Day Trips or Moving On?

Roy, I've done both, and I've come to prefer to stay in one place for a few days, especially in small towns. I like to relax while I'm visiting a place, getting to know a few people, not feeling rushed to get onto the next place without really experiencing real life in a little country town. I do alot of hiking and hanging out, and that works for me. Where are planning to go?

It really depends on the trip. I have done trips where we stayed in one spot and did several day trips (we travel by train). I've also done trips where we moved every two, three or four days. The purpose of the trip, the particular desitinations, even your own temprement at the time should help you make the decision. If it is to be a more restful trip, then staying in fewer locations usually is more important. If you are wanting to experience several places, then you may need to move around more. Neither one is "right" or "wrong"- they are just different. (That said, moving every one or two days is too much for me- I like to stay in most spots at least two days- and don't like to have too many two dayers in a row).

Or another way to look at it: picture establishing a base for a week, and traveling from there each day to a place on the perimeter of a rough circle, 5 trips or so, returning to your base each night. Then compare to traveling the perimeter itself. You'll spend less time and money on travel with the perimeter trip, but you'll be changing hotels frequently. . . We actually had a chance to compare the two approaches this summer, as we were in Tuscany at the same time as some friends. they stayed in Florence the whole time, and drove from there on trips to Lucca and Pisa, Siena and San G, and Cinque Terre We spent 2 nights each in Florence, Lucca, and Cinque Terre, and one near Siena. Comparing notes afterward, we agreed that ours was the better approach. They found alllthe back and forth very tiring, got stuck in traffic jams a few times, and never felt they had a chance to get the "feel" of Florence because they were hardly ever there. . . . We actually often do spend 4 or 5 nights in a single place on our trips, but then we stay there and enjoy.

We tend to stay in one place now, but that's mostly because we have kids. It's harder to cart them around every couple of days, and they don't want to do that much "sightseeing" anyway. They're happier with finding a good beach or park. I do like taking this approach to traveling, though. We get to know the people we're staying with, get to know the town or area better, and get recognized by the lady at the bakery when we go to pick up rolls every day. When we stay in one place, we don't travel more than 1 hour for day trips.

We did a house rental in Provence one year so stayed in one place and did day trips of varying length. We loved having the house and not packing up every couple of days, and did spend one day in our village. But there is value in both approaches, probably depends on where you're going. Where are you going?

I think it also depends on your destinations. ("Also" as in, in addition to things like your personal tolerance for shifting your bunk.) - - - Some places just work better when you spend the night.

Do some simple math. Envision a circle with a radius of fifty miles (a one-hour drive, maybe ?). Assume you want to see four points on the circle. The perimeter is 315 miles. If you hit the circle at one of the points and drive three/quarters of the perimeter to hit the other three and then drive to the center that's 235 plus 50 miles or 285 miles total. If you go to the center to establish a base, that's 50 miles, then you have to go 100 miles (total, out and back) to hit the four points of interest; that's 450 miles....plus you're forever back-tracking in the afternon over the same roads you drove in the morning .... unless you make some flower petal type loops, but that only ups the mileage more. Say it takes you fifteen minutes to dump your stuff in four new hotels, that's an hour total - - the extra driving time with a base was something like four and a half hours. The difference is a third to a half day of sight-seeing. Move along unless all the places are really compact (twenty-five miles ?). Using a radius of over fifty miles puts the math out of sight.

We prefer to stay 2 to 3 nights in one place and do day trips from there. We usually see a few places per day, take different routes and return to our temporary home at a later hour than we would if we were looking for a new place to stay each day. We also travel by car and like the security of parking an empty car at most of our stops - less worrying about a breakin. There will always be a few places along route where 1 night is all that can be spared, the key is picking the right ones.

I say mix it up so you don't get tired of either option - either moving too often or not enough. Both can wear me out. Like everyone else says, if you're in an area with lots to see in close proximity - that's a good time to be free from packing up and moving. We still make some mistakes, like reserving for two nights in a place that we end up enjoying for four hours, but that's part of travel.

After 25+ years of travelling all over the globe, I'm a big fan of the "hub and spoke " method (if carefully chosen)It allows you to visit a city, get to know "your" neighbourhood...but at the same time check out other destinations. There's a certain satisfaction in, after a long day trip, comig back to that familiar cafe/pub/bistro just down the corner from your hotel.

Thanks for all the ideas. I appreciate all the input. I was asking in general terms which is best, but you have helped me develop my itinerary for Luxembourg and surrounding countries next May. I especially liked James' analogy of travel to visiting a bar, but I am afraid my wife would be a buzz-kill if I tried that. In early planning, I am looking at mostly one-night stands (Let's get away from the bar analogy, OK,), except for two nights at a place that looks especially appealing between Reims and Verdun. This could change, but I plan to travel by train for one night each in Trier, Aachen and Luxembourg City. From there, I will rent a car for one night each in the Vianden and Bastogne areas, two nights between Reims and Verdun and the final night in the vicinity of Luxembourg. Most locations are about two hours apart, so the driving is not excessive. The only backtracking involves Lux City to Vianden but that is a fairly short distance.

For a road trip involving country scenery and small towns, we usually stay in one place 2 nights, occasionally 3, but never more. While it's hard to explain without drawing little diagrams, roughly start at overnight A. Drive via scenic attractions to overnight B. Next day, do a loop drive, returning to overnight B, A few overnight destinations are situated in locations that allow for a second loop, but not very many of them. Some overnights don't allow for any loops, so they also become one night destinations........If you try the approach where you stay in the center of a circle and go out each day to different destinations, you often have to settle for a "less than ideal" location for your overnights. And it pretty well precludes coastal overnights, especially in areas full of interesting peninsulas, unless you are packing a boat.....We can pack and clear out of a location in twenty minutes, so moving on is not a big time-waster for us.

I tend to move. While I don't like one-nighters because of the difficulty of moving from one hotel to the next, I like to stay in a destination to see that place then go to the next destination. Smaller areas that would merit daytrips are sandwiched into my travel days between stops.