The most interesting thing in Oslo is the Museum Island. That place is worth at least a solid day. I especially liked the folk museum where they moved all the old rural buildings. I did not get a chance to see one of the stave churches when I did the fiords and was glad to see one that had moved there. There were a lot of other museums to see, the Royal Palace and some very good places to eat. Oslo is a very small city for a capital city because Norway does not have as many people as a country like France. I consider myself lucky to have had a home exchange there. I home exchanged in Fredrikstad, about an hour by train south of Oslo. Very nice holiday.

I was fortunate to have visited the Fantoft Stave Church the year before it burned down lauren.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantoft_Stave_Church

They are indeed incredible. I also visited the composer Grieg's house and enjoyed a lunch time concert there. But you can't do all these kinds of things if you only visit somewhere for a day.

Michael, we can agree to disagree. If someone asks me for directions to the edge of a cliff, I am not going to just give them directions and say to myself, 'I avoid imposing my preferences on others'. I'm going to ask why they want to go to the edge of a cliff and I am going to discourage them from doing so because I think it is the wrong thing to do.

Sometimes, the saying 'to each his own' is fine and makes perfect sense. But sometimes it is used to avoid having an opinion on something. While many things are not black and white, often it isn't hard to know whether you think you should lean to one side or the other.

So let me ask you a simple question. Do you lean towards fast travel or slow travel? Fast is for purposes of this question, defined as moving more often than every 4th night while slow is defined as not moving any oftener than once a week.

If the purpose of travel is to see/do/experience the most you possibly can in the time available to you, then I know which one I believe is the right way to spend your time to achieve that goal. Time spent moving is time lost that could be spent IN places.

<i>Do you lean towards fast travel or slow travel? </i>

When I was young I spent ten weeks traveling in Europe, 5 weeks in Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, Italy and Switzerland; and 5 weeks in France, doing our own <i>tour de France</i>. My wife and I have fond memories (and pictures) of that trip. We have since slowed down, but it might still be fast for some.

Of all the travellers posting in various travel forums, I'd say probably 90% are 'fast travellers'. Unfortunately, we live in a world of 'fast' and accept that as the way things are.

But just as a 14 minute lunch at McDonald's cannot compare to a 3 hour lunch in a Greek village restaurant, a 14 minute viewing of the Grand Canyon cannot compare to a 7 day walk IN the Canyon. That's all I'm saying Michael.

Some might argue well 14 minutes, or 1 day, is better than not having seen it at all. I would agree if that was done in isolation. But usually those 14 minutes or that one day are part of a larger trip.

Someone spending 14 days moving through 10 places vs. someone spending a week in each of 2 places. Which is better use of time? To me it is no different than the 14 minutes looking into the Grand Canyon vs. a week walking in the Canyon. Which is better is not debateable.

People are "fast" travelers because they don't have the time to be "slow" travelers. Everyone has their own way of doing what they want to do given what is always a limited amount of time.

<i>a 14 minute viewing of the Grand Canyon cannot compare to a 7 day walk IN the Canyon. </i>

True but when the OP suggests a limited time in Oslo along with visits of Stockholm and Copenhagen, I think that one should consider the NIN in the same vein as someone looking for a day tour of the Normandy landings area from Paris. The parameters have been set by the OP.

On the other hand, if someone should say that they are thinking of spending 3 days in Amsterdam, 2 days in Bruges and 3 days in Paris, it is entirely appropriate to suggest that one day in Bruges would be sufficient, adding the extra day to either of the other cities.

Again, the OP has X amount of time. He does not HAVE TO visit Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen in that amount of time. He is CHOOSING to do so.

Everyone has enough time for slow travel lauren if they choose to use their time that way. Using the example Michael has just given of 3 days Amsterdam; 2 days Bruges; 3 days Paris, it simply means CHOOSING instead to do 8 days in one of them. Trying to 'see' all 3 of them in that amount of time is ludicrious to me. Nor will you even get 8 days IN those 3 places. You will lose most of 2 days moving from one to another.

When the OP suggests a limited time in Oslo Michael what I am questioning is dividing it up even more when it isn't even enough time for Oslo alone.

Most people plan based on a list of places they want to visit and a limited amount of time available as you say lauren. They then divide the time by the number of places to come up with an amount of time per place.

What I am suggesting is that while that is ONE way to approach it, it is not best use of time. Instead what I am suggesting is first dividing your time available into some minimum amounts that result in you spending the majority of your time IN places, not losing days in between places. The more limited your time the more applicable that becomes.

Losing 2 days moving plus an arrival and departure day which are always basically a write off as well, in say a 10 day period means you lose 4/10 or 40% of your time. Arrive in one place and stay there for 8 days and you only lost 20%.

It's fine to visit 3 places if it's in 3 weeks. That same 4 days lost over 21 days is only 20% of the total time. How much of your 'limited' and valuable time are you willing to lose? The more valuable it is to you the more unwilling you should be to waste any of it.

If you use for example a minimum of 4 nights per place in order to get 3 full days IN a place at least and allow for a travel day between places, then you will arrive at a maximum number of places you can visit and only spend 25% of your time moving. ie. 14 nights divided by 4 equals no more than 3 places. Now you prioritize the list of 186 places you would LIKE to visit and pick the top 3.

It really is a question of putting the tbefore the horse. You can try to 'fit' a number of places in to X amount of time or you can decide how many places you have time to visit.

Huh, weird typo. Should be 'cart before the horse' in the last paragraph.

The point I was making is that the OP has a right to make his own decisions about how he is going to travel. Others may not agree with his decisions, but he doesn't have to take their advice. It is, after all, his trip. Lots of people travel as if they were never going again and that may or may not be the case.

Every summer I do one of my long home exchange based European trips I wonder if it will be the last year for such trips. They have become a lot of work since people accept home exchanges, discover they can't afford the airfare (having failed to check that out before they accept) and then cancel. I am also aging and, at some point, will get something that will put the kibosh on such trips. I have had a lot of trouble with this last year and this with cancellations and there are lots of places I have not seen (or want to revisit) in North America. The expensive airfares are a factor for me as well. So, while I sit in the same place for awhile, I always assume I am not coming back to that place for a long time--if ever--and run around to see all the sites within a reasonable day's drive that I can pack in. So I may travel "slowly" when I choose a place, but I don't let grass grow under my feet while I am there.