Stop googling away your every weekend.

The ConvivaPlus Ausflugs-Radar holds 4'212 excursion destinations across 14 Swiss cantons, plus 6 cross-border destinations on Lake Constance. The greatest density is not where you would expect it: Bern (2'397) is ahead of Zürich (1'782).

And here is the number nobody else publishes: 166 of them — 4 % — have been visited, rated and given an editorial verdict. The other 4'046 are listed as places, with coordinates and base data from OpenStreetMap and Wikidata, and they say so: they carry the label "not yet reviewed" and never count as a match in the radar. An untagged attribute never raises a score — it only lowers the confidence level.

That is the uncomfortable part, and it is the reason this page exists: a directory that pretends to know everything is more pleasant to read and useless to use.

Across the 166 reviewed destinations there are 438 strengths — and 368 explicitly named weaknesses. That ratio is no accident, it is the house rule: 166 out of 166 destinations carry at least one downside. Not a single one gets away without.

Go looking for that on a tourism website. There you will read "family-friendly" and "ideal in any weather", because the site belongs to the destination or lives off it. Here you read "by far the most expensive item on this list" and "very crowded on fine weekends" — in the same entry as the praise.

For public places the verdict is direct. For named private businesses, critical points remain explicitly an opinion based on experience ("according to user reports"), never a statement of fact — that is not timidity, it is the condition that allows us to stay critical.

The ConvivaPlus Ausflugs-Index is a score from 1 to 100 that works without a profile: how strong is this destination in general? In the current data it ranges from 57 to 98, with a median of 84.

It is anchored in the editorial verdict and deterministic: no randomness, no date, no user signal. The same data always yields the same score — recalculable on the methodology page.

The five verdict tiers are distributed as follows: 18× Top, 67× Strong, 49× Solid, 32× Situational. The fifth tier — "Avoid" — has never once been awarded. That belongs here, otherwise the scale would be a claim: the tier exists, it is sharp, and it is still empty because no visited destination has earned it so far.

57 of the 166 reviewed destinations (34 %) charge no admission, another 55 fall into the inexpensive band. Together that is the majority — in a country whose excursion reputation says otherwise.

In the radar, "budget: free" is a filter, not a promise: it shows only what is tagged free and leaves out everything untagged. If you would rather read than filter, the long-form version is in our guide 50+ trips under 20 francs.

59 reviewed destinations are explicitly tagged as rain-proof, 62 as heat-proof, 87 run all year round. This is the axis on which a Sunday turns — and the one no printed guidebook covers, because a book knows no weather.

What matters is what "rain-proof" does not mean here: not "has a roof". The Masoala hall at Zurich Zoo is a tropical experience in the rain; an indoor pool in the rain is just an indoor pool. The tag sits on the experience, not on the building.

Seasonal cross-checking happens here anyway — the seasonal overview carries the dated events, the radar the permanent destinations.

This is the most honest number on the whole page. Of 166 reviewed destinations, 29 are confirmed wheelchair accessible, 24 partially, 17 explicitly not accessible — and 96 are simply not yet verified.

That is more open questions than answers. We write it down anyway, because the alternative is worse: claiming "accessible" without verification sends someone to face a flight of stairs. In the radar an unverified attribute therefore never counts as a match — set the "wheelchair" filter and the 96 uncertain ones disappear from the list instead of sneaking into it.

The confirmed data does not come from us but from the City of Zurich's open accessibility dataset (Ginto / Pro Infirmis). Outside the City of Zurich that dataset does not exist — which is exactly where the gap comes from.

112 of the 166 reviewed destinations make sense from ages 0 to 3 — that is, with a pram, a midday nap and a time window that closes at 3 p.m.

The age band is a filter in its own right, not a label. "Family-friendly" means something different for a baby than for a ten-year-old — and it is precisely that conflation which makes most excursion lists useless for parents. Set the pram as a constraint and you only get what is confirmed pram-compatible.

46 reviewed destinations explicitly allow dogs. This too is a yes/no/unknown axis: what is not confirmed is not claimed.

For getting there, 131 of the 166 destinations are confirmed reachable by public transport — the combination "dog plus public transport plus rain" is exactly the kind of question a list is useless for and a filter is everything for.

82 of the 166 reviewed entries carry a concrete note on when it is quieter there — "noticeably calmer on weekdays from opening than on a Sunday afternoon" and similar sentences, which decide more about an outing than the admission price.

Nobody else has an interest in publishing this. A business does not advertise that it is overcrowded on Sunday afternoons.

The ConvivaPlus Eignungs-Radar matches your profile against tagged location attributes: age range, indoor/outdoor, weather suitability, accessibility, duration, price band, season, interests and public transport access. The full formula is on the methodology page.

Three limits we do not hide: first, only 166 of 4'212 destinations have been editorially reviewed — the rest is a directory, not a judgement. Second, the accessibility data comes from a solid source only for the City of Zurich. Third, a verdict is a dated editorial opinion, not a measurement: every entry carries its as-of date, and through the feedback form any business and any visitor can challenge a verdict.

More tools built the same way are in our tool directory.