Best average number of nights to stay in one place? or min?

I enjoyed traveling at a pretty fast pace in my 20s and rarely spent more than 2 nights in the same place. In my 20s, I wanted to see as much as possible and I stayed in lots of hostels. In general, I'd say 2 nights as a minimum in small towns and 3 nights as a minimum for big cities is a reasonable pace for a young person. You also want to keep in mind the distance between the places that you are traveling. When you compute your travel time between places, make sure not to underestimate the time you spend getting from your accommodation to the train station or airport, waiting time, etc.

A lot of people on this board will recommend a much slower pace. Like them, I travel at a slower pace now. In my 20s, I would not have chosen to travel the way I do now.

I see it the same way as Laura. Travelling with the train you can meet a lot of fellow travelers from every corner of the world so it don´t always has to be a waste of time. Two nights for smaller places, three for bigger, but it’s worth looking for a more central location if places of interest are within daytrip reach and so needing even more nights. Building in some flexibility where to stay can be good if you want to change plans on the spot. Hopping from one country to the other requires more planning ahead, but within a country changing the route can make it more adventurous. Actually still do that even being a bit halfway in my fifties.

Brooke, I'm not sure there is a "general rule" or "best average" number of nights. However, it seems that it almost always takes more time to go from any one place to another than anticipated. As a result, a certain amount of time is going to be lost in transit and you want to keep the lost time to a minimum. Since this is your "trip of a lifetime", and considering the amount of time you are going to be traveling, I would suggest that you try to stay flexible and retain the ability to go with the flow depending on how circumstances evolve. You may get to one place and decide to bail after one night. Or you may get to another place and decide to linger longer. Just don't lock yourself into a hard fast itinerary that controls you. You control it. This is not a definitive answer to your question, but it offered just as food for thought. Oh, to be late twenties again, single, and doing this trip. I'm jealous.

I think it depends on the place and your state of mind. I like to stay at least a couple of nights in one place if I can, but often find that I don't for a variety of reasons. You could spend weeks in some cities and not exhaust the possibilities of things to do and see. I think it's good to consider your pacing over the course of the trip. It's easier to change every night if you're traveling by car. You're just schlepping things up and down and in and out of the B&B or hotel, and not on the bus to the train station or airport. But after several days in a row of moving every night it is incredibly restful to just stay put for 2-3 days. I like it best when I can be flexible about this and see how I feel, but as a single traveler in the heavy tourist season this can be difficult particularly if you are on a budget. There are fewer singles than doubles or twins. And oddly, some B&B won't let you have a double as a single even after 5PM. They keep hoping that couple will come along and pay more.

Pam

It really varies - some people prefer slow travel, others are speedy. Plus, certain places just lend themselves to longer or shorter visits. That said, I have a guideline, personally, of 3 nights minimum per place. Exceptions are if I'm on a road trip and just need to stop for a night on my way elsewhere, or if I'm in a place for one specific reason and don't really plan on anything else in that place (i.e. in Sicily I'm planning a night near Etna so I can see the volcano without a long drive in the AM, but am then heading on to Palermo for 3+ nights).

In general, 3 nights means 2 days of visiting, which is a good minimum. Bigger cities often lend themselves to more (it would be hard to see even the highlights of Paris in 3 nights), but you'd at least get a feel for the place and can come back another time if it's somewhere you love.

In my 20s-30s, I spent two or three nights in most places. Now I go somewhat slower, a week or more for major cities (London-Paris-Rome), and at least two nights if I want to break up a long trip.

I think a fast pace is fine but if you will be traveling for a long period, try to have a "down day" every so often.

I think a lot depends on where you are going, what you are seeing, and how experienced you are.

In 2004, I spent 12 nights in Germany, seven in a town in the Black Forest, five on the middle Rhein. Both places were bases for travel to neighboring towns. From my base in the Black Forest, I made two trips into Karlsruhe to work in the Baden-Württemberg archive, visited two spas and a handful of nearby towns. From Boppard, I visited Bacharach, Oberwesel, St. Goar, Koblenz, and Brauback - all easily accessible by the frequent trains along the Rhein.

Three years later, I toured the Romantic Road. Between Oberammergau, where I spent 2 nights and visited Linderhof, and Würzburg, where I spent 2 nights and saw the Marienberg fortress and the Residenz, I spent five days exploring towns on the Romantic Road. I visited eleven venues; Wieskirche, Schonau, Landsberg, Donauwörth, Harburg, Nördlingen, Dinkelsbühl, Feuchtwangen, Rothenburg (briefly, I'd been there twice before), Weikersheim, and Bad Mergentheim, staying overnight in four of them. On most days, my travel was just a few hours, with most of my time in the towns. For this trip, I relied heavily on skills, such as how to pack light for efficient movement, that I had learned on five previous trips.

What I'm trying to say is that it depends on how much there is to see in the towns you visit and the time to get between them. What I don't understand is trips where someone spends a day (2 nights) in a town with far more to see than you can in one day, alternated by all day travel to the next venue.

Laura's first post sums up, in beautiful simplicity, my similar changed attitude with age.
Some people can spend a week lazing on the beach, and some people can spend a week mooching through galleries. There really are so many factors to consider ...
Age and mobility
Desired interests
Time available
Budget constraints
Travel companions
Mode of transport
Appeal of destination
Safety considerations
Theme of the journey
Accommodation style
Once on the road it's amazing how mood, experience and late nights will alter things though!!

I'll just add a few of my own opinions to the excellent ones above.

1. If you're really not interested in a place, don't be afraid to stay there for 0 nights - in other words, to skip it entirely. I see posts from people who feel the "have to" visit a place rather than "want to" (usually because it's famous). Except to catch a plane, you don't have to go anywhere you don't want to, and since travel time is valuable, prioritize what you want to see and don't be afraid of missing other places.

2. If you like a place, you can always spend more time there, even if you've exhausted the "sights." Conversely, if you don't like a place, it doesn't matter what else there is to see - it's time to leave. My problem is I never know how I'll feel about a place until I get there.

3. I agree that it's not just the number of nights in each place, but the general flow of the trip. For instance, If you have an 8 hour train ride between places, you're probably going to want more than 1 night after your arrival - no matter how small the place is. And if you've just spent a week in a place and are about to spend a week in another place, 1 night in between may be fine; but if you're doing this as 2 nights - 1 night - 2 nights, you will be much more tired.

4. Rick says that ideally, you would take every trip twice - first time as rehearsal and the second time as the real trip, to get it right. I thought of this on my most recent trip to Israel - there were things I got "right" and things I didn't, and an opportunity to have a "do-over" would be very nice, but of course that's not how it works. One of the ways I most wish I could do every trip twice is how long to stay in each place. In other words - accept now that no matter how carefully you research and plan a destination, you may feel you spent too much or too little time there.

5. To directly answer your question of a general rule, here's one way to do it. Make a list of all your personal must sees in a place, and estimate how long that will take. Then see how many day trip options there are that appeal to you. (For a place I've never been, I look at day trips as an escape hatch in case I don't like a place). More must sees or more day trip options means I plan longer there; fewer of these mean I plan a shorter stay.

Don't know if I can add much to all the thoughtful previous posts. However, a bit of advice that I took to heart was to not consider this to be your last trip to Europe, you will return. Whether that's actually true or not matters less than the mind set it creates. I have family in Europe that came to the States and really tried to see it all, NYC, San Francisco, LA, Grand Canyon, Yellow Stone, Texas, Florida, etc. in just a couple of weeks. It sounded painful to me. In some places they were there for just a couple of hours. I agree with previous posts that in my 20's I moved around a great deal more than I do now, still, generally, 3 nights was a good standard minimum. I like beaches too, but can become bored at one beach for a number of days. Eurail passes made it easier to just jump up and leave though, if I didn't like a place. It's great to travel solo, because you don't have to consider anyone else's wishes. So, to sum up, I think the three night minimum is a good idea, but remain flexible. Meet and listen to other travelers at places like youth hostels, they'll give you great ideas and insights on the road. Also, don't be afraid to allow yourself to just be in a place for a while, get to know the people and the town a little instead of just the sights, if you really like the place. This also allows you to understand the rhythm of a place, changing your pattern of eating and sleeping allows you to better live like and be with the locals. For instance, eating at 10 p.m. in Spain allows you to see where all the locals eat, zeroing in on the best. Have fun.

Thanks all, such great advise as always!!

My rule is check out every guide you can find (start at the library), note all the sight/activity possibilities, separate them into three groups based on your interests (my groups are "must see", "nice to see if I have time", and "skipable").

I plan on no more than two major sights in a day, one in the morning and a second in the afternoon, with lunch between. If a city has six major must-sees, I'll plan three days to see them. Since there is a travel day on either side of your tour days, four-nights equals three full days in the location.

I'll also keep a list of "nice to see if I have time" to visit in case a sight takes less than a half day (or there is an unplanned closure) and I find myself with more time than I anticipated. I feel it's better to plan fewer sights (and maybe see more) than to plan for non-stop touring all day every day.

I also travel sans reservations. It allows me to lengthen or shorten my stay in each location, if I want. I travel with a list of potential lodging (created at home before the trip) and call ahead the day I plan to arrive. The idea mortifies some people, but I like it better than a set itinerary. As a solo traveler, you may meet a person or people that make you want to adjust your plans.