advantages and disadvantages of the home base idea

I have done both depending on the situation.

I strongly prefer to stay in apartments or Airbnb type places because I travel with kids and find the extra space and kitchen necessary. Many have a 2-4 night minimum, and I find the arranging to get the keys process the most stressful part of a trip because of timing (say you are meeting the owner at 4. You can't be late and if you're early you're stuck wandering with luggage). If I can find an apartment hotel with a staffed desk I'll take it. Otherwise I try to minimize check in - check outs, which means some day trips. Plus that way I only go grocery shopping once, and can spread out a bit.

But you're right, sometimes you want to stay overnight in your daytrip destination. Some towns are better at night and get too full of daytripping tourists during the day. So for some destinations I don't base and just move more. However, I won't do one night stays unless it's a road trip and all I need is to sleep. Otherwise a one night stop just isn't worth it - check in isn't until 3, check out is 11...that leaves very little time to see anything. Two nights are less than ideal as well.

I have an informal 3 night minimum rule - that's a good balance between moving too much and being stuck in one place. Say you arrive at 2PM on day 1, spend the next day exploring that town, then the next day you can do a day trip, then leave the next morning. Works well for a town with one days worth of sightseeing and one desirable day trip. Add nights as needed for bigger towns or those with multiple things to day trip to.

I think it also depends on if you are one or two adults or have children/teens with you because that affects how easy it is to move. Also on what day trips are available from the homebase and how easy the transportation is. London is a great day trip place because so many great sights are an easy train ride away.

I have done both and there can be reasons for each approach. When I think back as to what my preference has been, it has been when I've had a base. Last year, we stayed in a very delightful town for 6 nights. The town had enough sights that we spent a couple days just seeing those. Then we did day trips and came back. There were many restaurants for us to choose from each night and the town was small enough that people got to know us. It was wonderful to be able to spend time talking to local people. Also, on the days we spent in the town, we were able to go back to our room for a couple hours in the afternoon which appealed to us. I like to find bases that are in walking distance to the town center. We have been to England many times so we are not about packing as much in as we can. We prefer a more laid back approach these days to soak up the culture.

Rob, was it you or someone else who recently had a long, well-discussed thread on this topic? I was trying to find it and hope it didn't get deleted.

One other comment - I know you're not just speaking about England - my comment referred to England. When we first started traveling I wanted to see as much as I could so didn't tend to have a base in those days. Two or three night max in each place then. Our travel style has changed since then.

I've done a lot of both and prefer to home base although the right answer will depend on where you're going and what you want to see.

Also I live in Europe so there's less urgency, if I really like a place we day trip to, it's not as difficult to return.

I find that many people, even seasoned European travelers like myself, consistently underestimate how long it takes to pack and move on and find a new hotel, check in, figure out transit, etc. Weirdly a home base approach gives you more travel time, provided that there's enough you want to do within a 2 hour radius of where you're basing. Some cities really lend themselves to it - like Munich. Others, like Budapest, don't.

I tend not to get moving very early in the morning, so I occasionally feel rushed on a day-trip--gotta be sure I don't miss the last conveniently-timed train or bus back to home base. I don't remember ever thinking that the return trip itself was a chore. Hey, I'm sitting down; I have notes or guidebook info to review about future destinations; I can relax. I tend to look for hotels that are rather close to the train/bus station I expect to be using. That makes my trips in and out of town relatively convenient, but it sometimes increases the amount of walking I need to do to get to the most attractive part of the base city.

I try to select my base cities carefully. They're usually the largest in the area, not necessarily the most charming. That means I'm generally day-tripping to fairly small towns where seeing all the sights of interest to me in a day isn't too difficult. Any place known to have more than a day's worth of sights nearly always becomes a base, even if it's very close to the previous or next stop.

I really dislike the packing/unpacking business, and even though I opt for hotels when the price is reasonable, all too often I end up in a small place that only staffs the reception desk intermittently. I hate that, because I want to drop my bag and start sightseeing. The fewer different hotels I stay in, the fewer days when I wonder whether there's going to be a hassle with my bag. I used to worry a bit about ending up in a really sub-par hotel, but with online photos and reviews, the risk of that is much lower than it used to be--though of course there can always be an infrastructure problem that takes out the a/c, Wi-Fi, elevator or hot water just before you arrive. My new fear is that I'll arrive at the lodging to find no one there and a message in the window, directing clients to call a phone number. I have no phone service in Europe. Any stress related to day trips pales, for me.

I do minimal bases, but I plan two bases for my trip in September. One in Arles to see that area of Provence, by car, and another in Juan les Pins as a base to explore from Monaco to maybe St. Tropez using the local train (but also some relaxation).

I think the heavier you travel (e.g. luggage, number of people) the more sense a base makes, because it's much harder to get everyone packed and moving again. If someone wants to stay behind for a day, or do something different, it's not a problem because you will all be together again at the end of the day.

I travel very light and tend to make my itineraries linear with stops along the way and stays at destinations that offer more sights.

I try to avoid one night stops (I have one in my next trip) as much as possible. I stay at places that have enough sights for at least one full day (between two nights).

It really depends on the place. I don't stay anywhere less than 2 nights, so I don't do anything like finding a really nice place on a day trip and want to stay there overnight. But I will stay somewhere for the 2 nights if I want to experience it after sundown and have dinner, it's a two night planned stay.

For regions that have a lot of small towns, I like to base camp.

For cities that have a ton of sights, I like to stay, and maybe have a day trip in my back pocket.

I think my upcoming trip to Italy displays my strategy perfectly:
Venice 4 nights (possible day trip to Ferrara or somewhere, maybe not).
Padua as a day trip from Venice on departure day, with the night being spent in
Turin 2 nights. Renting a car and going to
An Agriturismo between Alba and Asti, 5 nights. We will tour the countryside, visiting a ton of small towns, and return to the agriturismo for sleeping and maybe dinner, but probably not.
Relocate to Cogne for 2 nights. We will use Cogne as a base to go up Mont Blanc, and explore the Gran Paradiso national park and Castello Fenis. And maybe the Roman ruins of Aosta. And then return the car to Milan, and fly home.

Have a loaded city to visit, a rolling through in Padua, a short stop in Turin (of course, the AT is about 30 miles from Turin, so if we want to spend another day there, we can cut our wine and castle touring down by a day to spend it in Turin), then a base camp for a smaller city/town/rural experience, then a base camp for a region.

For me, it depends on what I'm going for, and what my priorities are. I place a high priority on knowing where I'm sleeping ahead of time.

We really dislike the 1 and 2 night stops so prefer a home case for a week or more, with day trips. One of the nice things is getting to know the home case town or city a bit better, having a regular coffee or aperitivo spot, returning to the same restaurant if we liked it, etc. We also enjoy the end-of-day return trip from a day-trip location, a chance to nap or read on the bus or train on the way "home."

My rule of thumb: if it is not worth staying at least 3 nights in a place, try to make it a day trip from somewhere. The DH will not put up with 2 night stays very often.

It depends. Lots of people daytrip to places I always spend at least two nights (Orvieto or Siena, for example). I like feeling the city as it is, after the daytrippers leave. But you do the best you can with the time you have.

I have found some lovely places (Bergamo, Tivoli) as spur-of-the-moment daytrips, and sometimes have gone back for a couple of nights on a later trip. I don't usually go to a city with the idea of using it as a base. But if transportation is easy, why not? I went to Frascati from Roma for lunch once.

I agree that having a base is better for a family or group of travelers.

I think the answer is very context specific and depends on how much time you have for the overall trip and the distances between all the (city, town, village) points you want to see. Once you have that list together, then you decide what makes most sense in terms of minimizing time (time spent packing/unpacking and transit time) and enhancing the quality of your trip. I think that dragging luggage with each move (assuming you don't have a rental car) and having to check it somewhere is one of the major downsides of picking up and moving every 1-3 days. My rule of thumb is to do whatever's the least painful while still allowing for plenty of enjoyment on the trip. I've definitely been bummed at having to return from a side trip to the base city based on the public transport schedule more than a genuine desire, but travel is full of trade-offs...there's no way to know ahead of time what places will really click with you and that you'll want to spend much more time in. So you make the best guess and it usually turns out just fine in the end.

If you're a light traveler or fairly active traveler who is not traveling with small kids or a big group (or anyone with mobility issues), you have much more flexibility to pick up and move fairly quickly, so it also depends on your travel characteristics and preferred style. I've moved every day or few days on some trips and, while worthwhile, it was still a bit tiring. That was more of a function of wanting to cover a lot of ground and having real time constraints, as opposed to an ideal way of traveling.

The Home base method works well for some places, but has its limits.

For example, staying in London and taking day trips is not a bad way to go for visiting many wonderful places near London.

Yes, you don't have to move luggage, etc., but you spend a lot of time going were you want to go.

In Italy, for those who have never been to Italy, I generally advise going to see the big three, Venice, Florence and Rome for a 10-14 day trip. You only move twice and travel between those cities by rail is very convenient.

Another solution is cruises. both river and ocean cruises.

We lived overseas for several years and visited all the major cities, but taking cruises, we have been able to visit many places that we would normally not easily visit. For example, cruising the Med and Adriatic, visiting places like Split and Dubrovnik, Croatia are very easy on a cruise and both places are amenable to a one day visit.

River cruises are great opportunities to visit places without moving, since the riverboat moves.

Travel is wonderful and different approaches can be very enjoyable.

I think this is a great question. My three trips to Europe (so far!) have all been using the "home base" approach, so I must think it's the way to go. My experience:

Berlin - stayed 6 nights. We were visiting my daughter who was doing study abroad, so she showed us around. Took two day trips to Sachsenhausen concentration camp & Sans Souci castle in Potsdam. Loved having the same room & neighborhood to come back to. We frequented a nearby restaurant and got to know the wait staff. Sure, would have liked to see more of Germany, but our time was limited and we wanted to really experience Berlin.

Italy - 4 nights in Sorrento, 4 nights in Rome, 4 nights in Florence. Day trips from each place (Pompeii, Naples, Orvieto, Siena/San Gimignano). Absolutely the best way to do it. Felt like we had the chance to really experience each place.

Ireland/Spain - 6 nights in Madrid and 5 nights in Dublin. Day trips to Toledo and Newgrange/Hill of Tara. Really nice to only lug suitcases once for each city.

Will be going on my first RS tour to Scotland later this summer, so will be interesting to compare spending only 2 nights in each place. I'm sure I'll enjoy it, but ideally I recommend at least 3-4 days in each place.

Since we home exchange we almost always use a home base approach!
We have done this in Norway (Alesund), Switzerland (Valais), the Czech Republic (Prague), France (Paris & Pezenas), England (London), Thailand (Phuket), and a number of other places. The shortest length of time for us was 3 weeks and the longest was 9 weeks. We only choose places where there is PLENTY to do. The only place it was difficult, since we literally ran out of things to do, was the island of St. Martin - 3 weeks was a bit long! We ended up going to neighboring islands by boat - it was fine but not in our plans.
Other than that it's been great! We start with the major tourist sights, then move to the secondary sights, then from there expand our circle of exploration to things recommended by locals and further flung locations. We will often spend one or two nights away from our home base.
We love doing this...we get to know the neighbors, we frequent the same cafes and get to know the owners, have time to try local food and wine, and getting a real sense of what it's like to "live" there. Highly recommend planting yourself and staying a while!

I am a veteran of 16 Europe trips (not counting business trips) and not a big fan of the "home base" strategy.

Here are some reasons:
1. Practical home bases tend to be big expensive cities where you are paying top dollar to stay. Visiting Chartres and Giverny when paying a lot to stay in Paris does not make a lot of sense to me.
2. You end up expending a lot of energy and time getting to the day drip destination. Depends upon your energy level, but half an hour in at the destination, my wife is asking when we are heading back. Also, in bigger cities just getting to the transit departure point can take up a fair amount of time and energy.
3. You end up missing out on the place where you are actually staying because of all the day trips. We stayed five nights in Madrid in 2005, with day trips to Segovia, El Escorial, Toledo and arrived from Seville early evening the first night. I don't know how we even managed to visit the Prado, but we somehow managed a city bus tour, the Thiessen, and the Reina Sofia as well.

On the plus side, yeah you do have to pack/unpack fewer times.

There are alternatives--consider fewer stops for longer periods of time, but don't do a lot of day trips. Stay in Paris for five nights and just see Paris. We started our 2013 England trip in Bath for three nights, no day trips. and that felt about right, even a little short. I have pretty much never regretted spending too much time at one stop. (Maybe five night in Dublin in 2002 on the front end of a 14 night trip to Ireland, but even then when we left I was sorry to be going).

The home base and day trip strategy works better when you are in smaller towns venturing into nearby places, with a rental car. Most of my examples come from France: Alsace with Colmar as a base. Provence with Arles as a base. Loire with Chenonceau as a base. Day trips out of Beaune--several within reach. Chamonix as a day trip from Annecy. Also in England, the Cotswalds can work with this kind of travel. Mosel Valley by car from the Rhineland can make sense (did it in 2006). The best approach is to stay many days in the base city to make sure you don't shortchange that place, and choose a place with critical mass of good day tip destinations nearby.

Nuremburg can be a good base for day trips by train. Germany in general, with the Laender tickets and efficient trains, this strategy can work.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the planning ease and scheduling flexibility of a home-base model.

• You don't need to pre-schedule all your destinations - just your base towns - or how much time you'll spend in home base. You might have some tentative plans, but those choices can be made day by day depending on weather or other factors (the bad knee is kicking up; I just found out about a wine festival or a classic car show in Town Z.)

• A 2-week trip with 3 separate travel base towns means you have only 2-3 major travel legs by train or plane to pre-book. Day trips by train or bus in between those major travel legs are by definition short and generally inexpensive, so pre-purchase is unnecessary.

Cost has been mentioned... Private B&B's and apartments often mean a discounted rate for stays of 3-7 days. Sometimes an apartment owner discounts heavily for longer stays so he doesn't need to remake your rooms every day... Look at the "je Nacht" (per night) column on the far right of this chart:

http://file2.npage.de/011837/68/bilder/2014_10_16_20_13_09.png

This owner in Franconia charges €35/night per night per couple for a 1-night stay - but stay a week and it's only €26 per night.

I think you'll find that most (not all, but most) posters here will tell you that they would not commit to always using one way or another. Both have those advantages and disadvantages that you have discovered and many here have reiterated. It always seems to come down to individual trip specifics and what makes more sense on that particular trip. All of my independent international trips have been a mixture of both. The only ones that were either one or the other were always group tours. One was a small group 8-day tour of Tuscany that based in one hotel for all 7 nights and we did day trips from there. The base method works well in areas like Tuscany and Provence (and others of course), where there are an abundance of day trip possibilities that are fairly short distances from your base. Sometimes you will move once or twice between 2 or 3 bases. The other tours I took were large group tours (not RS) that moved around ever 2 or 3 days (1, 2, and occasionally 3 night stops). In general, if forced to take a position one way or the other I find that, at least for me, the base method has more advantages than disadvantages.

Either system can work, but it depends on what you are seeing. Many times, I have based myself in a small town in the Oberallgäu and visited interesting nearby venues, each in a different direction. However, another time I traveled the Romantic Road, moving slowly from one town, along the road, onenight at a time, to another.

One time a base works; another time, a progressive itinerary works. You have to use a flexible approach.

Almost all of the responses talk about a home base of a few days or more, always returning to "base" in the evening. I have found that finding a longer term base (3 weeks or so) then doing lots of local stuff mixed with longer trips of 1-3 nights also is nice. Yes it may seem odd to pay to stay overnight someplace when you have lodging back at the "base" but if you look at total lodging cost for the trip, it can be the same or less than moving around. We did this in Germany and it was great to head to Paris with only an overnight size bag for a couple days. We have also stayed within close distance of an Airport with budget flights, expanding our reach greatly, heading down to Croatia for example from Germany. In a couple of cases we did have an advantage of a family member with a house that made the cost even less, but in other cases it was worth the cost to have a place to park most of your stuff (we do travel light anyway) and travel ultralight to a destination. We also found that we picked up much more local food along the way, preparing it at "Home", or just relaxing with a bottle of wine rather than "going out" all the time.

Russ, you make a good point about not having to pre-plan everything when you have a base. I used to be the consummate planner but I've really chilled out in that regard and part of that is because using the base model you can generally wake up and decide where you want to go.

I mean, linear trips can also be good, but they do require a lot more energy and planning. I've done Bucharest-Brasov-Belgrade-Sarajevo-Mostar-Dubrovnik-Split-Zadar (just the two of us, still in our 30s) and two years ago we did Berlin-Posnan-Hamburg-Amsterdam-Brussels-Brugge-Frankfurt with the in-laws. Both trips were exhausting but at least I learned which places 1-2 nights was just fine for and have no need to return and which places are worth returning to for a longer, more exhaustive visit or even just a weekend.

Just thinking about it, every time we moved we had to figure out a new public transit system, figure out where our apartment or hotel was, pray the check in/key exchange goes smoothly, try to figure out a not-crappy place to eat and slowly get acquainted with the neighborhood and the city in general. It's time consuming. It's tiring. And yet this can make sense if you want to see a lot of stuff in a relatively short amount of time.

And now I have the dilemma of what to do WRT a 9 day Iberian peninsula trip in October. Husband's first Spanish trip, possibly our last while living in Europe. Do we try to see a bunch of highlights or do two bases? I haven't decided yet.

Hi,

Like with everything else, the home base approach is a trade off. After 23 trips in forty-six years, I have done both, more or less, depending. No problem in moving every 2-3 nights, just depends on how "light" the spinner is, since I mostly stay in the train station area, whether the train is reserved, day or night train, which is even easier.

On the most recent tips, I use the home base approach mainly with Vienna and Berlin as the bases. I time the trip as to when I get to Berlin, since while staying at the Pension there from 5-14 consecutive days, my moderate load of laundry needs to be done, if I did not do minimal pieces of laundry prior at the room sink.

Using the home base concept, you have the advantage of regrouping , reorganising after several days on the road and on the move, you can take time to catch up writing postcards, go to the post office, etc. . Usually, by the time my stay is over, I leave Berlin with an entire fresh set of laundry, ie, resupplied. There is the advantage of doing day trips when using the home base concept. From Berlin I've gone to Jena, Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Frankfurt an der Oder, Neustrelitz, Halle, Neuruppin, Leipzig, etc. Likewise with Vienna...Graz, Melk, Wierner Neustadt, Deutsch Wagram, and most definitely with Paris as the home base for day trips.

Since I travel solo in Austria and Germany, using the home base concept works easily, as does moving every 2-3 nights....all depends on the itinerary set up.

It works best if you can stay a week or more, and most of what you want to see is at the base.

I think as many as mentioned a combination of both can be appropriate. But like many things it all depends.

As I get better and better at this travel thing I'm finding I pack lighter and smarter and that certainly makes it easier and more efficient to hit more locations

It's a journey, Vick. You learn more about how you like to travel every time you travel. You find better ways or things you like. Maybe your tastes change. Your interests. Your physical capabilities. But your travel style always evolves and improves with every trip.

At least mine does.

To add: I love getting off a train or bus with only a messenger bag, but sometimes that is outweighed by the idea of seeing a landmark in different lights of day/night. Especially for serious photographers (which I am not), I think morning and afternoon are the worst times to get great photos.

... seeing a landmark in different lights of day/night. Especially for serious photographers (which I am not), ...

One reason this photographer likes to stay several days at a place.

... I think morning and afternoon are the worst times to get great photos.

Dawn and dusk are the best time for photography. Soft light and few crowds.

Rob, you bring up some very interesting topics!

This thread got me thinking about our trip next summer. The other night at dinner in Strasbourg, we tossed around ideas of having four home bases, 6-9 nights in each one. The train time between home bases should be no more than six hours (didn't consider flying for this exercise).

We came up with 7 possible trips of four home bases, drawing maps and arrows on the back of a couple pieces of paper. It was a blast.

We're gonna continue tossing out ideas to each other. In a few weeks I'll post a thread to read what ideas other contributors have.

The first one Wife came up with: Seville (been there, many DT available), Valladolid (same), Provence (new territory), Paris (been twice).

VS reminded me of something. Cities are typically the most expensive places to stay, eat and park your car. The larger the city, the higher the price. It's one thing if you are seeing the sights in the city. If you're planning to leave each day, however, it's probably better to pick a base outside the city.

I think especially of Madrid. It has some great museums but it's not a very historic city, no older than east coast cities in the US. It has probably the most expensive food and lodging in the country - neither are particularly good unless you have a really high budget. When I see someone daytrip from Madrid to see Toledo, I wonder why? There are better sights, as well as better, and cheaper, food and lodging in Toledo. If anthing, base in Toledo and daytrip to Madrid. If you want to make day trips to Avila or Segovia, you will escape city traffic easier from Toledo than Madrid.

Madrid has more and better sites than Toledo, and is a better transportation hub without a car to do day trips from.

Sometimes, you're paying more with basing in a city because it is a premium in terms of efficiency and location. Given that Toledo can be seen in a day and Madrid really cannot, I don't understand the logic of basing in Toledo, unless the cost differential includes two RT trips per person into Madrid, and more. Time in your most valuable asset, imho. That said, why not do a roll through... Stay in Madrid, when it's time to move, relocate to Toledo, and if you're not spending the night, roll through to the final destination, which doesn't involve going back to Madrid.

I base, I guess. My minimum stay is 3 full days/4 nights, unless it's the entry/exit city and then I'll have at least 2 full days on each end. Usually, I stay more than 3 full days in a location and seldom take what I'd call day trips. I wouldn't consider Giverny a day trip, for explanation. For example, we spent 10 days in Nancy, FR and had two day trips: Verdun and over the Vosge Mountains. Instead, I like to see everything a city has to offer even the less famous sites, sit in the parks, watch the people, feel the daily vibe of the place, etc. I don't just want to see the Eiffel tower and run to another place. I like to relax on my vacation as well. My next trip is 7 full days/8 nights in Amsterdam. I've been there before, but want to go back to specialize in my interests, watch people, take photos, and eat pancakes, etc. I meet people this way, which is part of the fun. I like to connect.