Are Guidebooks' Recommend Length-of-Stays Realistic?

Many of the times seem long to me, too. But that's what i like about traveling solo -- I can spend as much or as little time as I want in a place. If I'm using a guidebook I usually plan two main activities for a day, one in the morning, one in the afternoon. If I can tell from the book that there are numerous things I might like to see, that would guide my decision on number of days. My two-a-day rule gives me plenty of time to dawdle or to fit something else in if I come across something I didn't know about.

J.C. -

The way I see it - it is my trip and I'll go when and where I choose.

I use the guidebooks and online resources (like this one) and chatting with my travelling friends to plan ahead before I travel to Europe.

If you plan ahead and learn about your destinations you'll know once you are there how much time you'll want to spend. Only you can tell when you've seen enough of one place or another.

Have fun.

I don't think most writers of guidebooks, certainly not Rick, intend that their suggestions be fiat but rather only what they say, ie, suggestions. That said, I agree that the times suggested often seem too long. For example, Venice, to me, has very little to offer but Rick loves it. Rome on the other hand I have been going to practically every year for some years and still don't feel sated. I know that Rick, as intelligent as he is and as experienced too, would say a minimum stay to really become knowledgable about a place will tell you if it is, FOR YOU, a Venice or a Rome.

Point taken, Charles. For rxample, I really like the San Francisco area and can easily spend a week doing things others would do in 3 days.

I've been reading some guidebooks prior to working out an itinerary for a UK trip. I know the place rather well, but haven't been there for 6 years, so the books are primarily to get a feel for what might have changed. Many of the suggested "linger" times strike me as excessive.

I think it depends on if you just want to see the historical and/or tourist sites, or let the way of life and culture sink in. If the latter is your preference, you need to stay awhile.

It seems to me the reason I like to drive in Europe is I can stop anyplace that looks good and can stay as long as I want.Tours tell you how long and where.They are fine for some people but not for me.

I suspect the guidebooks err on the side of slowing you down, partly because most people will want to try to fit far too much into a single trip to begin with.

It also depends on your mindset at the time. When I went to England years ago, we tore all around Bath like crazy people at the beginning of the trip but by the time we reached Scotland a week later, I was ready to spend half a day rummaging around in a cute little Scottish village.

I agree RS is great at durations to hit the high points.all others pale to his guidebks. I wish he supplied books for the rest of world. However I do find that I am slowing and savoring the destination more. of course now I am in my 50's but I have been traveling all my life to wonderful place.

How long u stay in a given place depends on your preferences. In could be that a town not worth much of your time is nevertheless a good place to just stop for a breather- a rest before continuing. We used Ravenna that way. We found it deadly boring but we were tired of trains over the preceding few days. Sometimes there isnt much there but the surroundings are magical. You wind up spending more time than you had thot. There are also times when you meet people who just make you want to stay forever!