Are X Days Enough Days to See Y?

Not all have the wealth, future health or time to consider more than one trip to Europe.

Correct, Bruce. "Had we but world enough, and time ...."
But is it any more sympathetic to say "you have X days total --pick your top three of the eight things on your list" ?

I go with the mindset that I can't see everything, but I can strive to enjoy everything I can see.

I try to make the best choices for me. I read guide books and do research on the internet. But I also value the experiences and opinions of well-traveled friends, including those on the forum. My last European trip was to Poland and Hungary. Thanks to folks here, I added Gdansk to Warsaw and Krakow and it was my favorite. So many people helped me choose the places to visit and the things to see and do in Hungary, especially Christa and most especially James.

I always go, thinking - maybe I'll come back! - but knowing that there are some places that may only be a one time visit.

I try to study a location and learn all I can before I visit. I have my I MUST SEE THIS moments if I'm going somewhere. Those are the things I plan to do. Then if I am lucky enough to visit a second, third, etc., time - well, then I am truly blessed.

What makes it work for me and mine is to make that MUST SEE THIS list before we go. Then if we've accomplished that much on a trip? We have done all we set out to do. Anything else is a bonus.

As a literal-minded person, I always have to remind myself that people are using a kind of shorthand when they say things like “worth it,” “must-see,” “local,” “hidden gem,” “off the beaten path,” “best,” “doable,” “authentic,” etc.

For instance, I’ve just spent the last four days in Genoa. Was it “worth it”? To my husband and me, absolutely, and we wish we had another four days. Is it worth it if you can only be in Italy for a week? No, unless it’s on your bucket list to eat the best pesto in the world.

To me these are thoughtful posts. Thank you for them.

Let’s not be so literal. What it means is “is X days enough time to see the basics of Y, given my 12 day availability”. No one thinks you can see everything in Rome in 3 days but I would say 3 days is fine for seeing the highlights.

People do need to recognize that with short visits they will have to be choosy and miss things they’d otherwise like to see. So is it better to do 3 days in Rome, 3 in Florence, or dig more into one area for the full 6 days? That’s the pertinent question. I lean towards more time in fewer places, but others prefer the other way. Both ways are fine as long as the pros and cons are considered and you’re realistic about what the time means.

When choosing cities to visit I do my homework first and a barebones itinerary emerges that says I can see/do what's most imperative to me--with time for happy wandering & unexpected explorations--in X number of days. I've planned 10 trips this way and it works for me; some cities I needed to see just once and felt satisfied, others are so compelling I now must spend time in them every trip--Budapest, I'm looking at you...just booked my trip for next May with 4 days there at the end, as usual.

And there is "travel" style to consider....if you like to unpack every night,check in and out of hotels every other day or are the opposite I think plays into whether X is enough to see Y. We have a friend who refuses to cruise because he likes to spend days in on place not hours other friends who love to cruise because they wake up in a different country every day. Are you the kind of person who has to see RS top 10 places in each country? Will missing the Cinque Terra keep you up at night? Knowing your own travel style will help answer that age old question.

Gee, Dav, if all you want to do is see Y, you really don’t need to travel much at all. Just about every city in the US has a Y, and many are very nice, with cafes, pools and so much more. And, generally very affordable.

Thank you, Lorencito, for my morning guffaw.

BTW the only Y I know in Israel is in Jerusalem and it is both a worthy tourist sight and a good place to eat.

@Christa I haven't been to Budapest (yet) but I feel the same way about the London area-I've been there 7 times and still have items on my bucket list (Bletchley Park, Kew Gardens, London Walks tours). The first time I went, I only got in the biggies-Westminster Abbey, Tower of London, Churchill War Rooms, British Museum.

There are a couple of current threads that are good examples of this type of inquiry. I think that RS needs to beef up or revamp his guidance on "trip planning" to focus on this common problem of unrealistic itineraries. I did a quick look at the Travel Tips section, and while you can read between the lines and understand the need to take into account travel time, for example, but I think many people need more explicit guidance.

Yes, it is a "question of personal interests." plus priorities and other factors whether worthy of your time spent in tracking down the particular place or site.

If you feel spending 5-6 hrs on the train r/t doing a day trip of, say 3.5 hrs, to see a specific site or town, then that is of high priority. I've done exactly that numerous times, almost exclusively in Germany but also in Czechia, Austria..

There are at least two ways to interpret "Assume you will return".

I interpret it to mean that I don't have to try to go to every city I've heard of on one trip. I can choose a few cities now and see some more on Trip #2, Trip #3, etc.

Other people interpret it to mean that it's fine to plan a very short stop in a sight-rich city (meaning they can go to more cities on one trip), because they can return to that city later to see more of what it has to offer.

I don't know which interpretation is Rick's--or whether he always means the same thing.

Obviously, I prefer my interpretation. It reduces hotel-room churn and transportation costs and means a higher ratio of sightseeing time to total trip time.

Cala--London might now be my other "must go every year, even if for just a few days" city. My first solo trip was there in 2011 and I just returned this August and realized it's a city I will never tire of. Bletchley was included and I hope you get there soon, it was quite a satisfying place to visit.

I always know that there is more that I can see in any one place than I probably have time to see while I'm there.

Having said that, I do make choices. Will I be in London for 3 nights? Plan accordingly. Rome for 4 nights? Same. But in both of these cities, it's not my first visit. What I plan to see for a second trip will be different than for my first adventure.

So many Americans are still learning how to travel abroad. I can't tell someone that their plans aren't sufficient to see what they want to see, but I also can't not want to help them. We all learn from experience. I've had more experience than some, less than far others. But I feel the need to help if possible.

So many Americans are still learning how to travel abroad.

At the same time, helping Europeans travel the U.S. can be just as interesting. One of the biggest challenges on U.S forums is getting across how VAST our country is. I use this comparison site (https://mapfight.appspot.com) a lot to give the overly ambitious some idea of what sort of ground they're thinking of covering, for instance the size of Germany to the state of Texas...

https://mapfight.appspot.com/de-vs-texas/germany-texas-size-comparison

...or England to Arizona:

https://mapfight.appspot.com/england-vs-us.az/england-arizona-us-size-comparison

It's particularly useful for the many folks coming here to explore the West/Southwest. Nope, LA to Denver with Vegas, Zion, Bryce, Grand Canyon, Page, Rocky Mountain National Park, etc. in between in a week just isn't going to happen!

As far as foreign tourists go, Australians have a pretty good grip on distances, although not being able to camp out in a rental RV just any old place, like overnight on a city street or National Monument parking lot, is sort of a revelation to a number of them. :O)

Our lack of public transit outside of the cities is a frequent challenge too.

I let go of my travel being about ticking off as many sites in a laundry list of so-called "must-dos" in any place years ago. For me its more about being immersed in the culture, landscape/cityscape of a place, something you lose if you overschedule your days and spend all your time in museums and cathedrals. I think the change for me was when I was traveling internationally a lot for work (Europe and Japan) with a lot of weekends on my own to fill. Already exhausted from my previous workweek, if I tried to fill my weekend with sightseeing to "take advantage of" being in a particular place, I ended but being exhausted the next workweek, and it wasn't necessarily that satisfying. So I started using my weekends off for downtime, maybe see one or two sites the whole weekend, the rest of the time relax, just walk around, have a leisurely afternoon in a sidewalk cafe, hang out in a park with a picnic and a book, etc. Oftentimes I'd end up stumbling across a site that might or might not be in the guidebook, which I might not have gone to otherwise. I found those weekends more fulfilling even than the days I spent sightseeing when I was on a "real" vacation.

Now when I go on vacation I take the amount of time I have to travel, and each day pick one to two big sites (depending on how long each one takes to see) with plenty of slack time to just enjoy being there, and to stumble on serendipitous discoveries; I don't worry about all the stuff I'm not seeing, can't see everything anyway.

I try to give friendly advice on the fact that an uptempo schedule might well transform a European vacation into mostly a Europe's transportation infrastructure tour (nothing wrong with that, if this is actually a niche someone wants to explore otherwise). As others pointed, the "enough days for X" are often a proxy for "what is the least time I can spend at X and still enjoy the place".

So instead of trying to make the case that Amsterdam deserves at least 4 nights instead of the usual 2, I try to point out that a hurried itinerary implies n hours on trains/airports, which will leave little time for sightseeing. I think most people not used to travel much grossly underestimate how much of the day even a relatively simple transfer (hotel-walk-high speed train-walk-hotel) eats up.

Otherwise, at least for me, it becomes a rather futile exercise in terms of discussing whether some of the World's most culturally endowed cities with an astonishing collection of art, architecture, gastronomy and other urban elements deserves more than a couple nights on a tight-packed schedule.

What I will gladly do, however, is to point out additional interesting things there are there for people to do, if they are considering spending more time at a given place. For instance, Rome could be packed with interesting activities and sites for a full 10 days.

In terms of map scale, Germany is the size of Montana. Prior to reunification west Germany was equivalent in square miles to the state of Oregon.

And France is only a little smaller than Texas, and Spain only a little smaller than France.

Germany is smaller than Montana with about 80 times more people. Oh, and there are well more cattle here than people. No wonder our German friends love visiting Montana.

I spent two days in Montana, from Yellowstone to Helena overnight to Glacier - beautiful country.

Years ago, I used the green Michelin guides when touring Europe. They had a great aid to help tourist prioritize their travels. It was a three star system. If it was labeled three stars, then it was a must see. If it was two stars then go out of your way to see it. It it was one star, if it was on your way, stop and see it.

Tour guides are many these days. I suggestion is do your research. What you see while traveling depends on your interests.

My favorite sites are historical, cultural, art and scenic.
For example Rome is filled with historical, cultural and art.
Alaska is filled primarily with scenic places. China was filled with all four.

Plan ahead for your trips, since you save time and frustration and see more.