Diego13

A friend of mine wants to visit 8 cities in 21 days (Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Budapest, Prague), would you encourage this trip or you think is just to many cities?, these are all new cities for him. I know that there are different styles of traveling, but would you do this?

bhuty2003

depends on why they are taking the trip. sounds silly but we did something similiar and it was great. drove everywhere, first london to south parts of scotland, east and west then back to london stopping off at multiple places along the way then flew to paris drove to switzerland in multiple cities up to heidleberg down to munich, various cities in austria down through geneva to nice and back to paris. long drive but lovely cos what we wanted was a "survey" trip.

If you really want to get a feel for a place then too many cities but if you like a bit of stress then go for it. if you want to get a feel for a place and really appreciate it the way it should be then the whole trips a waste of money unless you really base yourself in one place and take day trips from there. IMHO

rj007

I think that is too much. The travel time alone will reduce the amount of time to visit each city. You wind up with a blur of jumbled memories of all the places visited. I like to spend at least 4 days in a city to take my time and get a feel or the place. Why rush through when looking back you won't remmember half of what you saw? It has been nearly 6 years since I went to Bergen and I can still remember what I did each day- the walks through a beautiful forest, Norway in a Nutshell.

What I would suggest is to split the trips up - do Scandanavia in 21 days then on another trip do the other 4 cities. Each city is worth spending time to absorb the culture, the neighborhoods and take the time to interact with the locals.

I remember a number of years ago I met a woman in Australia who was on a 2 week tour of Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. She said "We spent one day in Fiji just to say we were there." And I remember thinking - That's all you will be able to say about your visit to Fiji.

bhuty2003

rj, thats what i call a "tourist trophy"

you end up buying a dumb magnet, spoon or pin to put on the hat just so you can say "been there done that".

SOme poeple think that when you go to a foreign place you ahve to go to all the famous tourist places. They hate the thought of people asking them about a place and then not being able to say they went there. whats wrong with going to soemwhere like paris and never going up the tower or in half the otehr places if you spent your time along the river falling back in love????? anyway, thats my preaching for today.

I do agree with RJ but if you want a survey trip then just enjoy rushing into and out of places there's nothing wrong with that if thats what you want.

Diego13

Well, I know what you both mean. I remember that in 1989 (I was 18 then) I got stuck in one of those tours that you see like a thousand cities in 20 days, I didn?t like it much. . It is best, at least for me, to take time to know each city the best I can in 4 or more days, or as long as my budget allows me.

It is true that you don?t have to visit every major tourist attraction, at least not all in your first trip. For me, still enjoy sitting in a Café watching people as much as going to the Eiffel tower for example.

I find it very amusing learning a little about a country/city culture, history, folklore, gastronomy, how people live and not only visit the tourist attractions but also their markets, universities and places usually unknown to most tourist.

My friend is planning to go in a tour not on his own, but my arguments were well received by my friend, and at least he is thinking over what he expects of his trip. Maybe he would still tour the 8 cities in 21 days, but at least he has a little more information at hand. Like you both said, its not worth it to spend a lot of money and just said ?I visited Oslo for one day, didn?t get to see or do much, but I visited?.

ira

Hi Diego,

It's not as bad as some of the itineraries that have appeared here.

It looks sort of like 2 days/1 night in each city plus travel time.

The Moscow to Budapest part is interesting - about 1200 mi.

LJ

If your friend has not been to any of these destinations before it is not a bad way to start.As a teacher in Italy, I sometimes assist young people in finding "the right" itinerary for their first European experiences and some of the things we have reccomended are not unlike your friend's agenda. If you're youthful and healthy, it is a good way to get your feet wet and figure out what your next "real" trip should look like.

The reason I stress health is that this schedule would NOT work for a first-timer of 70, IMHO (though I will probably now hear from octagenarians with views to the contrary!)

nytraveler

I know everyone here is trying to be encouraging, but IMHO this schedule is simply insane. Why not just stay home and rent a bunch of travle videos? Your firend will spend a huge amount of time simply getting from one place to another - and it will be a tour primarily of train stations and airports.

I have been to all of the above - most more than once - and each IMO requires at least 3 days (not 3 nights and partial days including travel but 3 full days). For St Pete, Moscow and Prague I would want at least 4 or 5 full days. That is if your friend wants to really learn anything about any of the places - as opposed to just checking them off his list.

bhuty2003

ny traveller: I agree IF thats what the person wants from a holiday. BUT if thats what the person wants from a holiday (to really get to know the place, appreciate it for what it is etc etc etc) then its an insane waste of money to even try it by vactioning.

I mean unless you got heaps of money to waste i can't see why you'd keep on travelling back to so many places for the purpose of gteting to know them and all the insane costs that go into it. Better off to go on a working holiday, or get a job there for 6 to 36 months and really and properly get to see it on weekend trips etc etc.

So, yeah agree with NY and only go to a few select places and be happy with that for the most of the rest of your life OR do a survey trip knowing that you will miss out on heaps but hey you could get a few tourist trophies on the way OR go spend quality time by living there for a few months....IMHO

ira

>...unless you got heaps of money to waste i can't see why you'd keep on travelling back to so many places for the purpose of gteting to know them and all the insane costs that go into it. <

Because some of us have responsibilities that we can't shirk?

Clifton

rj, your story made me laugh.

Shoot, I've been to Fiji!

(ok, I haven't, but my way of "being able to say I have" is a lot cheaper - and really not much more misleading)

bobthenavigator

Good rules for travel planning 101:
1. Average 3 nites per destination
2. A max of 4 hours travel time between
3. Equal time in big cites and small towns

Tell that to your friend--it works.

rj007

Clifton,

I like your "visit" to Fiji and you're right - it is a lot cheaper!

nytraveler

bhuty -

I don;t understand your point. Are you saying all travel is a waste of time - that the only value is going to live in other places for 6 months or a year?

Unfortunately most of us don;t have that option - I'm not independently wealthy and there are very few careers that provide that opportunity. Nor are most countries open to providing visas for that type of employment.

So for me - like for most people - travel is tied to available vacation time. That still doesn't mean that one must run around like a chicken with no head - it is possible to get a real feel for a place in 3/4 days - and decide to which you want to return.

bhuty2003

hmmm, ok, this is the internet and hard to ensure that the feel of the comments are rceived properly.

I'm all for exploring and experiencing and seeing things out of your own circle of life. Stretch your imagination and get out of the house.

but lets see if this come out the right way. some people like to see lots of things but in very little detail. there might be heaps of justifiable reasons for this. eg i did a survey trip, saw lots of things but didn't get a great appreciation for them because its just a survey trip to base future decisions on.

Others spend moret ime, soaking in the environment, mood and atmosphere in aveyr few places. and thats good too. some people try and do both and i'm not sure that its possible. mostly they get their hope up so high that nothing reaches there expectations, they fight with each other because they do their dream vaction at a million miles an hour and emtionally they're not built to do that (some people are built to dot hat and thats ok).

so you see these itineraries that are insane.

on the other hand you get people for reasons that i don't understand that love a few locations so much (and remember that i'm from australia and all travel is much more expensive for us) that they spend a years worth of rent every couple of years to go back and do more in that country (or city), to see more, to experience more to appreciate more. I ahve an autistic son. He's in really good schooling now but i ahve a fair idea that there are other good resources for him in other countries. Am i going to stay here forever just because of his school? My plan is to move to europe where he can get good help and then use that as a base to see all the places in more detail that i haven't been able to and save me lots of lots of money but have many more experiences.

You're not stuck. Just move if you love the place so much. Maybe not today but in 10 years time?

TopMan

There have been several objections to this plan based on the "huge amount of time spent traveling between...." Uh, excuse me, but did anyone specify the MODE of travel here? Is it remotely possible that this person may be traveling by air between some, if not all, of these cities?

So, this person wants to spend their time traveling between these various cities? It is too bad that the person traveling didn't pose the question and since they didn't, whether or not anyone ELSE would do this seems kinda irrelevant.

tcreath

Although I agree that this itinerary is somewhat crazy, I think that the amount of time a person needs to spend in a particular city is up to each individual. For instance, my husband and I spent two full days in Florence and felt as if we had a pretty good feel for the city in that time. I know a lot of people will scoff at this. We are not art lovers so we did not need to spend a lot of time at the big museums that would normally take up a lot of time.

I think that how much time somebody needs to see a city all depends on what exactly they are planning on doing in that city. If all they want to do is wonder around and sightsee, this could be done in as little as a day or two. Travel time definitely will be an issue with with the itinerary above and I'm not saying that the itinerary is a good idea. I'm just saying that not everyone needs at least three or four days in every city.

nytraveler

Well I think traveling repeatedly to a particular place or country - for several days or a week or a couple of weeks makes a lot of sense. And this is doable for many people. To pick up and move to another country for a year or more is really not doable for most people:

Most countries will not allow work visas in this siituation - which means you are essentially incomeless

Even if one partner could qualify for a job its almost impossible for both to do so - which means trying to live on one income - at best

And that income would probably be very low - in my industry the salaries for equivalent jobs - at least in the UK - are about half what they are in the US

So for most people -at least until they retire - moving to another country is almost impossible - even if they would want to.

For me, even though I love to visit other places - and would like to be able to sepnd a month rather than a week in many of them - I would never consider living there - IMHO no place else can really compare long-term to where I live now.