Fodors Suggestions ???
Mar 28th, 2006 | 08:45 PM
#1
Original Poster
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Fodors Suggestions ???
Does anyone know when fodor's suggested time of stay in a city , for example,: "Florence in 3 days" are they talking full days or one with travel . I know this may seem stupid to some, but really I am counting the hours on this trip. Trying to see all I can in so little tim
Mar 29th, 2006 | 04:51 AM
#4
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,260
Likes: 0
I think a lot of people anticipating the visit to a new location want to carm as much as possible in; that's one of the things which can make that anticipation both fulfilling and also frustrating.
Once you arrive you may become tired of trying to cram it all in and start to slow down a little and enjoy the things you are doing/seeing.
I think the danger is going and then coming away dissatisfied with yourself that you haven't done enough.
Only you are going to be taking this trip; trying to live up to a bunch of external expectations as well as your own possibly unreasonable ones never bodes well.
Relax and let the trip happen to you.
Once you arrive you may become tired of trying to cram it all in and start to slow down a little and enjoy the things you are doing/seeing.
I think the danger is going and then coming away dissatisfied with yourself that you haven't done enough.
Only you are going to be taking this trip; trying to live up to a bunch of external expectations as well as your own possibly unreasonable ones never bodes well.
Relax and let the trip happen to you.
Mar 29th, 2006 | 04:55 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
I used to crusade for people switching to stating the number of NIGHTS not days in a town. When you say three NIGHTS in Florence, you know there are two full days in the middle plus whatever part of the arrival day and departure days you can spend. But when you say three DAYS in Florence, does that mean you're spending two nights and only have one full day in the middle? Since you pay for a hotel by the number of nights you spend there not days, I think this would make a lot more sense.
I've studied intineraries here where someone was spending a total of 6 nights in Italy -- 2 each in Florence, Rome, and Venice. But they said, "we'll be in Rome, Florence, and Venice each for three days. Huh? How can you turn a total of 6 nights into 9 days of sightseeing?
I've studied intineraries here where someone was spending a total of 6 nights in Italy -- 2 each in Florence, Rome, and Venice. But they said, "we'll be in Rome, Florence, and Venice each for three days. Huh? How can you turn a total of 6 nights into 9 days of sightseeing?
Mar 29th, 2006 | 05:04 AM
#6
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Very well put Intrepid1!
It seems to me that many experienced travels, which I rate myself as being midrange, look down their noses at anyone who does a lot of travelling in a "short" period of time.
I look at my first trip to an area as sort of a scouting mission. At the same time who knows for sure if I'll ever be back so I want to see all of the sites that I can. I'm not going to limit myself to seeing one city. I guess some people (and I've seen them) like to stand in front of one painting in a museum for 20 minutes but unless you're an art major and are studying the textures and subtle brush strokes, I don't see the point.
I like to have a basic itinerary that is soft and flexible. If I realize that I want to spend more time somewhere, I will. The same holds true if I feel like I need to scratch something off of the list altogether. I also love doing something unexpected like detouring to a small town on a hill or something.
Itineraries are great but they really take all of the fun out of the trip if you can't deviate. The ones out of the travel books are especially binding because they don't take into account that while one person may love art museums, another may prefer architecture or modern malls or back alleys and neighborhoods and could care less about seeing the Mona Lisa other than to say that they did.
It seems to me that many experienced travels, which I rate myself as being midrange, look down their noses at anyone who does a lot of travelling in a "short" period of time.
I look at my first trip to an area as sort of a scouting mission. At the same time who knows for sure if I'll ever be back so I want to see all of the sites that I can. I'm not going to limit myself to seeing one city. I guess some people (and I've seen them) like to stand in front of one painting in a museum for 20 minutes but unless you're an art major and are studying the textures and subtle brush strokes, I don't see the point.
I like to have a basic itinerary that is soft and flexible. If I realize that I want to spend more time somewhere, I will. The same holds true if I feel like I need to scratch something off of the list altogether. I also love doing something unexpected like detouring to a small town on a hill or something.
Itineraries are great but they really take all of the fun out of the trip if you can't deviate. The ones out of the travel books are especially binding because they don't take into account that while one person may love art museums, another may prefer architecture or modern malls or back alleys and neighborhoods and could care less about seeing the Mona Lisa other than to say that they did.
Mar 29th, 2006 | 06:55 AM
#7
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 98,238
Likes: 12
I don't think it is necessarily looking down your nose...
Often what I point out, is similar to the OP's question, and agrees with Neopolitan...
No way can you have "2 days Paris and 2 days Venice" if you only have 4 days total. The travel time in changing hotels/citites needs to be substracted to find a realistic itinerary for what will be left for sight-seeing.
Often what I point out, is similar to the OP's question, and agrees with Neopolitan...
No way can you have "2 days Paris and 2 days Venice" if you only have 4 days total. The travel time in changing hotels/citites needs to be substracted to find a realistic itinerary for what will be left for sight-seeing.
Trending Topics
Mar 29th, 2006 | 07:51 AM
#8
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
<< It seems to me that many experienced travels, which I rate myself as being midrange, look down their noses at anyone who does a lot of travelling in a "short" period of time. >>
As someone who has repeatedly extolled the mantra "See where you are more, move around less" (even though I have taken any number of trips that blatantly disregarded my own advice, and still really enjoyed them)... I regret it if my admonitions came across as "looking down my nose".
Rather, I have sought to speak out for itineraries with less "moving around" because there is such a drumbeat favoring the notion that going to more <i>places</i> in Europe somehow equates to "seeing" <i><u>more of</u></i> Europe. This carries the implication that "moving around less" is, in some odd way... the hallmark of those with less "ambition", the laggardly idle, as if to suggest that by failing to visit three, four or five countries in one trip to Europe, it reflects apathy, or poor "stewardship"... not getting full use of the expense of your transoceanic air expense.
The airlines, (especially) the rail lines, and the travel industry, in general promotes this notion of "see more (places), do more (traveling from A to B to C to D...), enjoy more" - - rather analogous to the way that MSNBC/CNBC/Bloomberg/Kramer and the whole brokerage industry promotes "study more companies, buy this, buy that (and thus implicitly make more trades)" because they have a product/service to sell.
In my world, there is a trinity of under-promoted virtues: "Slowtrav", buy-and-hold, and breastfeeding. It doesn't mean that the alternatives are <i><b>vices</b></i>. But there are plenty of Madison Avenue types promoting the "Heart of Europe" (8 counties in 15 days) itineraries.
It takes "end users" to speak up for the less advertised way of traveling in Europe.
Best wishes,
Rex
As someone who has repeatedly extolled the mantra "See where you are more, move around less" (even though I have taken any number of trips that blatantly disregarded my own advice, and still really enjoyed them)... I regret it if my admonitions came across as "looking down my nose".
Rather, I have sought to speak out for itineraries with less "moving around" because there is such a drumbeat favoring the notion that going to more <i>places</i> in Europe somehow equates to "seeing" <i><u>more of</u></i> Europe. This carries the implication that "moving around less" is, in some odd way... the hallmark of those with less "ambition", the laggardly idle, as if to suggest that by failing to visit three, four or five countries in one trip to Europe, it reflects apathy, or poor "stewardship"... not getting full use of the expense of your transoceanic air expense.
The airlines, (especially) the rail lines, and the travel industry, in general promotes this notion of "see more (places), do more (traveling from A to B to C to D...), enjoy more" - - rather analogous to the way that MSNBC/CNBC/Bloomberg/Kramer and the whole brokerage industry promotes "study more companies, buy this, buy that (and thus implicitly make more trades)" because they have a product/service to sell.
In my world, there is a trinity of under-promoted virtues: "Slowtrav", buy-and-hold, and breastfeeding. It doesn't mean that the alternatives are <i><b>vices</b></i>. But there are plenty of Madison Avenue types promoting the "Heart of Europe" (8 counties in 15 days) itineraries.
It takes "end users" to speak up for the less advertised way of traveling in Europe.
Best wishes,
Rex
