Methodology
How we assess city safety, how we frame verdicts, and how we keep them honest.
Our Editorial Philosophy
Our guides are built for travelers who need to make decisions — where to book, how to get from the airport at night, what to watch for — not for readers who want either fear or blanket reassurance. We optimize for sourced facts, named places, and balanced context.
How We Build a Safety Verdict
When we assess a city, a neighborhood, or a specific risk, we weigh the following — in this order of priority:
- 1
Official Data First
Crime statistics, advisory levels, and municipal data anchor every verdict. Anecdote never overrides data.
- 2
Traveler-Relevant Risk
We assess the risks that actually affect visitors — pickpocketing, scams, night-time areas — not headline statistics that mostly concern residents.
- 3
Neighborhood Specificity
City-level averages hide the story. Every verdict names the areas that drive the numbers, in both directions.
- 4
Context and Comparison
Numbers mean nothing in isolation. We compare against cities readers know, and against the traveler's realistic exposure.
- 5
Balance Over Drama
We state risks plainly and precautions concretely — without alarmism, and without dismissing genuine concerns.
What We Don't Rank By
Understanding what we explicitly exclude matters for trust.
- ✗Affiliate commission rates — insurance or booking partners get no assessment boost
- ✗PR pitches from tourism boards seeking a softer verdict
- ✗Social media panic cycles and viral anecdotes
- ✗Paid placement of any kind
Where Our Data Comes From
Our verdicts synthesize multiple signal types. We prioritize signals in this order:
1. Official statistics
National and municipal crime data, Eurostat, and police-published figures
2. Government advisories
US State Department, UK FCDO, and equivalent national travel advisories
3. Local contributors
Region-based writers with lived experience in the destination
4. Local journalism
Recent, named-author reporting on crime trends and scam patterns
5. Traveler reports
First-hand reader and community reports — used as leads to verify, never as sole sources
Handling Uncertainty
When we can't verify a detail, we say so. Phrases like 'reportedly', 'according to [source]', or 'unverified as of [date]' appear in our guides deliberately. We'd rather be honest about uncertainty than pretend to know what we don't.
Read our editorial policy for how this process is executed on every guide.