Minimum days in a single place

I agree with "it depends", but I think the location of the previous and next stops is a consideration as well. It tends to take more time to settle into a large city like Rome than a small city (and odds are the travel time between hotel and train station will be longer), so under normal circumstances I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time traveling to and from a big city for a quick first-time visit. I think there's a risk of too much time dealing with logistics rather than having fun if you have a string of short stops in really big cities.

There's also the question of what constitutes "the highlights". And does one want to really see them or just glance at them? Walk past the Colosseum, go inside it, or pay for a specialized tour?

It is all so complicated. I know my own travel style well, but as I've planned trips that called for a lot of prebooked hotels, I've started listing all the go-inside spots on my target list, allowing a generous (and different) amount of time for each one, and setting the total as the absolute minimum number of days I will need (+1 for number of nights) in a city. That number always turns out to be too short a time for several reasons: inadequate allowance for traveling between sights, unexpected sightseeing opportunities learned about on the spot, museums larger or more interesting than expected, etc.

Another factor that could turn the Excel grid into a cube would be “Number of people”. The number of days definitely changes if I’m traveling solo vs. having my husband with me. That would increase even more if it was a family or several couples.

I think when people ask, they’re typically just trying to get a feel for your second or third option before they begin their initial plans.

I find Rick's guidebooks for countries and major cities useful for this-he lists "If you only have one day" , "if you have two days", etc. You can use that to decide on how many days you need to stay to check all your boxes.

But his time allotments aren't necessarily sufficient for the sights listed if the traveler is really interested in them. I think those plans are more for folks who want a fairly quick in-person look at the places they've seen pictured on calendars, not those seriously into art, Roman history, etc. I tend to either skip a place entirely or want to really see it. But I do spend a lot of time wandering the streets of the historic district, which definitely affects my view of how much time to spend somewhere. I don't get a sense of a place if I spend all my time indoors.

I find that the longer I am in a larger place, the more things I discover that make me want to stay even longer. That begins to define the length of time for a return visit!

Well put, CWSocial. Most places we can manage to entertain ourselves for at least a week if there are good connections for day trips or good hiking. Notable exception was Paestum where two nights was two too many.

A huge factor though, for most travelers, is available time. We have literally unlimited time so we stop longer than most.

I’m another “it depends” person. Some towns only require an hour while with larger cities it can be easy to stay a week. It depends on what you want to see and do in a location, length of the trip, and traveling style will all play a part. In my younger years I was more the, check the box to say I was there traveler since vacation time was limited. Looking back I sure missed a lot. Now, unless a location is really small, we try to spend a minimum of two nights; more for larger cities we haven’t been to previously. Once you know your travel style and how long it takes you to see certain type sights, you’ll find you probably really don’t need a grid.

My fifty cents is to measure it by the number of nights. In order to get a full immersion day i need two nights. However if i am arriving to a small town relatively early in the day from the prior town, and can store my bags at the hotel before check-in, then one night can workout fine, especially in the summer months.

Another dependent factor might be, simply, how much time someone has. If you’re going from Point A to Point B, but Point C lies in between, and you’ve got a day, why not stop in Point C, if even for just a day? Rick Steves says that with limited time, a day trip from Spain to Tarifa, Morocco is better than another day in Spain. Is it really, for people with varying priorities? It depends, definitely.

One more factor might be who you're traveling with and/or if a traveler has mobility limitations. Sightseeing with very small children or elderly parents with bad knees can require more time to take in the sights than, say, a 40's couple conditioned to hours on their feet.

Even time of year can be a consideration? Sightseeing some major cities in the low or shoulder seasons, with lighter crowds and lower temps, can be less wearing than during high season. Upon questioning someone I know about their time in Rome - a city they said they'd hated - turns out they gave it just two days, in the middle of summer, with a sightseeing list of the most mobbed attractions. Yep, if I'd done the same my first time, I'd have hated it too!

Anyway, quite a number of factors listed can affect how long or short to stay in one place....which is why we ask new posters lots of questions when they don't give us squat for background to go on?

Many good comments/suggestions here.

I think the location of the previous and next stops is a consideration as well.

Absolutely, that is a consideration for how long we should ultimately decide to stay somewhere, but it doesn't really affect the basic answer to the question of what's the minimum time to get value from our visit somewhere. Once you decide how long you decide on where you're going before and after, you can adjust your time in a given location as appropriate. In addition, a string of short stays, as you say, is sub-optimal. So probably you wouldn't want to visit all the places on your itinerary for "just the highlights."

There's also the question of what constitutes "the highlights". And does one want to really see them or just glance at them? Walk past the Colosseum, go inside it, or pay for a specialized tour?

Another good point, acraven. Maybe I need to divide that into two separate categories: "Quick pass through the place to capture the highlights" and "See and explore the highlights."

Another factor that could turn the Excel grid into a cube would be “Number of people”.

One more factor might be who you're traveling with and/or if a traveler has mobility limitations. Sightseeing with very small children or elderly parents with bad knees can require more time to take in the sights than, say, a 40's couple conditioned to hours on their feet.

Yes, very true. Maybe the best way to account for this is to add 25% (or some percentage) if you are traveling with elderly/children/group of 6 or more. Depending on the limitation, it might be best to double to recommended number of days.

My fifty cents is to measure it by the number of nights.

I always plan my itineraries by number of nights, collinsdtc. I agree this is the best way to plan a trip. But this exercise is about how much time you need to experience a place. Some places can easily be experienced with a day-trip, so that would be zero nights. Once you know how many days you need to get the desired experience in a certain place, you can determine how many nights to spend there. As an example, you could visit Siena as a day trip from Florence. So one day is the minimum for getting the highlights. I would also recommend that visiting Siena is a far better experience if you can spend at least one night so you can be there after the day-trippers have left. On the other hand, visiting Potsdam from Berlin is a perfect day-trip. I wouldn't recommend an overnight. Maybe I need one more column in my grid: "Overnight recommended" with a checkbox.

Thanks again to all for the feedback. I might actually make this grid, and your ideas will be a great help.

I have visited places where half a day works just fine, but other places like large cities (Paris, London, Rome, etc.) can nee several days.

It is a mistake to try to visit large cities or key places for a single day, when several days are needed.

For example, if you wanted to visit Munich, Prague, Vienna and Budapest, you would NOT try to spend a single day in each. Each city would require multiple days to do properly.

It is a mistake to try to visit large cities or key places for a single day, when several days are needed.

On my very first trip to Europe (on a tour), we had an 8-hour layover at CDG. So we got a bus to give us a whirlwind tour. We drove past the Eiffel Tower and the Arch de Triomphe and we stopped for about a half hour at Notre Dame. We spent a lot of time stuck in traffic too.

Was it a mistake? It didn't feel like it to me. I was thrilled every moment.

Write yourself a day-by day itinerary, for your whole trip, listing the major activities you want to do each day. I used to think the way to travel was to go to one city and see almost everything there. I have been learning to carefully choose what I want to see most and what I will acquiesce to skipping. As you write your itinerary, you may have to re-write or revise it multiple times. When you have an itinerary you like, that will work logistically, you will see how many nights and days you need in each place, based on what you want to see and what you are willing to skip. If you are at a sight and you realize that if you finish seeing it, you will miss the next place on your itinerary, you could just see the place you are at completely and acquiesce to skipping the other place. I have given myself too much or too little time in towns and at sights. I won't spend more than 5 nights in any one town or city again.

The question should be nights, not days. It is really a matter of efficiency and how much time will be spent moving locations. I'd say two nights minimum because of travel, transfers and changing accommodations. If you have a car than one night stays are fine. Ultimately, the average stay should be at least three nights to get a feel for a place.