ira - my website. What I remember about Santander is that it was big and dull.

bilboburger - not sure I agree with your point three. Like gertie, I enjoy the travel as well as the destinations. Travel on the ground, that is.

>>have we ever had a newbie come back and say they actually did one of these crazy itineraries?<<

There was one (can't remember screen name) that planned one of those '<i>insane</i>' treks around the UK and did come back to say he had a great time (though he didn't say what his traveling companion thought :) )

<i>but have we ever had a newbie come back and say they actually did one of these crazy itineraries?</i>

This comes close (look for the 7 days in Paris and Switzerland thread):

"We also had 8 days between Paris and Switzerland last year and trust me we had enough time to see what is worth in these two places:-)
If you only have two days in Paris- you must visit- Louvre museum, Palace of Versailles, Eiffel tower,Notre Dame,Sainte Chapelle etc.The lines at Eiffel are huge, so plan on leaving early morning. If you could keep 3 days in Paris that would be great.We spent 5 days in Switzerland, we based ourselves in Geneva and bought a 4 day Swiss rail pass, which allowed us to use almost every public transportation free. In switzerland you must visit Mt Jungfrau (if you care for fantastic views and lots of train rides to get to the top), MT Titlis (if you care for snow sports/tubing, revolving rotair, ice fliers) We stayed overnight at a tiny place called Grindelwald (heaven on earth) and took the earliest train to Mt Jungfrau. We also loved a tiny town by the lake called Speiz- it was breathtakingly beautiful. Lucern is another town you can visit on your way to Mt Titlis. We also visited Interlaken, there is a beautiful fall there. Switzerland is a tiny country which can be easily covered in 5 days. Hope this helps."

I think also that the new traveler (especially one from Australia or the US or the East) looks at a map of Europe and thinks "Oh, look how close . . . is to . . ." and so decides to go to both.

Our first trip overseas was with a church group and we were able to plan some of it ourselves. In just under three weeks, we went to Rome to Cairo to Amman, Jordan, to Jerusalem (Israel for about a week) to Athens to some of the Greek Islands to Ephesus, then back to Athens and home. It was rushed and very tiring, but it gave us a sense of what was where and what we wanted to go back to.

So while I always try to talk people out of doing that sort of tour, I know what they're thinking.

If you are reasonably fit then no, it isn't usually a problem to have just a couple of nights in each location befoe moving on. I've done it loads of times.

Where I think the problem often lies with Fodors itineraries is that people don't necessarily plan the best routes (there's a lot of doubling back to locations they've already visited or passed through), an underestimation of the travel time between each centre, and most of all, horribly regimented lists of 'to-do's' e.g Tower Of london 9:00am, Borough Market 10:30 am, V&A midday, Afternoon Tea 3:00pm, Oxford Street 5:00pm, dinner 6:00pm, theatre 7;00pm etc.

If you plan to visit a lot of cities on one trip, probably best to have just 1-2 things planned for each day and to be amenable to change depending on transport issues, your state of mind and whatever unexpected things you might come across en-route that take your fancy.

"We also had 8 days between Paris and Switzerland last year and trust me we had enough time to see what is worth in these two places>>

lol!

my beef with so many of these itineraries is that as someone above pointed out, they are planned with no idea of the logistics, and cost of getting between and around destinations, and before the OP has read a guide book, so they are limiting their time to see an unknown no. of sights before they start.

except on the rare occasions when you are in a place for a fixed amount of time eg after a business trip, I can't see the point of buying plane tickets and booking hotels BEFORE you decide what you're going to see. I would be really cross [mostly with myself] if I planned for only a day in a place to find that there were 3-4 days' worth of things to see there.

I think two key factors are the number of people traveling and the purpose of the trip. A solo traveler can cover a lot more ground than, say, a family with kids. And there's a big difference between someone looking for a survey of major cities versus a relaxing honeymoon.

I have never seen a newbie come back and say they did that itinerary. I assume because:

1) they didn't survive
2) they didn't get home but ended up in some foreign jail by trying to drive through the Pza San Marco
3) it was a disaster and they don't want to admit it

Traveling fast is fine if that is an informed decision made on the basis of real travel times and costs and willingness to see/miss certain tings.

Putting together itineraries that can't be done without either a Start Trek transporter or helicopter are not fine - and the person proposing them should be enlightened.

(Yes, even though I am a Fodorgarch - I understand that wishful thinking will not change the laws of physics.)

I think it depends on the person and their travel interests. I also think it helps if you are able to balance big/small. E.g. Milan/Varenna. The small cities help you get your bearings and slow down, the big cities get you juiced up. It also depends with whom you're travelling (kids? parents over 70? everyone's ability to walk quickly to catch the next train?). Also, if some of the cities are in the same country, you can quickly adapt to the culture (e.g. Milan, Florence), which is very different from going to one country to another (e.g. Italy, France).

But I do agree with others that transportation is an overlooked issue. Our upcoming May trip to Europe was originally going to include a visit to Normandy (our sons really wanted to go, as did I), but a quick look at travel times and costs told us that within our alloted days, budget, and other "must see" places , it woulda made us insane. So we sadly removed it from the itinerary.

My mantra is, "We'll go again." We're not rich, but through our credit card in which every purchase equals a mile, we're able to squirrel away enough FF miles to travel (off-season, of course) to Europe every 3-4 years. We've gone from thinking, "There's no way we'll ever be able to afford to go to Europe, especially with kids" to having made 5 trips (2 with the kids) in 13 years!

Great discussion question.

@Michael - lol!

@dwdvagamundo - of course, there are also those who don't seem to have looked at a map at all and are zig-zagging all over the place. But I do remember a few posters who got quite testy when told their driving plans were unrealistic.

@annhig: "I can't see the point of buying plane tickets and booking hotels BEFORE you decide what you're going to see"
I am always amazed by the people who post that they are flying into city X, and want to know what they should see. The impulse to ask why they bought the tickets in the first place is almost overwhelming.

@MKECityMom: "having made 5 trips (2 with the kids) in 13 years! " - many more to come, I hope!

@nytraveler: "even though I am a Fodorgarch - I understand that wishful thinking will not change the laws of physics" Noooo. My illusions are dashed, lol.

I started a thread on this subject once. The travel pros think fast paced trips are for rubes. You need to move slowly to savour destinations apparently. If you don't, well you just don't get it.

Very interesting discussion. We have similar conversations with our kids who are now starting to travel to Europe on their own (and travel far too fast, in our opinion). I think age differences may account for a certain amount of this variation in travel styles.

I do worry that those who travel too fast miss so much, since a destination only truly reveals itself after a few days. I also dislke the idea that some seem to travel just for the bragging rights and have little interest in learning anything about their destinations.

I remember our first trip to Europe -- an eight-day blitz that included Munich, Fussen, Innsbruck, Kitzbuhl, Salzburg, and Vienna. Almost all one-night stays. (I remember a travel savvy friend of mine telling me it couldn't be done.) It was insane, but we loved it. And we couldn't wait to come back to Europe and try it again (at a slightly less ridiculous pace).

The Forum advice I have seen to slow down or revise itineraries is almost always very helpful (and often much needed). But to some degree, I think travel is a matter of live and learn.

In Athens I was chatting to a fellow Australian who had just finished a tour and was raving about the Eiffel Tower and I asked if she went right to the top as we had done that and thought it was great. Her response, "no, it was raining, so the driver didn't stop". She'd had a great time with a maximum of two nights anywhere on her 28 day tour. Good for her, but it's not for me. She would have been able to go home and tell all her friends that she'd "done" Europe.

I've thoroughly enjoy the conversations that we we've had on train trips etc. I like that these are people who we will chat with for a few hours and then go our own ways. My first ever Italian espresso was bought for us by a charming Italian chap on the train from Naples to Florence. My husband and I speak only a little Italian and he didn't speak English but we established that they both speak French so they chattered away for most of the trip.

@Magster: "we couldn't wait to come back to Europe and try it again (at a slightly less ridiculous pace)"

Maybe the excitement of the new and exotic needs to wear off a bit before you're ready to settle in for a few days in one place? Maybe you really have to believe that you're coming back?

@cathies: I do think that if you travel on the ground rather than flying then the journey itself becomes important, not just the destination.

Thursdaysd, I agree as long as the entire trip isn't spent on trains with a quick dash through nominated cities.

thursdaysd -- I think being afraid that you will never come back has alot to do with it. If you really thought this was your only shot at seeing Europe, you would try to cram in as much as possible.

I know on our first trip, I was on such an adrenalin rush that I felt as if I hardly slept at all. Maybe I couldn't have slowed down even if I wanted to LOL

Another issue may be the short vacations in the U.S. -- if you only have one week (or even two), you tend to feel that you have to make the most of every minute.

Magster - maybe adrenalin does have something to do with it. Maybe some of us are just wired differently? I wrote this at the beginning of one of my TRs:

"I learnt something on this trip. It was supposed to be more of a restful vacation, and less of an “on-the-go” trek, than my usual trips. Almost four weeks in France - Nice (6 nights) - Grenoble (4) - Dijon (4) - Strasbourg (4) - Nancy (3) - Paris (4) with London (1, 2) bookends. Lots of lounging around, I thought. Lots of coffee stops. Turns out, that while I can veg out on the couch with a book at home, and do nothing quite successfully, I just don’t operate that way on the road. So instead there was a lot of walking around and sightseeing."

> Maybe you really have to believe that you're coming back?

On my first trip to Europe, I REALLY did not think I would ever have the chance to return. I travelled a bit - but only a bit - faster than I would today (when I am confident of returning and a bit older and less fit). If I was only going to have that one trip, I truly wanted to make the most of every minute, and to me that meant taking the time to see the places I had selected in some depth while savoring the moments of relaxation on the trains that took me from place to place.

On my second trip to Europe, I definitely did not think I would ever have the chance to return. I travelled a bit faster than I would today, but still blocked out chunks of time for my major destinations and enjoyed the journeys between destinations.

On my third trip to Europe....
It wasn't until my 7th trip abroad (and several major life changes) that I could say with any certainty that travel would be a part of my future. With that realization, I began to include "lesser" destinations in my itineraries -- smaller towns and places a bit off the beaten path. But I still pack each day as fully as I can.

And every trip, and every minute of every trip, still feels like a precious gift!

Again, I'm not saying that anyone else should travel as I do. We DO differ; vive la différence!

Great question! DH and I had a fantastic dinner conversation discussing it, well until our 6 wk old decided to chime in and woke the 2 yr old who had just fallen asleep :-((
Our take - we often throw in one too short stop per trip and choose a place/area we are interested in seeing again. We use the too short stop to get an overview and decide if it makes a good multi-day base for the future or if perhaps it only merits another short stop. This has worked very well for us in southern Greece, where it isn't so easy to get a thorough idea of a place until you actually visit yourself.

I think it also depends on the type of trip. On my honeymoon, after spending leisurely time in Italy, my husband and I took the train to Paris for 3 nights, arriving night one at midnight due to Italian train delays. We had been given the stay at the hotel as a wedding gift from my in-laws as part of a time-share. I didn't see too much in Paris (hitting up just the Musee d'Orsay, Eiffel Tower, and Sainte-Chapelle) but that was okay; we wanted to stroll the streets, enjoy tea at Laduree, and slurp some oysters in a park. The best memories from those days aren't the sights, but the experiences. If you go expecting to explore Paris fully in 2 days, it isn't going to happen, but if your expectations are for a different type of experience, you can have a lovely time.