Resisting the temptation of yet-another side-trip

Personally, I need a strong "argument" for why should I forego additional time enjoying a city I'm already at just to take a glance somewhere else. In many cases, I use the "set a a base camp" strategy, and then I visit places on the surroundings. If I can't visit a place as a side-trip properly, I'd rather not go than just "take a quick look". I'm getting more and more weary of "wind-whirl style" trips, and I no longer come back home feeling "guilty" for not having hurried even more and visited a place that was so close (from hotel I stayed at) and now is far (from home).

What is your personal take on this issue of side-trips? "It depends."

It depends on how much time you have available at your "home base". If you are spending a week in "X" then you have plenty of time for 1-3 side-trips. If you only have 48 hours in "X" then you need to just stay there, no matter how tempting that other place nearby is. While perhaps not what you mean by "side-trips", we have made many very pleasant short stops to places en route to somewhere else. For example; last summer we were making the long-ish drive from Sienna to the Amalfi Coast and wanted to stop in Orvieto along the way. While a person could certainly enjoy a couple of full days there, we spent just three hours and were happy we made that stop. Tiny Civita nearby was an additional 30-minute drive away, but took less than an hour to see and seeing it was priceless. All that made for a long day, but I don't regret it a bit. Our 2010 trip from Amsterdam east to Krakow (and many places in between) came about as a result of the "there's always another great city just a couple hours away" phenomenon. We slept in 12 different location over 35 nights. I don't regret any of that thrip either. If we had been more disciplined in saying "no" to adding stops we would have missed a lot. That said, we made sure to have at least three days in each major location.

To do side trip the destination should not be farther than 1 hour (one way). And it should be something I am very interested to see. Examples: Vienna ...Melk, Berlin ...Potsdam, Prague ...Kutna Hora, Krakow ... Auschwitz or salt mines in Wieliczka, etc. A lot of people go from Prague to Cesky Krumlov. But that's three hours one way and that I would do overnight. I am amazed how so many people are willing to spend so many hours on train or bus to do day trip. They actually spend quite more time in transfer there and back than in intended destination.

I keep repeating to myself "You'll come back. You'll come back."

Randy, I was thinking more of trips that are already very hurried. Like someone travelling 4 nights in London, 4 nights in Paris, 3 nights in Berlin and 4 nights in Roma and then trying to scramble side trips to Bath, Stonehenge, Mt. Saint-Michel, "a winery in Eastern France", Dresden, Capri and L'Aquila. Splitting a long drive by adding a pleasant short visit in the route is indeed a good strategy.

The facts dictate side trips. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes not.

I understand the point of the original post. The question is a good one, and my answer is that it depends. We may never get back to a particular city and country, and there are certain side trips that are worth the travel time and that can be the high point of a trip. For example, on a trip to Paris several years ago, I made a one-day trip to the D-Day beaches in Normandy. This was my second time in Paris (though the first visit was decades ago), but the high point of my visit to Paris was the Normandy excursion, even though travelling there and back took a half day. It comes down to making choices. What is there left to see in the base city? How badly do I want to see the side trip destination? How much travel time is involved?

I agree with Randy - if I have 5 days or a week in a bigger city, I consider that enough time to take a daytrip to a nearby town or the countryside. I learned by experience not to cut my time too short on places - in 2007 a friend and I were in Paris for 2 days, not including a daytrip to Chartres; then Amsterdam for 2 days, not including a daytrip to The Hague; one day in Berlin to go to one museum...never again. We saw a lot in Amsterdam because it's so walkable, but almost nothing in Paris. Now my philosophy is 5-7 days in bigger cities, which is a reasonable amount of time (in my opinion) for daytrips. In Sept. I was in Paris for 8 full days, one of which was a daytrip to Versailles; and then I went to London for another 8 full days, one of which was a daytrip to Canterbury. I felt like I really got to know my neighborhoods and the rhythm of the cities. That's the way I want to travel from now on.

The OP has posed a great question and the one I struggle with the most. Just this past summer, I took my 3 older children to two very different cities, Vienna and Rome. We spent one week in Vienna, then a night train to Rome where we spent the second week.
We could have done many side trips over that two week period but we chose to see more of each city, experienced the culture and got to know the neighborhoods where our hotels were located. It was a very nice way to travel. Only two hotels and no constant checking into and out of hotels and packing and unpacking. Our plan was to do only two side trips, Vienna to Salzburg, and Rome to Florence. We ended up seeing Salzburg,but not Florence as we had our hands full with Rome. So, now we have Florence to look forward to for next time!

I have no formula. If a place sounds interesting, I check it out. Sometimes, the only way to know whether or not a side trip is worth it is, quite simply, just to do it. Potsdam was worth a day away from Berlin for me. Trondheim was a good excursion away from Åre. Porvoo was probably not worth the bus trip from Helsinki, but at least I got a chance to make that assessment first hand.

I gave up worrying about it. My philosophy is: if you're having a good time and enjoying where you are, accept it. Don't have regrets about what you cudda wudda shudda done or seen. I spent a few days in Berlin last year, then went to Dresden for a couple of days before flying home from Berlin. I could happily have spent those extra days in Berlin, but I had a great time in Dresden. I probably won't be back to either. . . too many more places to visit. I also think that people often underestimate how far away places are in Europe or how long it takes to get there. What looks close on a map can be hundreds of kilometers away. Without a car, overnight stays mean changing hotels, packing and carrying luggage, city transportation to and from train stations, and occasionally train changes. I like the idea of day trips better. Belgium and the Netherlands are great for day-tripping. Nothing seems very far and the trains are good. Parts of Italy are good too, as is Frankfurt. And you don't need to plan ahead. If the weather's favorable and you feel like it, you can go. Or you can stay and enjoy more of the local sights. Every time I go to London, either Oxford or Cambridge is on my list for a day trip. At least 4 visits, and still I haven't been to either. There were always too many other things to see and do.

Hello Andre L. I think this is a good question for people who traveled in Europe many times. My decisions of where to go, and my priorities in travel in Europe have changed with my experience. In the past, I wanted to go to a place because I had not been there. There are many places in Europe that I have not been to. Now, I am more likely to stay longer at one place, to fully appreciate that place. And I might go to a country that I was at before and I liked the people there, rather than go to a great city that I have not been at.