- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How long should you stay in cities while backpacking?
Posted on 6/5/18 at 10:57 am
Posted on 6/5/18 at 10:57 am
I'd imagine some cities only need a day or 2, while some a few more. Do you get burned out traveling to cities every other day, and should you visit fewer cities with a longer stay in between? I'd like to see a lot of Europe, but I don't know if it would be better to take time to really see these countries.
2
Posted on 6/5/18 at 11:04 am to cheesesteak501
Can you give a list of cities? It really depends on a lot of factors, primarily what cities they are, how much there is to do in them, and the distance/time of travel between places.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 11:11 am to AbitaFan08
Prague
Nice
Munich
Berlin
Amsterdam
Oslo
Copenhagen
Stockholm
somewhere in Switerland
I want to go to Paris as well and assuming that's at least 4 days.
Nice
Munich
Berlin
Amsterdam
Oslo
Copenhagen
Stockholm
somewhere in Switerland
I want to go to Paris as well and assuming that's at least 4 days.
This post was edited on 6/5/18 at 11:12 am
Posted on 6/5/18 at 11:26 am to cheesesteak501
I've actually not had the chance to visit any of the stops on your list except Paris, and I do agree with the 4 days you have allotted for that.
Hopefully others will chime in on the rest. Often, there are cities that are great to visit, but frankly you can cover it in a couple days, while there are others you could spend weeks in and not see everything.
Traveling from place to place can be draining, so it's all about spreading it out so that if you have a short turnaround at one stop, your next one is a bit longer.
Sounds like a hell of a trip.
Hopefully others will chime in on the rest. Often, there are cities that are great to visit, but frankly you can cover it in a couple days, while there are others you could spend weeks in and not see everything.
Traveling from place to place can be draining, so it's all about spreading it out so that if you have a short turnaround at one stop, your next one is a bit longer.
Sounds like a hell of a trip.
This post was edited on 6/5/18 at 11:26 am
Posted on 6/5/18 at 12:31 pm to cheesesteak501
How long do you have to travel? How much do you have to spend? Is your goal to simply see the highlights, or to have deeper experiences of a place? Neither approach is right or wrong, they're just different. If you are not a seasoned traveler, then you might not know which style you prefer.
My suggestion is to be flexible. Have a list of cities, and perhaps a start and end point determined. Then see what happens--I could spend a week in Nice, and certainly in Paris, and not get bored in either place. Ditto for Munich, Amsterdam....
BUT, I don't scurry around like an ant while on vacation. I don't shove four different activities into one day, or attempt to see every single "big sight" in the first 24 hours. I like to walk whenever possible, to see a city at night and during the early AM, get into neighborhoods where people live rather than stay in tourist districts. It would take me a solid 2 months to hit all of those cities at my preferred pace.
If you don't have a hard schedule & rely on easily-booked train or low cost air tickets, you can travel at your own pace, staying extra days as the mood strikes.
My suggestion is to be flexible. Have a list of cities, and perhaps a start and end point determined. Then see what happens--I could spend a week in Nice, and certainly in Paris, and not get bored in either place. Ditto for Munich, Amsterdam....
BUT, I don't scurry around like an ant while on vacation. I don't shove four different activities into one day, or attempt to see every single "big sight" in the first 24 hours. I like to walk whenever possible, to see a city at night and during the early AM, get into neighborhoods where people live rather than stay in tourist districts. It would take me a solid 2 months to hit all of those cities at my preferred pace.
If you don't have a hard schedule & rely on easily-booked train or low cost air tickets, you can travel at your own pace, staying extra days as the mood strikes.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 12:46 pm to hungryone
I agree with hungryone, if you don't know then keep your schedule as flexible as possible so you can stay as long or short in each city. When I back packed for a year some cities I stayed for a day or two and others I stayed a week or two. It really just depends on the city or the people you meet there.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 12:48 pm to hungryone
I'll be traveling for a month, maybe more. I'm planning on having around 4,000- 5,000 budget. With a cheap flight and hostels i'd think that is fair amount.
No plans are certain because I'll be with a friend, and I don't know what he wants to do.
No plans are certain because I'll be with a friend, and I don't know what he wants to do.
This post was edited on 6/5/18 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 6/5/18 at 1:21 pm to cheesesteak501
Now's the time to do some reading. Get your hands on basic guidebooks for each city--while guidebooks aren't the key to a brilliant vacation, they will give you a good overview of the highlights. Your local public library probably has Fodor's, Lonely Planet, etc available through its e-book collections, so you can start your research without spending any money.
Bothering to read a few guidebooks will help you allocate your time. See what piques your interest....Roman ruins, WWII history, art, music, regional food specialties, hiking/outdoors....reading now makes for a better vacation later.
ETA: your entire list is cities--you might want to consider a few days in less urban environments. Smaller towns/villages can be picturesque and relaxing, esp after lots of concrete and people.
Bothering to read a few guidebooks will help you allocate your time. See what piques your interest....Roman ruins, WWII history, art, music, regional food specialties, hiking/outdoors....reading now makes for a better vacation later.
ETA: your entire list is cities--you might want to consider a few days in less urban environments. Smaller towns/villages can be picturesque and relaxing, esp after lots of concrete and people.
This post was edited on 6/5/18 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 6/5/18 at 1:41 pm to cheesesteak501
Traveling between cities can start to wear on you considering it often ends up being a 5-6 hour travel time. Even with a month, I would consider reducing the number of cities on your list. Personally I would knock out Nice, Oslo and maybe Stockholm. Those 3 cities seem to be further from the other cities you list and are very, very expensive. Copenhagen is expensive too but is closer to the main part of europe and IMO is a more interesting city than Stockholm and Oslo. Plus you can get over to malmo sweden in 45 minutes on the train if you want to say you've been to sweden.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 1:45 pm to hungryone
flying is relatively cheap in europe right now...even last min.
personally... i'd just fly to a hub city....and then make sure you fly home from another.
then just wing the days between.
...get to know google flights.. and let the deals of the day determine where you go.
counting travel days...i'd budget a min 3-4 days each city the 1st time visiting.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 5:14 pm to cheesesteak501
From your list, I’ve been to Prague, Nice, Munich, Paris and Interlachen, Switzerland. No question I’d drop Nice. I was glad we were only there one night. If you want to go to a beach in southern France, check out the Callanques near Cassis. We typically stay no longer than two nights in any city so that we can hit more spots. That’s not for everyone, but works for us. Given the time, I would have liked to have devoted more nights in Paris and Prague.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:35 pm to cheesesteak501
This was my itinerary in 2014 for 57 days. We literally had a flight in and a flight out. No plans in between. We found 3 nights in any city was too much and 3 days 2 nights was perfect. Had family in Madrid, Sicily, and Dublin, so those were our longest stays.
We did:
Milan
Cinque Terre
Rome
Sicily
Paris
Madrid
Budapest
Prague
Poland
Berlin
Belgium
Amsterdam
London
Dublin
Best time of my life. I was in Sicily drinking the best 2 Euro wine in the world 4 years ago tonight.
We did:
Milan
Cinque Terre
Rome
Sicily
Paris
Madrid
Budapest
Prague
Poland
Berlin
Belgium
Amsterdam
London
Dublin
Best time of my life. I was in Sicily drinking the best 2 Euro wine in the world 4 years ago tonight.
This post was edited on 6/5/18 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 6/6/18 at 6:47 am to cheesesteak501
Minimum 3 in each. Backpacking in and of itself is intended to be a slow paced and low cost adventure. Not sure what the rush would be.
Posted on 6/6/18 at 8:57 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
Yes, exactly. I’m on the side of allowing things to develop, as opposed to constantly rushing off to chase the next new thing.
Posted on 6/6/18 at 9:07 am to cheesesteak501
I would highly recommend removing Stockholm and Oslo from your list. They are very expensive and out of your way. Unless you REALLY want to go there. But the problem is you have to get there and basically come straight back. So you can't even really tie it into your trip.
Try not to take flights. The way you keep backpacking cheap is by short cheap train rides. Getting to and from Airports can be expensive. There's more to a flight than just the cost of the flights. Train stations are usually close to the city centers, you basically get there and get on the train with almost no additional costs. Flights are also more mentally exhausting to me. Going through security, arriving on time, planning it out, etc. Trains are so nice because you just arrive, walk on, and go.
I also can't recommend some time outside of the main cities also. Some of my best European memories are from the country and small towns. I say on this board all the time, hitting the big cities is like getting a taste of Louisiana by only going to downtown NOLA.
Try not to take flights. The way you keep backpacking cheap is by short cheap train rides. Getting to and from Airports can be expensive. There's more to a flight than just the cost of the flights. Train stations are usually close to the city centers, you basically get there and get on the train with almost no additional costs. Flights are also more mentally exhausting to me. Going through security, arriving on time, planning it out, etc. Trains are so nice because you just arrive, walk on, and go.
I also can't recommend some time outside of the main cities also. Some of my best European memories are from the country and small towns. I say on this board all the time, hitting the big cities is like getting a taste of Louisiana by only going to downtown NOLA.
Posted on 6/6/18 at 10:46 pm to baldona
quote:
I also can't recommend some time outside of the main cities also. Some of my best European memories are from the country and small towns. I say on this board all the time, hitting the big cities is like getting a taste of Louisiana by only going to downtown NOLA.
Couldn’t agree with this more. I always tell people, get lost. Like literally, hop on the metro, pick a random street and just go. The best times we had were times we never expected to find ourselves in. It just happens.
Also, seat61.com will be a lifesaver for train planning.
This post was edited on 6/6/18 at 10:47 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News