantage of this new picture is, that it is slightly below the recommended resolution.--Renek78 (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

No preference for one of the zoom shots, but some travelers might be disappointed when they find out that from Munich, in reality, the mountains are some 80 kilometers away :-) --Rio65trio (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone with appropriate map making skills know how to create a revised district map for Munich? If no volunteers then I will put it on my 'to do' list. (I'll need to develop my map making skills) Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seems the current map is not svg format :( Looks like a start from scratch job. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/File:WV-Munich_districts_for_travel_purposes.png Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Look at the description of the PNG file :). Maps aren't put on the articles as SVG's, but the SVG usually exists. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I really didn't notice that first time. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at the "other" outer districts we have not discussed that much before, the East and Southeast. I noticed that the area immediately east of Altstadt/Lehel on the other bank of the Isar is divided between our districts of Haidhausen and Munich/East. I do not think of this area as discontinuous and the parts as separate - the Friedensengel belongs to the same area as the Maximilianeum to me. Therefore, I would like to move for the POIs immediately north of Haidhausen, i.e. in the south of Bogenhausen, to be added to Haidhausen (which may or may not need a new name then). We may at the same time move some Haidhausen outliers to the East.

I have also noticed that both East and Southwest lay claim to the Flaucher area, which together with the possible amount and relative importance/attractiveness/accessibility from the city centre of POIs left after doing the above moves, made me think that perhaps we can merge the Southwest and East into one article describing the "out of centre" attractions. Moreover, we could have this district encompass the whole "outlying" Munich, adding the Allianz Arena and making the North district more manageable in size by cutting it off at Foehringer Ring/Frankfurter Ring/Moosacher Strasse. Then we could rename such abbreviated "North" to something more meaningful like "Schwabing-Neuhausen" or something of that mold, which I believe was what some of you wanted.

Do say whether what I am saying is clear and, if so, what you make of it. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Anybody? No? Dust? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dust? Is that a polish phrase for 'crickets'? :)

I would say that I'm having difficulty visualizing what you are suggesting. (Probably because of laziness on my side) There are a few moving parts to your suggestions.

As stated in previous discussions, I'd be generally against moving the geography of articles outside of established district boundaries, although exceptions can always be made if the resultant article is compelling enough. Perhaps you could again create this in your user space for demonstration purposes? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

How can you not know basic popcultural references of our time? ;) Try: h'ttp://dust.skroc.pl

Otherwise, I shall. But not before I am back from Munich, so do bear with me. Other comments of course welcome. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The district boundaries as they are now (with the exception of North) were established by me more or less single-handedly, as the Munich pages were almost derserted. I see now, though, that a little different approach to it would have been more useful. I agree with User:PrinceGloria on adding further parts of the right Isar banks to Haidhausen. I would even support a move to incorporate everything on the right Isar banks within Mittlerer Ring (Bundesstrasse B2R) into Haidhausen, as B2R is more of a geographical and physical boundary for any traveller than anything else.

A similar thing is true for the Maxvorstadt district. When I drew the map I kept to the official district boundaries, but those don't make much sense to me any more (which run along very small streets and for example explicitely exclude the southern part of Englischer Garten). My suggestion would be to add a little bit to Maxvorstadt so that the boundaries would roughly be: Landhuter Allee (east), Leonrod-, Schwere-Reiter-, Elisabethstraße (or Hohenzollernstraße) (north), and then either include Englischer Garten along the diagonal road that passes Chinesischer Turm, or not.

Any thoughts on that. I think that it would be useful to maybe think about that. I will draw a map and upload it on my user page as soon as I find the time. Tbp386 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tbp386, please plunge forward. I understand you reasons and the only obstacle will be to define which district entries we need to shift and if there are weird cases were a hotel is called Maxvorstadt but ends up in some other district. This could confuse travellers. We are under no time pressure, so please get started and then we can discuss. jan (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually I'm already done drawing the map, but now I don't know how to upload that newer version without making it the current version of the map file... Tbp386 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Something like that (it's the .svg; I will upload the .png as soon as we agree on something). Any thoughts, critic, comments, notes, suggestions? Tbp386 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The little northern tip of the city center looks a bit weird to me. Would Haidhausen incl. the Zoo? I hope we will not kill us in moving between districts... jan (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am very happy Munich is getting the attention it deserves. That said, I believe the best way to see how district changes work out is to start mock articles in userspace and move POIs between them to see whether we don't end up with something messy. Tbp386, Would you care to start them in your space for all of the districts so that we could see where each POI goes?

The tricky area to me in where Maxvostadt, Altstadt and Schwabing meet - there are many POIs on the borders and including them here or there can make the map unwieldy, they can also be quite removed from the rest of POIs in those districts relatively.

I am not quite sure what the enlargement of Maxvorstadt would accomplish, especially towards the West, but if we decide to call it Maxvorstadt-Schwabing and include as much of Schwabing as a tourist may want to see I guess there may be merit in it.

Regarding Haidhausen, to me the natural area for somebody sightseeing and not with a business in the particular area of town are the train tracks rather than the B2R. Everything between the B2R and the train tracks is pretty much terra incognita for tourists and there isn't much to be done there, plus you cannot really get there on foot or by a quick bus/tram ride from Altstadt, whereas the area within the train tracks is very much within easy reach. My only concern about the district boundaries of Haidhausen was including Alt-Bogenhausen, which is actually quite touristy, Kaefer and all.

At any rate, how about starting the mockups to see how this pans out? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Jan, Haidhausen would not include the zoo (I think that's a good thing) - that's still further south.

PrinceGloria, you're probably right about the problems we might get with the enlargement of Maxvorstadt. Adding bigger parts of Schwabing to the existing Maxvorstadt page might get us into trouble as the article is quite long as it is (don't know if the rule of 7+/-2 is still a thing). Maybe we schould leave Maxvorstadt as it is?

I strongly disagree that everything beyond the rail tracks in Haidhausen is of no interest for travellers. One important thing that makes Haidhausen the nighlife spot it is, is Kultfabrik & Optimolwerke (a vast party and clubbing area) east of Ostbahnhof. So this should definitely be included. You might be right, though, that I have overstretched the borders to the south and we should keep the old boundaries there.

In the north I included everything within the B2R as it's just easier to draw and explain where the boundaries are.

In any case, I will start the mockups in my space. Tbp386 (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tbp386, i start to agree that we run into trouble with Maxvorstadt. I think Schwabing should stay in north and we shouldn't enlarge. Complete agreement concerning Haidhausen. Kultfabrik & Optimolwerke are major attractions and should stay in East. jan (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You mean Optimolwerke & Kultfabrik should stay in Haidhausen, jan, don't you? They are in Haidhausen right now and moving them to East would change the shape of the districts again. Tbp386 (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tbp386 If i read my above statement it make me think that i should have a sober day today. You are of course right. jan (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are very few reasons to have a sober day and your statement above is not one of these. Anyway, the mockups for Haidhausen and Munich East are ready for inspection. Have fun and let me know your thoughts. Tbp386 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tbp386, i'm fine with Haidhausen but i think we need to discuss the border between East & Southwest in detail. The Thalkirchen split of Flacher beaches/island and Zoo is not so good, imho. I'm off to party and will check East a bit more in detail some time later. jan (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tbp386, i had a closer look on your drafts. I think the district shift benefits Haidhausen and leaves a good & solid article. I fear a bit for East as it looks so dispersed/spread-out. Maybe it is because there are so many places on the map listed on the outside borders of the district. If we change that a bit, i think it is the way to go. More compact inner city, thinned diaspora. jan (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm totally willing to make East such a dispersed place for the sake of a better and more usable guide for travellers. Let's face it, there isn't much to see in East and it's a vast area. As you mentioned before jan, the division of East and South-West is a bigger problem, as it's unclear where to put the Flaucher island and the zoo. If we go by adminitrative borders, Flaucher goes in South-West (part of Sendling) and the zoo goes in East (part of Harlaching) - not a good idea imho. If we go by reachability, both would probably go into South-West (via U-Bahn U3) - not the best solution either. Tbp386 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tbp386, let agree that we move to the new Haidhausen/East split. I think Zoo & Flaucher should be South-West and we focus East around the trade fair/old airport Riem. That is clearer and better to understand. I think travellers like orientation points. Would you follow that idea? jan (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. So I would go ahead and move the Haidhausen and East mockups to the article pages and adjust the map tomorrow evening, if we are not facing any opposition by then. Tbp386 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. Tbp386 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the obvious care, thought and hard work you have put into this. Our guides are the better for your efforts! -- Alice^✉ 10:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I read the article by incidence and noted the big progress this article made. With the exception of Munich/South-West the city is ready for a DotM nomination. PrinceGloria & User:Danapit would you join the effort or oppose it? jan (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would support it as long as its presentation as DoTM is preceded by a concerted effort to review, copyedit and update the main article and all subdivisions to make sure:

1. There are no copyediting / formatting issues
2. The contents are complete and presented in a digestible form and format (no repetition, everything easy to read and follow)
3. All opening hours, prices and links and up-to-date
4. We are using ample imagery of the best quality we have in the Commons and nothing major goes without illustration, and we have no large blocks of text / listings not embellished by encouraging pictures

I hope you will find this reasonable. I would hate to be singled out as the one (or one of two) to do it all by myself (I have my hands full with Copenhagen now, for one), likewise I would hate for us to present a half-baked effort as DoTM. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, now that I browsed it, there is more to be done with the main article before we can proceed (from top to bottom, not in order of importance):

1. Shorten the "Understand" section and make it relevant to actual POIs and districts, otherwise it is a less formal version of Wikipedia
2. Fix up the "Do" section, in particular decide how to handle Oktoberfest (main article, district, split) and make sure the content is complete and useful
3. Decide whether anything in the "Learn" section should be kept and, if not, remove
4. Move "Buy" listings to districts, write a general introduction rife with links to particular districts/POIs

There is more that could be done (every section could use a review, refresh and copyedit), but those issues need work in particular before we even talk about displaying this on the Main Page. I hope there will be many other users willing to help out with that and we won't stop with just listing those. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

PrinceGloria, thank you for your fast response. I'm willing to contribute and think September 2015 (for Oktoberfest) would be the natural slot. I know that some moves are to be done. Here my inital review:

1. Octoberfest needs to be on the first page. Its the thing about Munich and nobody will understand if it is not listed their
2. Keep Learn and fill with more text/prose.
3. Copyediting/formaating/hours/price: I think we want a strong guide but i wouldn't go for Star. I don't want to waiste time with AM/PM and or signs. If others go for it, please but let us not get lost in details in the first place.
4. Buy: I think some general information is good. Rest will be shifted

I will start with the obvious problems but maybe our German User:Pedelecs, User:Tine and User:DerFussi have some ideas, too. I remember we failed with the districts since 2006, so lets have a clear frame first. jan (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea, Munich would be a nice DotM (willkommen zurück, Jan :)). Right now I have some other projects but likely I'll join in improving the articles later on. Maybe we could reawaken the Collaboration of the Month project with Munich.

Munich and its districts are already now quite usable and we'll have plenty of time to work on this article if it will be featured after almost a year and a half. We could even make a separate article for Oktoberfest similar to the one in German.

User:Andrewssi2 who's lived there (if my memory serves me right) and User:Ikan Kekek who's visited the city recently may be interested in this discussion. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ypsilon, i will plunge forward with MUC and hope Ikan takes care of the artsy part sometime before the nomination. I wouldn't stress the Wies'n too much, its all about hangover & headache ;-) At least that is what is remember... jan (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am overjoyed to see so much enthusiasm regarding that, but let me just make a side note regarding "Learn" - I believe we did agree as a community sometimes ago that "Learn" sections in general do not belong in our guides, as tourists are people visiting for a short time and learning in general takes a much longer time. I am not sure if we ever put it into any of our formal policies and guidelines, but if you believe this is contentious, let me see if I can pull that up for you. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Learn is fine if there are places to take 2-week courses in German or the like. I wouldn't be able to help with Oktoberfest, as I haven't been to Munich in October, but my general feelings are:

(1) A lot of great work has been done on the Munich and district guides, and it would make a fine DotM. (2) Munich is such a well-known and important tourist (and business) destination that, as PrinceGloria has stated, we need to make sure this guide is really superior before featuring it. But I think we're well on our way. I'll be happy, as always, to assist with copy-editing. I'm not sure what else I'll be able to assist with, as I think I have already posted the most relevant things I know about the city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am happy we all agree and are enthusiastic about Munich!

Why would we hold out until Sept 2015? Is Sept 2014 already taken? If so, perhaps we could put the effort behind it now and move to reshuffle the destinations - is there a particular reason Calgary is scheduled for September or could it go any other month?

As to Learn - theoretically short language courses are cool, but practically this is a pretty ubiquitous service and we would run the risk or becoming spam-infested yellow pages. This is much like spas - chances are high people may actually be looking for a place to get a massage and pedicure, and information on those can be pretty useful, but there is a certain limit to useful information belonging in a travel guide.

Bottom line regarding "learn" for me - unless there is an absolutely unique opportunity to learn something that is recommendable to travellers over the regular stuff one may do, I would not mention it. And if there is, it should go into "Do", not into a separate section. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

PG, the Dotm is did so far always included it because even if the average traveller is only a week or two at a place, some travellers intend to stay longer or have temp work assignments. I think it doesn't hurt so i would leave it for now. I think there are bigger issues than Learn left. Concerning the schedule 14 or 15, i'm not going to mess with our grand master André! jan (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

PrinceGloria, your feelings about the "Learn" section are not currently policy, so please take them up at Wikivoyage talk:Listings for a discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will, but conversely, I believe "Learn" is not a standard section in our Template for City articles. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

'Learn' is part of the template for huge cities. Munich is a city of 1.4 million people with a few district articles, therefore this classification is more appropriate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

For the record, the nominations for articles to be featured on the front page are already pretty congested. Also, huge city and small city ("town"?) are not the only articles templates we have for cities. Standard cities should be using the ordinary big city template, which currently does have a Learn and Work section and this is the template that should be changed if changes are needed. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, here is a list of established city templates for WV, and I agree that Munich should be classified as a 'big city'. (With learn section)

There are also a good number of short term German language courses at the University and private institutes. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Munich should not be given the "big city" template. It lacks a "Districts" section. Districted cities always get the "huge city" template, I believe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some really good progress has been made and User:Tbp386 is a local, so he is adding more infos in the districts. I hope i got all the points from PGs list and will work on pictures & the districts. My concern is the Munich_Airport which is huge but i'm a bit uncertain what should be added. There is one hotel, the train station and the terminals. I transfer once in a while at MUC and it is convenient but pretty far out of town. jan (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed, that the map is outdated and does not match the coloring scheme used in the fare-table right next to it. Not sure how best to fix it though. Rumpeltux (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there a source for the new map that is cc-by-sa? I see you are into maps. Could you help us? jan (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

My reaction is that a lot of nice writing was removed, but the resulting shortened article still has good background info and reads better. Was any of the writing about culture moved to district articles where it was particularly relevant? For example, I liked the remarks about 19th-century buildings: Many of the city's finest buildings belong to this period and were built under the first three Bavarian kings during the first half of the 19th century. These years were marked by tremendous artistic and cultural activity in Munich. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ikan, the Understand section is still pretty much work in progress. I'm aware that quite a bunch of information is deleted so far but i'm a bit uncertain on how (and to what extend) it should be added in the districts. I will try to incorporate some stuff in the districts, if you have some specials in your mind, please add it directly. I will only shorten the main article but rather expand the districts. I don't want to turn them into Wikipedia but to find a balance will be difficult. Thank you for your feedback. Regards, jan (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

How would you feel about my restoring this sentence to the Munich page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi jan, I'm just looking at the revision history of Munich and you have made a huge amount of edits and many do not give any indication of the change of why. (One significant edit to 'Understand' was given the comment 'phew')

I myself have done a lot of significant 'hard and fast' editing of some other articles, but usually when I am the only one with an interest in working with that article. I am under the impression that quite a few Wikivoyagers (myself included) have a personal interest in Munich.

Would you consider taking a slower more considered approach for Munich? I think a lot of Ikan's content is very valuable because it is written by one who has experienced the city as a traveler rather than as a resident. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just for the sake of accuracy, I believe I didn't add a great deal of text to any of the Munich articles. I added a few listings and some images and copy edited a good deal, but most of the content was really already there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Andrew, the understand section was significantly to long and needed to be shortened. So far everybody complained about it but nobody did something. I tried to delete the redundancies/duplications etc. and i know some of the stuff will reappear in the districts. It is pretty difficult to keep all ends together. Ikan's sentence can definitely be reinserted and other ideas, too. My only worry is that so far many people have taken an interest in the article but no proposal in writing has been made. Feel free to plunge forward but please avoid duplication of stuff. jan (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I added (back) just a bit of context. I said in my edit summary that it would be good to mention some of the outstanding 19th-century buildings, but some are indeed mentioned in "See," so as per your remark, it is unnecessary to mention them in "Understand" as well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

jan You should use clear edit comments when removing/changing content. For example, it would have provided your rationale for removing Ikan's text. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think we should show some appreciation for the great work of Jan and User:Tbp386 in making this article more readable and making the district articles better. Those guys have done a lot of work overhauling these articles. Any disagreements we may have on one passage or another are marginal compared to the breadth and quality of the work they've been doing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Andrew i don't really believe in the edit summary because if major changes happen, it can't always be done in a single clean cut edits. That's way i comment on the talk page and leave points to discuss/change. Please see above a prime example where UserTbp386, PrinceGloria and i discuss districts. Same goes for the Understand section which was discuss before in the dotm section just above. Feel free to participate or contribute. jan (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does it violate the "People in photos" guidelines in the image policy? I've never been entirely clear of when those exclude an image and when they don't. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ikan, i'm aware of that policy but hoped -as the porters in front of the hotel are popular photo stops- it could pass as "sightseeing". I know it is borderline and don't complain if consensus is against. How this should be approached? jan (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised this has stayed on Commons as pictures of people, who are not public figure, would usually require consent from that person to be publish and distributed. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the following listing from the main Munich article, because I don't think it is a learning type listing (it seems more geared to an educational field trip?)

In any case, do we know which district this should fall under? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• European Space Agency's Columbus Control Centre (20km (12 mi) outside of Munich in Oberpfaffenhofen), [email protected]. is used to control the Columbus research laboratory of the International Space Station, as well as a ground control centre for the Galileo satellite navigation system. It is located at a large research facility of the German Aerospace Centre (DLR). 

Do they give tours? It could be a "Do" listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict):Andrewssi2, i amended it in Learn because it imho doesn't fit into see & do. It is popular with schools & students and i therefore believe Learn suits best. I would prefer to keep it in the main article because it doesn't fit in a district. jan (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan its by far not as the space center in Houston but you can request tours. Its a sort of subtle marketing/incentive for technically interested pupils, students and other people but not so much organised with e.g. tour buses. jan (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi jan, if it is for student tours then it belongs in 'Do'. (much like any museum) Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it's a "DO" thing. Right now it is listed under Do#Festivals, though, and it definitely does not belong there. (Let alone that it is not actually in Munich). Tbp386 (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Another problem is that I can't find an address or anything on the website. It looks interesting for school visits, but not very clear how you would arrange such a thing.. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Andrew, http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10261/ site is operated by DLR which houses the control centre. English page is not done well http://www.dlr.de/iss/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1417/2048_read-3535/ and the adress is even more confusing as the site is called Oberpfaffenhofen but the postcode is Wessling... Amazing to see how difficult they make it for non-German speakers to find the adress/location. jan (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, Bing maps said that Oberpfaffenhofen was in Weßling, but I wasn't too sure so good to have confirmation. Is there any page that would direct an English speaker to their education tours? Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The English sites all only bring back a 404 error. Seems like the english page is not well maintained. German http://www.col-cc.de/fuehrungen.html has a straight forward registration form. I will add the link to the German page because it seems to be the only way. jan (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just read the German description of the tour, and it does state that this will be in the German language. (Die Führungen sind auf maximal 30 Personen beschränkt und werden in deutscher Sprache gehalten) I would definitely note that in the listing, because I doubt it would be hugely valuable to non-German speakers. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps trivial, and not authoritative since the only time I was there was many years ago, but the comment about drunks seemed a bit flippant and perhaps not factual. When I was there, we drank from 10AM until closing (and did some cruising, since access wasn't so much a problem) but in five days really never saw anyone who wasn't sane and stable. (Slight exaggeration - some people needed a bit of a hand walking out at closing, but not much more than that.)

So if those who know the current situation agree the statement isn't accurate, to not paint the wrong picture the comment should be struck. —The preceding comment was added by 198.72.210.139 (talk • contribs)

I actually live next door to the Oktoberfest for a couple of years (kind of an experience in itself). The Oktoberfest is amazingly safe considering the amount of alcohol consumed, and your experience does not surprise me.

Nevertheless incidents do invariably happen, and I've seen many extremely drunk people who frankly needed much more than hand holding. Sexual harassment, subtle and strong, for females can also easily happen as well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Stats for recent years show that the average visitor consumes little more than 1 litre of beer. This of course will hide a huge variation ("I brought 3 kids so I can consume 4L, if only I'd brought more . . . "), and pre-loading. Notable stats from 2017 are reports at the lost property office of 1300 passports (!), 600 wallets, 520 iphones, 325 pairs of glasses and 360 keys - all of which could ruin a trip.

There's some duplication of Oktoberfest between main city page and the district. Since the festival is highly localised in time & place, I suggest the district is the best place for content, with intro & signposting on city page as it is such a prominent event. Grahamsands (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I extended some of the district articles and think they are pretty comprehensive now. So I plunged forward and bumped them up to Guide status. Could someone please doublecheck if I overlooked some major point that would prohibit that?! Tbp386 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had to do laundry in Munich during my 2015 trip, and finding a public laundromat in the city was hard. Finally found one that worked for me thanks to local help. Would like to add that info, but none of the existing sections seem to be a good fit. Any recommendations on where this should go? --Kenneth Stephen (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Under Cope. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

While the beginning of the stay safe section is good, I (a resident of Munich) frankly do not get the bullet point list. E.g. why is it pointed out that Neuperlach has a higher "refuggee population" while acknowledging that crime rate is average? I work in that area and it is not dangerous. Some apartment buildings are ugly, but that does not need to be mentioned in a crime section. Also pointing out the few pickpocket incidents in Giesing sounds rather odd. And the "bad days" of Hasenbergl are also gone. In a nutshell I would drop this list and replace it with a sentence that people should be aware of pickpocketing in areas frequented by tourists (center, central station and Theresienwiese during the Oktoberfest). Else you create unwarrented fear. —The preceding comment was added by 62.216.206.185 (talk • contribs)

Please go ahead and change the text accordingly! That's how Wikis work, and I seriously doubt any of the changes you mention will be controversial. You can type a brief summary in the "Summary" box below your edit screen, saying "Edited per discussion on talk page". (Also, I "signed" for you - on talk pages, please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes [~] in a row at the end.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

With regard to issues such as safety, it certainly makes sense to stick to reliable sources such as crime statistics, instead of personal assessments. After all, none of us knows the current situation in all parts of the city and at any time of the day, and how safety is experienced by different groups of people such as teenagers, older people or tourists. I oriented myself by the article "Atlas of crime in Munich", and revised some of the issues that you pointed out. --Rio65trio (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This area is duplicated between Aldstadt and Munich / North. In the discussion of 2014 (above) it seemed to belong in North. I'll wait a few days in case that's no longer the view, then start migrating content (leaving cross-refs of course). The map boundaries will also need adjusting.

Also, the northern district is named in different ways, it would help to standardise. I suggest "Northern Munich" as "North of Munich" could mean Hamburg. Grahamsands (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

All city pages have been updated. Some minor boundary changes are wanted, with adjustment to maps if these are agreed, and bearing in mind that pages reflect natural travel districts not admin or postal boundaries.

English Garden was assigned to North as discussed earlier. The North / Altstadt boundary is therefore behind the buildings along Prinzregentenstrasse.

River Isar is a natural boundary. In places the line is displaced some way inland, is this a mapping glitch or intentional? For instance Isarradweg at the north end of English Garden, and Fruhlingsanlagen in Haidhausen. The north tip of Museum Island was in Altstadt but belongs with the rest of it in Isarvorstadt.

The zoo is in East but travel is probably via Thalkirchen in Southwest. I’ve left it east as an xref with the listing in Southwest.

Two northern heathlands have been added near Allianz Arena. The map boundary might therefore align with A99 ring road. East district should extend north to the middle ring road / M3, taking in the retail park; and perhaps east to A99 for Feldkirchen accommodation. A99 / A96 bounds the tip of Southwest but there are no POIs thereabouts.

Oberschliessheim is a duplicate page – the main attractions are already in North, where I propose merging. By contrast the other outlying villages of Ismaning and Garching have “critical mass” though you’d only go there to visit Great Aunt Herta or split atoms. Grahamsands (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply