First-time tourist plans

Perhaps, Hyper active individuals?
12 cities in one wk, I am sure they will experience that this just does not work.

I've never been to Serbia, maybe the cities are small and close together. Drive to one, take a selfie, repeat. Three a day for four days. Now if you want to see anything in the cities, that's another story. ;-)

Many of these people are adamant that they have to see all of Rick's "must-see" sights. I'm stepping back from such posters. The level of denial and confusion is high.

Serbia is about the size of NJ. Some cities are close, others are farther away. I didn't bother to mapquest the whole thing out, but again the person was convinced that sticking with an itinerary of "every day is a travel day".

What's going on, Paul ? First-time-to-Europe travelers with Fear of Missing Out. My first trip we wanted to see Scandinavia, Spain and Greece in addition to the countries we actually ended up visiting but not enough time --- and our trip was closer to 67 days than 6/7 days.

I've never been an itinerary for others planner anyway, and I'm generally sceptical, so I don't even bother reading most of those.

I guess I'm a bad person--I wonder why people even bother with some of these.

@LizinPA: You are a sensible person. These people are in Cloud-cookoo-land, and can't be reached with rational discussion. I'm going to not respond, either.

@Laura B: Our last trip was 30 days, and we visited 8 locations. They were in 5 countries, but mostly centered around Budapest. We were never rushed, plus we've been to most of the places or near them before.

Paul, I've been around a lot longer, and its always been that way. But I dont blame that on RS. I had the same vision of seeing everything in one trip, when I was young and first thinking about a European adventure, before I ever heard of Rick. I think its partly because for many Americans, its a major cost to go over there (maybe a once-in-a-lifetime trip) and you want to make it worthwhile. But also because a lot of people just do not have a sense of geography and common sense on what is practical. I do think that RS could do with revising and beefing up discussion on how-to-plan in the guidebooks, and here, so that fewer people develop unreasonable expectations.

At least a lot of people straight-up ask if they're being overly ambitious. And some seem to take advice in stride. Inexperience is just that. They will get the swing of things with more "travel practice".

Hey Paul, at least they're asking BEFORE they start paying for flights, etc. The ones that get me are those who have paid first, and then come here with an itinerary that makes no sense whatsoever, and judging by some of the questions they ask , haven't bothered looking at any guidebooks or doing any research at all. And obviously haven't even looked at a map. I wonder how some of these people manage to get themselves to and from work every day.

I suspect that a lot of people start out looking at possible travel routes, stumble across a few of those 'if it's Tuesday, then this must be Belgium' group tour itineraries and think that's a feasible kind of routing without getting into how a 'stop' on the tour bus is often of the five minute photo variety, or even just a drive by, or that it can take a lot longer to get to and from an interesting place on your own than if you've got a tour bus to drop you off in front of the museum and then pick you up afterwards.

I've used group tour itineraries to get route ideas from time to time, but always assume it's going to take twice as long or I'll get to do half as much in the same number of days.

US travelers in the past were famous for "been-there, done-that. took-a-picture" which seems in the meantime more valid for a cross-nationality way of thinking and traveling approach.

The question that is never raised by snap-tourist, EasyJetters, minute-itinerists ... for what reason they are doing this and their journey? The easy-peasy answer is "I only have 2 weeks vacation a year" - and they really accept this as their truth, as given - not as their active decision made. If you would get 2-3 levels deeper just a handful of psychological basic fears and concerns around their way and understanding of living.

A text block I always have available for feedbacks on over-ambitious and too-rushed-through itineraries:

Less is more. Take yourself time for a place. Taking snaps take
seconds and create no memories, taking a good photo minimum takes
minutes and creates a little memory, experiencing moments of a place
by enjoying the beauty of a place or putting it in mind into a
historical context create memories which really last a lifetime. If
you invest money into a travel, you need to invest time - otherwise
the money was wasted.

@travel man: I am very pleasant to these people. You can check me out. I really try to be nice, giving reasons for slowing down, etc.

A lot is not penetrating, however. But when you have a fixed idea, little can change it.

Here is my current explanation of "why travel days suck":

Here's how to think about a trip. For each day on a trip, you have a morning, afternoon, and evening period. In those, you can do one activity. That means that for your 10 day trip, you have 30 slots. In your itinerary, you have 6 cities. That means that you have 6 slots for travel, and 24 slots for fun stuff. Usually people find that the travel slots are less fun, as you have to pack your suitcase, carry your suitcase, find a new hotel, possibly get ripped off by the taxi, miss your connection, etc. The non-travel slots are more fun, as they involve seeing a museum or park and getting a coffee.

Markk: You and I are both helping a hapless "am I too ambitious person?" At least this person made the sensible choice to eliminate stops.

@Paul: the question is where this "hapless" unhappiness come from.

99% extrinsic: most travelers just explore at research that there are so many more things to see at their destination that their time is not sufficient. Therefore they ask for prioritisation help. Also this person was only looking for prioritisation.

1% intrinsic: for what reason ever a person recognised that traveling is not A to B and geocaching-like picture snapping. These people never ask for prioitisation. They ask for depth - more details, other places to get an impression on something.

Changing perspectives often needs an impacting event but there is no heart attack like event for overplanning itineraries.

--

When I look to Berlin as destination there is no right or wrong of experiencing Berlin. Also for a cruise passenger with a stop in Warnemünde port it can be worth to take 6 hours on trains in total to explore Berlin for 5-6 hours only. Valid approach as well for a first very high-level impression.

I've done that with a car. In Burgundy and Alsace, I'm sure I went to a dozen towns in 3-4 days in eachregion , the same for pueblos blancos in Andalucia, and most recently in Portugal, where I'm pretty sure I saw an average of 3 per day over 6-7 days.

I am not interested in the RS list of "must see" sights, what he says are "must sees" is irrelevant in my travel plans.

The plan to do x number of cities in so many days will fall apart once you get down to the nitty-gritty of traveling, ie, dealing with distance, luggage, riding the trains, getting out to the airports, reaching the hotel from the airports, tracking down the sights, energy and inertia, the glitches of traveling. and a host of other variables.

@chani: Yes, for you, an experienced traveler, that's one thing. But for a new person, who's never been abroad, very different IMHO.

Sometimes I think tourists lift their itineraries from those of organized - and often rushed - tours, not understanding that it's going to take them longer and involve more work to achieve those itineraries on their own. Not to say they are overly rushed - although they would be for us - but we occasionally see posters who use the RS guided tour descriptions as a base for their plans and have to remind them that having a dedicated driver, a guide to lead them directly to the attractions/dinner/hotel, luggage stored on the bus, etc. are time savers that they're not going to have.

Also, regarding Americans, Canadians, Indians, Chinese, and others from very large countries, the size of many European countries as compared to their own might lead them to think distances can be covered more quickly than they actually can?

https://mapfight.appspot.com/it-vs-usc/italy-united-states-contiguous-size-comparison

Chani, we have done the kind of driving trips you described. Keep in mind that many of those are villages with a few sights that can be seen and experienced in a couple of hours. We have spent a couple of hours wandering through small towns and villages many times but they cannot be compared to trying to fit in two or three large towns or major cities in one day. One neighborhood in a city might have as many sights as a village.

There are those who look at a map and mileage and think the driving will be like a freeway. Or that a train trip between cities is the total amount of time it takes to get from one hotel to another. Unless you've done it more than once, it's hard to accept the fact that moving between locations takes time, often time that people don't have,so it's more fun to think they can do it all.

Those posts are annoying and I rarely respond because I'm not sure they're real, but they are often entertaining.

I agree with Stan - this is nothing new. It long predates this forum, or even Rick himself. While the acronym FOMO (fear of missing out) may be new, the concept is not. And as Rick is always saying, "Americans get the second-shortest vacations in the rich world," so there's great pressure to see as much as possible in as short a time as possible.

I also agree that it's chicken and egg. Due to the above factors, escorted package tours try to cram in as much as possible (even Rick's, although to a lesser extent). People read about these tours, and in turn think they not only can duplicate that on their own, but that they should. So, demand and desire are driving busy itineraries, and busy itineraries are driving demand/desire for them.

When I come upon one of these threads, I look at a few things before responding. Do they truly seem to be asking for help, or are they just asking for validation? (There is a difference between lack of knowledge, and lack of willingness to acquire knowledge). And how have they responded to good suggestions - with hostility, or with receptiveness? If they seem genuinely open to making changes, I may contribute (if I'm not duplicating other responses too much). If they aren't, I just ignore the thread - better for my blood pressure!

Finally, I agree that lots of these issues are "first time traveler" issues, which is why I try not to be judgmental (not always successfully). However, we do get some threads from people who have explicitly stated that they have done very busy itineraries in the past and loved them, and are looking to duplicate this on their next trip. I avoid these threads, because I can be of little help for someone who says they saw all they needed to see in Paris or London in two days.

I think a lot of new travelers see Rick's TV shows and think it works just like that. "We're here in Dubrovnik walking the walls..." - scene fades, scene opens - "Plitvice National Park is a delight..."

Until Star Trek's transporter starts working, valuable time is consumed each move from place to place. It's easy to edit it out for the TV show but it's still there. Any itinerary with lots of destinations will include lots of travel time. Ironically, when you try to see too much, the entire trip becomes travel time with no time left to see anything.

And there are people who do like travel days and road trip approaches to things too. We just got back from a week spent in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon and a typical day would have 2-3 hours of driving to and fro Mount St. Helens, the Pacific Oceans, etc. and since we had a nice comfy rental vehicle with satellite radio and we like driving in the mountains and such, the car time was all part of the fun.

I've done a Tuesday Belgium tour and am glad I did because I went to some cities I would never have gone to otherwise, but it was only one city per day.

I avoid responding to the "plan my itinerary because I'm too lazy to do any research myself" posts. Those people should just take a tour.

I have a relative who is taking a two-week trip to Spain and Italy next month with her SO. They are going to Madrid, Seville, Barcelona, Milan, Venice, Florence, and Rome. I tried in vain to get her to drop either Spain or Italy. She's very defensive about her plans, so we don't talk about this trip anymore.

At least they're flying open jaw.

Paul,

For the record, I really like your posts like this one:

Here's a different way to think: Every day in Europe, you can do 1-3
things. You can pick things to do. One of those is "travel to another
city". It takes the place of something else. You have 10 days or so,
which gives you time for 25-30 things (and that's a high count). You
plan on traveling on almost every day. So, you will have 10 travel
activities, and 15 non-travel activities. If you go to fewer places,
you trade travel activities for actual sight-seeing. Time is fixed.

I think that concept makes a lot of sense (though not always to the people on whose threads you write!).

I'm not necessarily endorsing the 12-cities-in-6 days itinerary - it depends on the distance, which cities, and what the traveler's goals are....

...but, the journey can be an exceptional part of any trip. I often would much rather drive or ride through scenic countryside for 3 hours than spend that same time and money at a meal table, waiting in a line, or touring another church or museum.

This forum often exaggerates the burden and time needed to check in and check out of your lodging. If you pack and travel efficiently, it's not really a big deal. Though, it does often make sense to have more 2+ night stays than single-night stays.

The deep dive into a city or culture can be wonderful and everyone should experience that at some point. But to see new sights and experience new things in a short window can make for an amazing trip....and not just in Europe...

My feeling is that they are comparing a trip to Europe like they would a USA road trip. Motels with large parking lots, wide open highways, setting cruise control and cranking up the tunes and zipping from city to city.

I occasionally try to help people with very aggressive itineraries. I admit I did too many cities in my last UK trip. London to Newcastle, Newcastle to Liverpool, and Liverpool to Manchester in 12 days on the ground and that’s 12 days on the ground, 14 days total. And that’s no nearly as insane as so many of the itineraries I see

". . . snap-tourist, EasyJetters, minute-itinerists . . . "

Three creative and descriptive terms to use, all in one post. Thanks MarkK!