Western Europe, 3 weeks, is this too much?
Aug 12th, 2013, 09:26 AM
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one day thing in Monaco was moreso like a "stop over" while going to Nice from the cinque terra
We would definately make Nice our home base when we are in the south of France but if we could knock off Monaco as we are passing through then we could focus on Cannes and nice? (Also is Cannes a must see? I guess if your in nice it's the kind of thing you might as well go see?)
As well, in regards to going to Switzerland then "back" into France, we were thinking more along the lines of training from Nice to Geneva then staying the 2 days +/- In the jungfrau region? Would this work? So train into that region stay then train back into France to work our way up to Paris?
In terms of initial flights into Europe, ideally id like to use my "infinite avion points" which I have enough for long haul world wide flights, however the best case for this would be to fly into London, use my points for this Initial
Flight, then pay seperately for a flight from London to say Genora, Pisa, or Florence, then from there cinque terra and upward?
I'm very appreciative of all the input so far thanks alot to everyone who has contributed
The next time I post I will try to have a better layed out itinerary
We would definately make Nice our home base when we are in the south of France but if we could knock off Monaco as we are passing through then we could focus on Cannes and nice? (Also is Cannes a must see? I guess if your in nice it's the kind of thing you might as well go see?)
As well, in regards to going to Switzerland then "back" into France, we were thinking more along the lines of training from Nice to Geneva then staying the 2 days +/- In the jungfrau region? Would this work? So train into that region stay then train back into France to work our way up to Paris?
In terms of initial flights into Europe, ideally id like to use my "infinite avion points" which I have enough for long haul world wide flights, however the best case for this would be to fly into London, use my points for this Initial
Flight, then pay seperately for a flight from London to say Genora, Pisa, or Florence, then from there cinque terra and upward?
I'm very appreciative of all the input so far thanks alot to everyone who has contributed
The next time I post I will try to have a better layed out itinerary
Aug 12th, 2013, 10:57 AM
#22
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sniperslayer you are so all over the place it isn't funny and the numerous suggestions you are getting isn't really helping you in my opinion.
First, you need to understand that more places does not make it a better trip. It actually makes it a less effective trip. In travel, less is always more. The less you move the more you see/do.
The common phrase people use is 'to see as much as possible.' It seems clear to me that that is what you want to do. But the word 'much' is not synonymous with the word 'many'. All 'many' gets you is check marks on a list, not quality time spent IN places seeing/doing things.
The way to maximize use of your time and get as MUCH as possible out of your time is to spend it IN places, not in BETWEEN places. So I suggest you go back to the drawing board unless you want to run around like a chicken without ahead.
I also suggest you think of Europe in terms more familiar to you. Think of each country in Europe as you would provinces. Now think of what you are proposing like this. Fly into BC and spend a couple of days and then go to Ontario for a couple of days and on to Nova Scotia for a couple of days. Make sense to you or not? The answer should be not. You can't see Canada in 3 weeks and you can't see Europe in 3 weeks. Not even 3 countries in Europe in 3 weeks.
You need to cut it down to a reasonably small geographic area. That might all be in one country in Europe or it might include a small part of several countries.
Three weeks might be enough to visit Vancouver, the Okanagan and the Rockies around Banff/Jasper for example. In Europe it might be enough to visit Paris, Nice and Interlaken. The bigger you make the geographic area, the more time you are going to waste moving around.
A good rule of thumb to use when planning is the Rule of 3s which says, never spend less than 3 full days/4 nights in a place unless it is just an overnight stop between A and B. Note the 'less than', it is a minimum. Most people would agree that Rome or London or Paris for example need more time than that. Also note the 3/4 which allows for travel time between places. Not allowing for travel time is a common mistake. Every time you move you lose most if not all of a day.
So using that rule and removing you arrival and departure day which are basically a write-off, you will see that with 21 days to start with you have enough time to plan on staying in only 4 or 5 places.
Prioritize where you want to spend your time based on interests and your research on those interests. Then look at each one and think through exactly what you are likely to do there.
For example, you list the Cinque Terre. Personally, I don't think it is worth more than a day trip from somewhere. Do you know that it is only 8 miles on the shortest and most popular trails from one end to the other of all 5 villages? It's less than a day's walk end to end! There are other trails and you can spend more time walking but it ain't Banff National Park. It's hardly more than Stanley Park. So what do you plan to do with your time there?
While the scenery is still what it always was, the atmosphere that existed 30 years ago is long gone. There are now so many tourists in season, that they have to have a quota of walkers allowed per hour on the trails!
If you want great hiking, the Bernese Oberland (Jungfrau)region of Switzerland has far more to offer you and yet you are talking about perhaps 1 or 1.5 days there.
First, you need to understand that more places does not make it a better trip. It actually makes it a less effective trip. In travel, less is always more. The less you move the more you see/do.
The common phrase people use is 'to see as much as possible.' It seems clear to me that that is what you want to do. But the word 'much' is not synonymous with the word 'many'. All 'many' gets you is check marks on a list, not quality time spent IN places seeing/doing things.
The way to maximize use of your time and get as MUCH as possible out of your time is to spend it IN places, not in BETWEEN places. So I suggest you go back to the drawing board unless you want to run around like a chicken without ahead.
I also suggest you think of Europe in terms more familiar to you. Think of each country in Europe as you would provinces. Now think of what you are proposing like this. Fly into BC and spend a couple of days and then go to Ontario for a couple of days and on to Nova Scotia for a couple of days. Make sense to you or not? The answer should be not. You can't see Canada in 3 weeks and you can't see Europe in 3 weeks. Not even 3 countries in Europe in 3 weeks.
You need to cut it down to a reasonably small geographic area. That might all be in one country in Europe or it might include a small part of several countries.
Three weeks might be enough to visit Vancouver, the Okanagan and the Rockies around Banff/Jasper for example. In Europe it might be enough to visit Paris, Nice and Interlaken. The bigger you make the geographic area, the more time you are going to waste moving around.
A good rule of thumb to use when planning is the Rule of 3s which says, never spend less than 3 full days/4 nights in a place unless it is just an overnight stop between A and B. Note the 'less than', it is a minimum. Most people would agree that Rome or London or Paris for example need more time than that. Also note the 3/4 which allows for travel time between places. Not allowing for travel time is a common mistake. Every time you move you lose most if not all of a day.
So using that rule and removing you arrival and departure day which are basically a write-off, you will see that with 21 days to start with you have enough time to plan on staying in only 4 or 5 places.
Prioritize where you want to spend your time based on interests and your research on those interests. Then look at each one and think through exactly what you are likely to do there.
For example, you list the Cinque Terre. Personally, I don't think it is worth more than a day trip from somewhere. Do you know that it is only 8 miles on the shortest and most popular trails from one end to the other of all 5 villages? It's less than a day's walk end to end! There are other trails and you can spend more time walking but it ain't Banff National Park. It's hardly more than Stanley Park. So what do you plan to do with your time there?
While the scenery is still what it always was, the atmosphere that existed 30 years ago is long gone. There are now so many tourists in season, that they have to have a quota of walkers allowed per hour on the trails!
If you want great hiking, the Bernese Oberland (Jungfrau)region of Switzerland has far more to offer you and yet you are talking about perhaps 1 or 1.5 days there.
Aug 12th, 2013, 01:12 PM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, you need to understand that more places does not make it a better trip. It actually makes it a less effective trip. In travel, less is always more. The less you move the more you see/do.>
This is a subjective thing - to me and some others - not many here it seems - seeing the Europe in between the mega tourist cities is also great - so it depends on what you mean by seeing Europe - a handful of big tourist cities or also the Europe in between - indeed a car trip with lots of moving around can be a lot of fun - more fun for some than traipsing thru yet another church or museum in a crowded tourist mecca.
This is a subjective thing - to me and some others - not many here it seems - seeing the Europe in between the mega tourist cities is also great - so it depends on what you mean by seeing Europe - a handful of big tourist cities or also the Europe in between - indeed a car trip with lots of moving around can be a lot of fun - more fun for some than traipsing thru yet another church or museum in a crowded tourist mecca.
Aug 12th, 2013, 04:13 PM
#24
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statement that "you can't see Europe in 3 weeks. Not even 3 countries in Europe in 3 weeks" is a very subjective one. Depends on what you mean. I totally agree you can't see an ENTIRE European county in a week. But spending one week in each of three European countries on a three week trip can be a very enjoyable trip. In fact, lots of people could easily do a couple locations per week. A trip of only three weeks, many people do not get so tired that they can't move every three or four days. I do agree that you need to factor in travel between locations which always takes longer than you might think, and for that reason day trips are a good solution - you see more "places" without needing to change hotels as often.
Aug 12th, 2013, 06:46 PM
#25
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, a few more points before i post up a revised version of my itinerary, so, here are new destinations if i was to start in Italy:
Fly into Florence/Pisa [is there somewhere like Frankfurt/London that would be best to connect to these places?]
Florence - Cinque Terra
Cinque Terra - South of France [visiting Monaco on the way in]
Nice/Cannes - Geneva
Geneva - Grindelwald
Grindelwald - Geneva
Geneva - Paris
is this more reasonable? the only backtracking would be coming back into France to go to Paris, this seems reasonable for 3 weeks no?
I've been to Europe before [scandinavia/Russia] and have experianced a fairly hectic schedual, i think this schedual would probably be less hectic than what i did before. As well me and my girl are looking to see and feel more places in our three weeks moreso to see/know where we want to come back to so we are open to a more sightseeing type thing than just spending extended time in each place.
Fly into Florence/Pisa [is there somewhere like Frankfurt/London that would be best to connect to these places?]
Florence - Cinque Terra
Cinque Terra - South of France [visiting Monaco on the way in]
Nice/Cannes - Geneva
Geneva - Grindelwald
Grindelwald - Geneva
Geneva - Paris
is this more reasonable? the only backtracking would be coming back into France to go to Paris, this seems reasonable for 3 weeks no?
I've been to Europe before [scandinavia/Russia] and have experianced a fairly hectic schedual, i think this schedual would probably be less hectic than what i did before. As well me and my girl are looking to see and feel more places in our three weeks moreso to see/know where we want to come back to so we are open to a more sightseeing type thing than just spending extended time in each place.
Aug 13th, 2013, 06:55 AM
#26
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monaco is only 20 minutes on the train from Nice, and Cannes is 40 mins. Make Nice your stop, and you can easily visit Monaco and Cannes in one day, but I would recommend Monaco at night if you like nice cars. The last train back is midnight, or a taxi is about 60-70 euros.
Aug 13th, 2013, 07:22 AM
#27
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm wondering why so much time in Geneva. Not my favorite place in Switzerland. The northern shore of Lake Geneva is beautiful, however. Montreux and Vevey make nice places to stay.
You can go direct from Grindelwald to Paris, no need to return to Geneva.
You can go direct from Grindelwald to Paris, no need to return to Geneva.
Aug 13th, 2013, 09:28 AM
#29
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to Grindelwald - two routes - one via Geneva and one via Milan - Milan potentially shorter but both long long hauls - how about breaking your trip and staying overnight in Stresa, on gorgeous Lake Maggiore and about half-way to Grindelwald from Nice via Milan.
Or a novel route Nice to Chamonix - premier Alpoine resort where glaciers tumble nearly into town - again about half-way - go via St-Gervais-les-Bains and then a narrow-gauge thrilling mountain train to Chamonix and down into Switzerland at Martigny - one of the most incredibly scenic rail routes in Europe!
Or a novel route Nice to Chamonix - premier Alpoine resort where glaciers tumble nearly into town - again about half-way - go via St-Gervais-les-Bains and then a narrow-gauge thrilling mountain train to Chamonix and down into Switzerland at Martigny - one of the most incredibly scenic rail routes in Europe!
