The "right" way to travel......

I appreciate this post. For me personally, I like to pack in as much as possible and plan every minute of the day. But that is just my personality, and I enjoy the planning as much as the actual travelling. Going without a plan or things booked just makes me anxious. This also allows me to see more places with limited holiday time. It's definitely not for everyone and I totally agree there is no wrong or right way, just what is best for you. Also- I really like seeing the big sites. I'm not looking for off the beaten path things. But again, it's about doing what you enjoy.

Well stated Carol now retired!

Excellent post! So often a new poster shows up and the DEs (destination experts) and OHs (old hands) and PSFs (Pittsburgh Steeler Fans) steamroll the new poster with a "slow down". And if you happen into the fray as a CBF (Cleveland Browns Fan) and say "Heck, Ricks Steves tours follow that speed and Rick Steves suggested itineraries are this speed', well, you often get folks saying "Rick Steves?! That guy is all wet!"

With all that said the DEs and OHs generally give pretty good advice (with exception of the advice of being unnecessarily fussy about dress for operas!!!) What do I know? Not much.

Anyway, this forum is tops!

Happy travels!

Well stated - thanks for this post. In particular, the slow travel mavens are often taking for granted that they have the time and funds to prioritize, for example, sitting in a cafe for hours and people watching. If you haven't traveled much and have limited time and/or money, that seems like a ridiculous waste when you can do it at home for free. You've given us a timely reminder that everyone's situation is different.

I like this thread a lot, thanks CNR.

Just like the joke that goes whenever three whoevers get together they produce four opinions, there are even more ways to travel than there are people.

I contain multitudes of travel preferences myself -- I aspire to blitz through-travel where I get off the train, do the town highlights, and get back on the train. Repeat as desired. But I also aspire to having the time and money to settle in to a small spot and let it grow on me for days on end.

While we are at it, there is another small sin that many of us in the Forum are guilty of --
trying to share someone else's spotlight. ::

Someone will post about a new discovery or a great experience, and others will comment 'oh, we've been going there for years!' or 'that's one of our favorites, too' or 'Xyz is good but Abc is even better!'

Agreeing with a post is fine, sure, but it's also a fine line between concurring in support of someone's report and using someone's report as an occasion to boast about your own travels.

Again, this is a small sin and I'm as guilty as anyone, but it can get in the way of a fun time reading the forum.

”However, we shouldn't be projecting our preferred travel styles onto others.”

Let’s be honest; all of us are bringing some of our own bias to travel, even if we travel in a variety of ways. Ask me about taking a RS tour, and I will tell you the advantages I have experienced. Ask me about traveling independently, and I will be bringing those advantages I have experienced to my response. I can confidently say that every person who attends our local RS travel group in Coeur d’Alene is bringing their own bias to the table discussion….and it is greatly appreciated! I want others to tell me how & why they’re traveling as they do. Pam is almost talking me into a Mark Seymour tour - just from her conversation about those experiences she likes so much.

If someone asks a question about Italy, for instance, and I see something in their itinerary that I would change, I will mention it and the reason why. The person is completely free to take or reject any advice, but I have so appreciated the variety of opinions I receive when I asked a question on the forum. I don’t want people to be afraid to give their opinion.

My wife sometimes thinks I am an AI. Then she revises it and shortens it to just an A. Ouch!

As a long time traveler for work, I have an easy time packing light and never checking a bag. Heck, I've been on multi-month trips with a carryon.

My wife regularly packs heavier and almost always check bags. Who is right? She's right! What works for her is fine by me! We both love Rick Steves tours and we also love traveling independently-- sometimes fast, sometimes slow.

CNR's message of being circumspect is well taken by me. Watch for bias, be polite, thoughtful and never, never root for the Steelers. (I may have added the last bit and I will admit it wasn't CNR's idea.)

Happy travels.

As OP on the “slow travel” post, I wasn’t meaning to suggest that slow travel was necessarily the “right way.” I don’t even really know what “slow travel” means exactly. I was looking for ideas about how people travel - and why - for planning future trips, both domestic and foreign.

I like to travel for a number of reasons.

• Pure pleasure
• Seeing nice places
• Eating well
• Meeting folks with different experiences
• Understanding how differently we can live … and grow
• Enjoying new experiences with my wife
• Seeing art
• Hearing music
• Opening up to chance … serendipity
• Learning more history
• Relaxing
• Being active - hiking and biking and walking and enjoying parks and the outdoors

On our most recent trip we spent 13 of 30 days cycling on three different segments of our journey. While those cycle trips included two-night stands at one, or another, or both ends of each segment, we also had 8 one-night stands. I don’t know if that is slow travel, or not. 12 to 15 mph and moving just about 20 to 40 miles from one day to another sounds slow, but all those one night stands sounds fast.

We stayed in 19 hotels in 30 nights. Yet we confined ourselves to the bounds of about 1/8 of Germany and about 1/6 of France … plus Paris for all of about 69 hours (excluding the train ride to and sitting in CDG).

Slow? Rushed? Right - or not?

I planned too much and didn’t mind missing some of what was on the list, but that we just didn’t have the time or energy or inclination to do. Yet it was great to have had plans, as well as reservations for two wine tastings, two museums, and three of six train trips. Still, we remained flexible and took in other opportunities - including two different 45-minute musical events in two different cities (Colmar and Dijon) on the Journées du Patrimoine weekend. Being open to new possibilities and new encounters is always the right way.

And, Carol, you are absolutely right that there are many right ways to travel.

There is no right way to travel and I've never felt any pressure from thoughtful discussions to amend our travel choices. Each to their own, whether you are new to the game or a seasoned traveller. Travelling for a week or a month, you can not see everything so enjoy what you do see and don't stress about what you missed. Carry on - not for me. We're pared down to basics for 6 weeks, but still too much for carry on. It is what it is. I'm not convinced about group travel yet. This has nothing to do with travel skills or age issues - it's all to do about being with the same group of people for several days. Day tours and city walking tours are great and a good way to get to know the city that you're in. I love this website and the discussions that occur.

I'm going out on a limb and assume that most people who come here to ask a question are sentient adults of at least moderate intelligence and with some ability at critical thinking. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.

Unless their question simply requires a factual answer ( the Louvre is closed on Mondays, the official website for ABC is www . xyz), then just about any advice given will be opinion coloured by personal experiences and preferences on that particular subject. I've rarely seen advice given as an imperative or the only right way is such and such, unless that was a matter of fact, and not opinion.

And it is very much up to the OP to decide which information or advice to accept and which to ignore. And when it comes to advice, I've rarely seen a thread where differing opinions wasn't the norm. That is where the OPs critical thinking comes into play. Or perhaps we should all just copy and paste an AI generated response?

No amount of peer pressure, forum pressure, spouse pressure or suggestions by Rick Steves' when we travel on his tours, will ever get me to bend on point 1. Carry on only. It doesn't work for me. And I assure you that not only does nobody on the tour care, there are always 1-3 men on our tour (referred to as kind gentlemen types) who always kind of help the tour bus driver pull and organize the bags onto the street/sidewalk upon our arrivals. Nobody ever says a word. They just point me in the direction of my bag with a smile!
Everyone do you! Just remember you are responsible for it whether traveling independently or with a RS group!

As often happens, I think I am clearly communicating an idea, but subsequent posts tell me I have not clearly communicated what I meant to.

First, I had no issue with the original post or slow travel posts themselves. I had hoped calling it a thoughtful thread would communicate that. I clearly fell short on my purpose there.

I expect people to give their opinions on posts asking for help. I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from that. I’m not sure if I can adequately describe the small nuances that sometimes make me ,and perhaps others, feel criticized for a particular travel choice. I’m sure this sentence alone will get me some responses to “toughen up.”

However you travel, I wish you many happy trips.

Carol, thank you for the clarification. In the slow travel thread, note the first thing I stated was, "hike your own hike". And I read each response to be how it works for each poster personally, not that it's the only way to travel. How we travel is unique to each one of us.

This is key for me, because there is not a correct or right way to travel, and it grates on me and displays hubris when responses to questions prominently state "you must", "you need", or "you don't need". I know I am weird and the way I want to travel is not going to be the way anyone else wants to travel. This is why I tend to skip over itinerary threads. We all are opinionated, so I try - I do try - to err to the technical answer rather than opinions. Anyway...

@Fred, I really love your post. Thank you. Lots to think about in there. I especially love your recent trip example and the biking / several one-night stays and thus being perhaps both "fast" and "slow" travel.

As often happens, I think I am clearly communicating an idea, but
subsequent posts tell me I have not clearly communicated what I meant
to.

No, you communicated adequately. Better than adequately actually. Most every thread these days, maybe it’s always been the case, falls victim to an intentional lack of understanding for a number of reasons, or an accidental lack of understanding due to moving too fast through the words being read. Either way, sometimes false assumptions rise up where assumptions shouldn’t be made at all. But it’s human nature. Such is life. You just gotta suck it up. Well, I haven’t learned how to do it yet, but I am working on it.

I do believe, either through less-than-ideal writing skills or through actual belief, that there are several individuals on here that appear to be somewhat ideological about travel. Ideological = opinionated with a sense of superiority of thought and process. Don’t dare question their turf or you will be ripped to shreds. Oh, and a few are just mean to be mean. I fell into one of those traps last week.

But I never saw you ideological or mean or intentionally or accidentally misinterpreting what others had said. So, feel good that you work with good intent and if others don’t get it, its their inability to process not your weakness.

Carol nr, I get what you mean and sometimes I see that. For example, I have a spinner bag, and there have been posts that vehemently protest the use of spinners. I've seen remarks like, "You'll mess up your bag when you're going over cobblestones," or "They don't work well in Europe," or the ultimate "You'll knock someone down with your bag," and so on. I'm experienced enough that I can ignore statements like that, but I'm sure there are people who take it completely to heart.

I do think there is a slight bias for promoting slow travel and carry-on. But I'm not sure that can be avoided. This is, by and large, a group of travelers who tend to travel slowly and carefully, and aren't the type of travelers who rush into a city and hit every spot immediately. I admit I have on occasion suggested to people that maybe their schedule was a little tight and fast. But I also tend to tell them that if that's really what they want, then that's fine. It's their trip, and they have the right to take it how they want. I certainly did. I still remember my first trip to Europe. I spent the first week in London and was out every day from dawn till dusk, hitting every single site I could. The second week I rented a car and stayed in a different place every night. I don't think I would have the energy to do that now, but even if I did, I wouldn't. Because I've discovered that as much fun as I had then, it's hard to keep up that pace, especially when you take longer trips. However, there are a lot of people out there with more energy than me, and if they can keep up the momentum, more power to them!

For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen a post that suggested bias towards group travel. In fact, I would say almost the opposite. I sometimes feel a little out of it because I have never taken a group tour. From everything I've read, they sound like they're a lot of fun. I don't know that I would have the temperament for it, but that's me. And I would certainly never suggest that group travel is only for those with weak travel skills or age-induced issues, especially since there are so many long-time, experienced travelers here on this forum who take multiple group tours a year.

But I do think it's a good topic for discussion, and I don't see any harm in thinking about it before you post next time. It's always good to review our responses before posting, so that we don't push our preferences onto someone but just give an objective opinion. 😊

For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen a post that suggested bias towards group travel. In fact, I would say almost the opposite. I sometimes feel a little out of it because I have never taken a group tour. From everything I've read, they sound like they're a lot of fun. I don't know that I would have the temperament for it, but that's me. And I would certainly never suggest that group travel is only for those with weak travel skills or age-induced issues, especially since there are so many long-time, experienced travelers here on this forum who take multiple group tours a year.

LOL, I hear ya. Never mind skill or age, what about introversion vs extroversion, or friend groups vs solo in a tour group setting?

I don't know that I would have the temperament for it, but that's me.

Exactly. I know I don't have the temperament for extended group travel, on the otherhand do enjoy small group day tours and food tours.

Carol now retired, here is the problem for me. Whenever we put a label on something, that label becomes the defining factor when enjoyment should be. It's also a divisive practice. We have experienced slow travelers vs. the inexperienced tourist. (the experienced and inexperienced is usually implied, but the experienced people "understand")

I've just read through the slow travel thread and think it's a wonderful compilation of experiences people have had, from Mark's slow down on the ferry and Mr. E's fishing to acraven's budgeting outcomes. I don't think there are any implied assumptions in this thread but a pleasure in sharing some moments of enjoyment. Even if I don't follow everything suggested, there are good definitions and consciousness. One person mentioned that slow travel is a privilege that not everyone can afford financially or timewise. It just happened to be answered by people who have had had the opportunity for slow travel, so that may have given you an impression of implied assumptions.

BTW, at this point in our lives a most of our foreign travel is with groups, and we've always checked a bag, even the carry- ons.

I don't agree with any of the three, however, #3 has some truth to it.

We have been traveling overseas for decades and have lived overseas for several years.

My first travels involved faster trips than we do now. Wanted to cover more ground. I learned that you can't do Paris in 2-3 days.
Still, for young travelers that want to cover lots of ground and my come back years later, it is not wrong.

1. We have never done the carryon only when doing overseas trips. We always do at least 2-3 weeks for overseas trips and can take enough clothes in a checked suitcase each that we don't have to do laundry on the trip. We have done trips that took 7-8 weeks and had to do laundry, sometimes twice. Had we done the carryon only, we would be doing laundry about every 6-7 days.
2. When younger and had less money we did trips independently, on our own. Once retired and spending our kids inheritance, we had plenty for cruises, river cruises, bus group tours, etc. Now that we are in our late 70s, group tours are perfect for us, since we don't have to make any arrangements for lodging, transportation, admissions, reservations, etc. Also, if going to third world countries, I feel that it is important for security to go with a group tour.
   

Another great post, Carol. However, I do think inexperienced solo travelers often need to be warned about how much time it takes to change locations and the unfeasibility of trying to travel to as many places in as short a period of time as group tours are able to do.

Carol,
You certainly did not fall short and your original post and reply here are both thoughtful. TY.

Thank you, Carol. Excellent post.

It is difficult to have a conversation with strangers on a forum like this. I dont see any replies to posts requesting input to be imperatives, or the one "right" answer. But it's often easy to infer that some people are starting with assumptions that may or not be practical, or at least need to hear a different perspective. For example, carry-on only, or using trains, and their advantages might be an idea that never occurred to an inexperienced traveler. To offer a suggestion for consideration is what a friend would do. Same with things like multi-city ticketing of which a fair number of new posters are unaware. How you say it is of course often a problem.

Sometimes you can infer that a person has not taken into account travel time between destinations and sights, jet lag, or money issues. But if someone asks how to make a day trip from London to Paris, it's human nature to want to explain why that might not be a good idea, rather than just answering the logistics question.

CJean, I agree with your post wholeheartedly!

I've been on this forum a long time, and never interpret posts as telling people the "right" way to do things. Obviously we all come from our own perspective and some of us are well-travelled all over the world using planes, trains, buses, ferries, trams, tuk tuks, etc. That is a great wealth of experience in what has worked for us or not, and it's great that so many people are willing to share this knowledge. I know that I've been glad that I had a carry-on when getting on and off various trains in Europe, so when someone says they have two large bags I recommend that they either travel lighter or find a different means of transportation.

There are a lot of phenomena that pendulum swing back and forth between boobs and cognoscenti, like lines in Shakespeare that appeal to the groundlings and the philosophers while the middlebrow ticketholders are just bored.

The mention in this discussion of how it's ok, prosocial even, to let new solo travelers in on the secret that transfers often don't go smoothly and need to have some allowance in your schedule planning, is one of those pendulous phenomena -- so many of us have learned by experience that the first meal of your trip or final belvedere before you head for the airport don't happen as hoped.

But that's why Rick's guidebooks are so valuable (one reason among many): he has made the mistakes already and saves you the trouble of learning by experience, assuming things are still up to date when you do the trip.
Haven't you often learned in retrospect that something Rick asterisks in his guide saved you some time or money when you heeded it? Or the opposite--you tried the main route instead of the alternate and it got you stuck in a molasses morass.

But then the pendulum swings again and you might end up following the letter without following the spirit -- I remember sitting a few tables away from a couple in a bistro near the Rodin Museum (the one in Paris) who had the RS guide on the table, well-flagged with color tape, who ordered in English from the English menu exactly what the guide suggested while the server nodded and shrugged at their timidity -- of course, onion soup and oysters with fries and dough robineigh . Were they really stretching? Being temporary locals? If they had looked over the carte en Francais they might have found something more exciting but they might also get something that looked gross, too.

Back to the transfers -- who would contest that some experience and some prep will make transfers easier, less haphazard, and allow you to get more done with less effort? It's not forcing your opinion or preferences on someone who sees things differently to mention that if you get on the bus with the X in the route name you will get to your stop sooner than the one with the L in its route name. Or that you want the old town station and not the new town station? That's good advice. Bad advice would be 'don't stop in that town b/c there's nothing worth seeing there'.

To me, the right way to travel is what works best for you. I have learned what works for me. Until we travel together or discuss our experience in-depth I will never know what works for you. I will share my lesson learned and try to do so in a manner that is constructive rather than pejorative.

There are a few recurring travel forum questions that often raise my eyebrow. Some samples, making the example with Florence as it is where I live, but it could be a lot of places.

“What is the best train between Florence and Rome?” Well, obviously what is good for one may be not good for other people. But it is also how the question is worded. Would the second best be good enough?

“What are the sights in Florence?” You are going to spend money – a lot of – and commit yourself to the vagaries of modern air travel, just to go in a place you do not know anything about to start, and you do not even care to study on your own? How the idea of going to Florence came into your mind?

Alternative wording: “What are the sights in Florence? We are not much into museums”. Well, a combination of filthy rich bankers and artists brought art and literature to Florence for three centuries, then the richness went away so the place was more or less conserved in the following centuries with scant renovations. This is why there are so many museums in Florence. If you are not into museums (judgment not intended), there are a lot of places in the world where your money may be better spent than Florence. You can stand heat, crowds, high prices, erratic service just because Botticelli’s Spring is only there to be seen. But if you do not care about Botticelli, maybe some other place could be better suited to your taste. Insider tip: also the food is generally better elsewhere, crowds and good food rarely get together.

@Lachera, excellent tip! ”..crowds and good food rarely get together.”

There are a lot of phenomena that pendulum swing back and forth between boobs and cognoscenti, like lines in Shakespeare that appeal to the groundlings and the philosophers while the middlebrow ticketholders are just bored.

One of the great successes and turning points in my life occurred because a “boob” did something that no “cognoscenti” would have ever done. It was genius. Serendipitously, it brought me an incredible opportunity and it brought relief to a great number of people.

People brag about the interpretation of travel but in the final end slow or fast or whatever is still the same. VACATION When we started going back in 1996 vacation were 2 weeks or less and were that way for many years. Today we can go back for 2 or 3 months but it is still vacation. I see no reason to call it anything else. We are 78 years old, rent cars, and never have been on a tour. The big reason for that is the cost. We are not flush with money and find independent travel cheaper. We are experienced travelers but are reminded very quickly when we land in Europe how truly inexperienced, we become. Our days of roaming Europe have been shortened and staying in our favorite cities are more common. But we both agree staying in Europe if it's just one city for 3 months is what we want to do.

Great, great post.

As an example, my only time in Venice. We arrived one morning at 10:00am. By 11:00am we were out and about until 7:00pm. Up the next day and out by 9:00am until about 8:00pm. Left early the next morning. In those 19 hours we saw all we wanted to see in Venice, satisfied, with no regrets and not at a backbreaking pace.

Now, I know as this is read at least one person or more is saying, that is crazy, I needed at least 4-5 days in Venice.

The "right way to travel" is "your way".

@fred, the Seattle version: a lot of us have similar experiences!

"The ideal of carry-on only. If you check a bag you are somehow not getting it right."

Yes, this is my intuition. I try to pack only 2-3 changes of clothes, in addition to any cold weather clothes and a minimal amount of stuff that isn't clothes. In the last ten years I have traveled to different parts of Europe 6 times, Mexico and Peru once each, and some shorter trips to cities in the United States. At first I was able to travel with only carry-on luggage but then I was carrying food that I didn't want to get crushed in my carry-on bag and they wouldn't let me take 3 bags on the plane and when I went to Peru I packed a heavy coat and my travel-bag with my clothes was too big.

"Independent travel is better than group travel somehow. Only people with weak travel skills or age induced issues would travel on a tour or cruise."

Yes, that is my intuition. I have not traveled with a whole-trip guided-tour. My top reason for travelling unguided is that I don't want to worry about how much or little I should talk to my tour mates. Also I would rather pick which sites I see and then randomly spend whatever time I spend at the sites instead of having the tour operator pick when I arrive and leave at places. Although I try to come up with a detailed itinerary, and some advanced reservations are set in advance, my itinerary is really just a list of places I hope to see. It isn't as rigidly planned as a guided tour.

"Slow travel shows you are an experienced traveler, while fast trips mean you are inexperienced."

Yes this is my intuition except that you need to define "slow versus fast travel." I have a talent for seeing under-appreciated museums and sites. Some travelers are good at picking just one or two major sites in a city and skipping everything else. Some guided tours whisk travelers around on tour buses and skip museums and sites I would see on my own. I try to make a list of places in a town that look appealing before I figure out how many nights to reserve in the town.

Those 3 statements are all true.

Mike, there is too much about travel that I enjoy, and every trip is still a unique experience. I have yet to fall victim to the limitations of the "Experienced Traveler" stereotype.

Perhaps a bit selfish but the right way for other people to travel is whatever keeps them out of my line of sight.

I do know the right way to do a trip report, and a different thread for each day isn’t it.

Carol NR what a great topic and wonderful thread! I totally agree with you. And still there were replies that missed the idea, ha!

1. We've been strictly carry-on since 2019, and each trip we debate it and eventually continue with Team Carry-on. I think it's important to give an answer to newbies detailing both sides. I'd have no issues if my wife decided she wanted to check a bag but she's gotten into a routine and is fine with it. Part of her argument is that the risk of lost luggage for her would be incredibly inconvenient. She's a curvy 5' tall and all clothes need to be altered, so she can't just walk into a store and pull something off the rack.
   We're debating the packing style for our next trip because we'll be in London in late November and wondering if we can pack enough warm clothes to fit into a small suitcase. We are staying 10 days in the same location, so hauling a suitcase around won't be an issue.
2. We've done an RS Tour, ocean cruise, river cruise, toured on our own by rental car and other times by train. All have had highlights and lowerlights but I don't regret any of the trips.
3. I think a person's slow travel may be someone else's fast travel. I think this point is unanswerable. Perhaps when I write my next Trip Report I'll ask for opinions if people think we were traveling fast or slow. To me it has been slow; (Amsterdam for the weekend, train to Bruges for 5 days including daytrips, rental car to Arras, France for the weekend, tomorrow we train to Leiden, Netherlands until we fly home Wednesday). Is that fast or slow?

No right or wrong way to travel.

I generally have done solo traveling and feel kind of weird most of the time when I'm on my own, even in cities I've lived in sometimes. I miss the cammaderie of a group.

1. For day trips and ones that take about 2-3 days a carry on is enough for me, indeed. I don't judge people who take lots of bags though.

2. I prefer group travel. I'm so fed up with people dissing on group travel online everywhere. Seeing it even here, considering Rick offers organized tour groups is weird. To each his or her own but I'm just fed up. Reddit is openly aggressive and negative about group travel.

When I visited Thessaloniki on my own I didn't quite get to like it. When I recently went with a group I loved it.
I saw more things in my day trip to Thessaloniki with the group than I did when I spend 2 days there on my own, traveling solo. Go figure. Not only that but I had some small talk with people from my group. Small talk is far rarer when one uses coaches or trains with people who are just commuters.

It costed me about the same as I would spend on a coach from Sofia to Thessaloniki and back but the group travel option included not just the bus tickets, but the tour guide as well as travel insurance. All that for a 35 EUR is a steal.
Also, in some locations it's nice to have a human buffer between you and poachers. I always like a location more if I visit with a group, I guess I just prefer the energy of a group vs when traveling on self-organized trips. I'm currently single and all my friends either don't like traveling much or live abroad so it's hard to find someone to travel with. I'd rather travel "solo" with an organized group than do it all alone.

1. I'd love both. I have too many countries on my bucket list but I can't afford the time off work to do slow travel. I'd rather do daytrips to Serbia, Macedonia and Greece on weekends from Sofia, Bulgaria than to spend a whole week in just one of them. I've already been to Greece three times but have yet to visit Serbia and Macedonia, they're so close by so at first I always prefer to do a shorter/fast travel kind of trip to see if I like the vibe of the country in question. I don't want to ask for a long vacation from my job, which is hard to get only to find out I don't mesh well with the place I'm visiting but I have to spend 2 weeks there as it's already booked.

I don't know why solo travelers who organized everything themselves somehow seem to act holier-than-though. I've done that and I don't act like that. I still prefer someone else to do all the planning.

I don't know why solo travelers who organized everything themselves somehow seem to act holier-than-though.

I'm happy to describe myself as a militant introvert and solo traveler. But who are these holier- than- thou solo travelers? Where are they? Cause I'm hard pressed to find them and I believe that demand outstrips supply.

Yeah, I'm curious about that, too, VAP. I'm a solo traveler and usually plan everything myself, but I don't think I've ever come across as holier-than-thou. I do let folks know how much I enjoy solo travel and how easy it is, but generally only when they ask about it.

Believe me, I have no problem with having the planning done for you. And at some point I would imagine I will be grativitating to that as I get older (but maybe not!). 😊

I prefer group travel. I'm so fed up with people dissing on group travel online everywhere. Seeing it even here, considering Rick offers organized tour groups is weird.

I'm also curious about this. I've been coming here for years, and I don't think I've ever seen a post where someone has denigrated group travel. In fact, I think that would be very weird considering that this forum was started by someone who promotes and sells group travel, and so many folks here have gone on Rick Steves tours and other tours.

1. Carry on only. It doesn't work for me. And I assure you that not only does nobody on the tour care

If you're on a RS tour, they care. But they know that they have to make the best of it, because 1) there's nothing they can do about it and 2) they have to spend 2 weeks with you and complaining about you isn't going to make it any better. But you can bet that when you're not around, they are talking about it.

@Mardee

Looking down on other people’s mode of travel is almost always never done overtly. One sees it in the inferences. “Group travel isn’t for me. Maybe for new travelers or those unable to plan for themselves.” Inference= experienced travelers don’t choose tours. I must say that I see forum members as well meaning and not really intending to give off those type of messages. They are simply stating their current thinking on a subject.

Some of the responses to this thread have surprised me. They are a bit all over the place but then again that represents a cross section of ideas.

Kathleen, could you explain why you care about the size of someone else's luggage? As long as they can manage their bags themselves, how does that impact you or anyone else on your tour? RS tours dont have a restriction on size. They only warn that you have to be able to manage your bags yourself.

could you explain why you care about the size of someone else's luggage?

Not specific to Rick Steves tours, but people who travel with a large volume of luggage can make things difficult for other passengers on the train, bus or boat. They're consuming a scarce resource (luggage storage space) in some circumstances. If they don't make life more difficult for others, I don't see a problem.

Jphbucks, my question was directed to the person who was talking about group tours. RS tours dont use trains. For that matter, most group tours dont travel by train. They store bags under the bus, where there would be ample room even if most people had a full size suitcase. I've taken several group tours in Europe and have never even noticed what other people used for bags (other than a small sea of black (my turquoise bag is always easy to find). Nor have I ever heard anyone whinge or kvetch about someone else's choice of luggage. Then again, 99% of the people on my tours have had more class than to talk about another member behind their back.

Not specific to Rick Steves tours, but people who travel with a large volume of luggage can make things difficult for other passengers on the train, bus or boat. They're consuming a scarce resource (luggage storage space) in some circumstances. If they don't make life more difficult for others, I don't see a problem.

Not specific to Rick Steves tours, but people who travel with luggage can make things difficult for other passengers on the train, bus or boat. They're consuming a scarce resource (luggage storage space) in some circumstances.

There fixed it for ya.

If they don't make life more difficult for others, I don't see a problem.

It does not matter the volume of luggage not one bit whatsoever. Regardless, what business is it of ours?

Exactly what is "slow travel"? Different towns and parks and major sites require different amounts of time. I write myself a day-by-day itinerary and then I make reservations for the number of nights in a hotel room that the town should require. I have sacrificed some sites or museums that look appealing because there wasn't enough time to fit in everything that could have been appealing, on that trip. I only get ten days of paid weekdays off of work per year from my anniversary date until the next anniversary date. Exactly how much time per day on average do you spend or waste in restaurants while traveling?

It is best to pack as little as possible, the minimum you need to survive. I try to take no more than 2 extra changes of clothes in addition to any cold weather items and a minimum amount of food and stuff that isn't clothes. Don't drag around stuff you think you need but it would be physically possible to survive without.

Mike L, slow travel is different things to different people. Some people dont want to just whack off a list of museums and move on. Some people have more vacation time than you. Some people are retired and have as much time as they can afford.. Some people enjoy a nice leisurely lunch at a sidewalk café to watch the world go by or a whole evening just having dinner and listening to live music. To them that is time well spent, not time wasted. Some people would rather stay in one place, explore locally, and discover as much as they can about it before moving on, rather than just seeing a few things in several places. But if that is not how you prefer to travel, then dont do it that way. It's as simple as that.

And not everyone wants to travel with only what they can barely survive on. Not everyone wants to do sink laundry every other day. If you enjoy living like that, then that's great- for you. But there is nothing wrong with anyone who wants to bring more than this, providing they can manage their own luggage and not adversely affect anyone else. Come to think of it, I dont care if the person on the train in the seat ahead of me is hauling around 3 big suitcases and her pet poodle, as long as she has someone to wrangle her stuff. I try not to tell others what is "best", since it is highly likely that my definition is different from theirs.

It’s good that we agree that everyone has his or her own prefered travel style. Actually that’s not an issue as we are free to do what we like. But saying this.....

I like to travel off the beaten path, it doesn’t mean I avoid the tourist hotspots. Using history as a guideline you have to go to out of the way places. And as collateral damage from time to time I bump into lovely places that still has kept there innocence. It's really exciting and memorable, no more rewarding than discovering your “own” hidden gems.

The only thing I do is walking around and enjoy the moment. I don’t take pictures, sometimes a few. It’s just about experiencing the moment. After a while I move further and leave it behind like I have found it, so with actually no or at least minimum tourist footprint. I keep these places to my self. That innocence makes these places so incredibly beautifull. And my aim is to keep it that way. Not only for my self, but also for the locals who has to live there. And ofcourse also for the other visitors who can enjoy it too like it is.

I keep looking for these places, that's ofcourse my personal preference. However last June I have visited in England, York and Canterbury. Both wellknown and beautiful, but nowadays tourist and with that commercial playgrounds. Too many are looking for entertainment and so you get one take-away restaurant of all kinds or whatever it is after the other, just to please the tourist. Innocence? Gone! It’s an absolute disgrace.

Ofcourse do what you like, but thinking about your tourist footprint needs to be part of that too. There is not “the right” way of travel, but with knowing your responsibility there is “a right” way of travel for sure.

I will repeat what I have said on other threads: There is no one "right way" to travel because the right way is what is right for you, and these forums are a community with so many members who are generous with their time and expertise and who want to help others.

Because everyone has preferences and because most forum questions seek opinion, bias invariably drives replies. Good. Sometimes I ask a factual question I can't find the answer to on the internet--when is this museum under renovation supposed to reopen. But often I ask for your opinions--should I go to Hamburg or Nuremberg, and for how many nights. When I do, I welcome your bias, however strong, because a number of thoughtful replies with reasons help me decide what seems right for me.

There are a few members whose responses can be curt and who are strongly opinionated. I realize that not everyone is comfortable dealing with those who can be difficult (as an aside, the lawyers on the forums have too much experience doing this). But a bit of humor or at least a light touch often puts the thread back on track.

Looking down on other people’s mode of travel is almost always never done overtly. One sees it in the inferences. “Group travel isn’t for me. Maybe for new travelers or those unable to plan for themselves.”

Carol NR, thanks for that clarification and that does make sense. I guess I'm just not noticing it.

There are a few members whose responses can be curt and who are strongly opinionated. I realize that not everyone is comfortable dealing with those who can be difficult (as an aside, the lawyers on the forums have too much experience doing this).

Ha ha, RJ, yes, that's very true. Although maybe I'm misreading this. Are you saying that lawyers have a lot of experience in being curt and strongly opinionated, or have a lot of experience dealing with those who are? Honestly, I would say yes to both. 😉

Mardee, you got me. So much for clarity. I was trying to say the latter--that lawyers have much experience dealing in writing with difficult people (though the big reason is that too many lawyers can be unreasonably difficult). As you know, a good rule is never write an email or a letter that you would be reluctant to show to a judge or a jury. And perhaps another good rule is never draft a reply on these forums on which you would be reluctant to list your name, address and telephone number.

And one other observation. If we can take greater care in crafting our replies (I certainly can), perhaps we need to give some the benefit of the doubt as to whether their replies are simply not worded as carefully as they could be and are in fact condescending. There are replies that I find condescending. But most are just trying to be helpful and would quickly respond to any PM seeking greater insight.

There is the normative and then there is the descriptive. Descriptive as in “my hotel room in Switzerland was 75 degrees at night”. Normative as in “way too hot! They should have air conditioning.” Or “you need three days to visit Budapest” or “two nights— god forbid one night— is way too fast to travel.”

Is vs. ought.

Then there is ought with attitude! “Cleveland is nicer than Pittsburgh and the Seattle Mariners only real talent is losing. Steelers are bums! Go Browns!”

And then there is humor— both good and bad. I specialize in bad.

I find that some posters such are CNR are my cup of tea. I love their advice and it is almost always agreeable with me. I find Rick Steves advice likewise to be a good match. And then there are people with whom I disagree with but I love their disputation— strong opinions, fun writing but occasionally I react poorly. That’s on me.

So I suppose the right way to give travel advice is the way you give it. I’ll work on fixing me. (Who am I kidding? Pittsburgh stinks! That is just the way it is!)

Happy travels.

And there there is humor— both good and bad. I specialize in bad.

I'm a fan of both types.

And one other observation. If we can take greater care in crafting our
replies (I certainly can), perhaps we need to give some the benefit of
the doubt as to whether their replies are simply not worded as
carefully as they could be and are in fact condescending.

Here's my theory (or excuse, because maybe it's only me); I am much better crafting a response when I'm using my laptop. The keyboard and editing make the whole process much simpler. If I'm on my phone or tablet and dealing with auto-correct I tend to give shorter comments and write exactly what I'm thinking without further thought and minimal proofreading.

I think the problem is thinking in absolutes, not the various nuances.

But to disagree slightly with some:

The ideal of carry-on only. If you check a bag you are somehow not getting it right.

Extreme overpacking though would never be recommended, I do not care what size bag you have, what you pack, whether you check your bag, but if you can't move your luggage around by yourself, you have a problem.

Independent travel is better than group travel somehow. Only people with weak travel skills or age induced issues would travel on a tour or cruise.

Everyone's style is different, just do not go into a tour/cruise with unrealistic expectations. I think they can be fantastic for someone who is social, going to new places, and enjoys the convenience. Myself, having been a number of places, I would not want to take a tour to those places. I also do not like the pace of tours, and am not into the buddy-buddy social aspect. If someone has specific ideas that they want to see, and eat, I find it hard to recommend a tour. If someone wants to see 6 or 7 places in 2 weeks, for the first time, seeing the noted highlights, yeah, a tour is for you.

Slow travel shows you are an experienced traveler, while fast trips mean you are inexperienced.

One must admit though, that a new city everyday is a beginner mistake, and the tendency to cram too much into a trip is a serious flaw. I have no problem with fast trips, I do them myself sometimes, but I also have a realistic expectation of what I can accomplish in that time. Paris in two nights? No problem, been there several times, for a total of two weeks or so, so seen most I am interested in, would only hit one or two things. Someone else hitting Paris in 2 nights, wanting to see the Louvre, the Orsay, Eiffel tower, Notre Dame, San Chappelle, and spend time idling in a street cafe, people watching? nice thought, bad plan.

CarolNR, I think you raised some good issues that deserve thoughtful consideration. I find that almost all of the people on this forum give interesting and helpful responses. But very occasionally, someone comes across as a little condescending. Did they mean to? Who knows? But it behooves all of us to think about how we respond.

Now for David from Cleveland—What exactly did Pittsburgh ever do to you? It’s a nice down-to-earth city with friendly people.

Oh wait, we won six Super Bowls. I believe that’s six more than Cleveland. ; )

I did part 2 of the 2024 trip with only a carry-on but it was just for 22 days. Doing only a carry -on trip certainly has its advantages and for short trips, it is worth it having lightened the load quite a bit. I recommend it.

For the long trip of more than 5 weeks , I take the medium size spinner plus the carry-on with the the carry-on weighing not more than 14 pounds. True, you see numerous folks who can't move their luggage by themselves when boarding trains or placing it in the above the seat.

If no family members are with me, then I am an independent , solo traveler regardless of the duration of the trip, 3 weeks or 9 weeks consecutively.

Slow travel is pacing oneself which is important with adequate planning and time effective traveling as the goal. Bottom line: it is up to individual traveling to define this.

The "right" way to travel car round trips is to drive on the right side of the street.

Exactly this. There’s no single right way to travel. What works for one person might not fit someone else’s goals or comfort level. Some love slow solo trips, others prefer group tours or quick city breaks, and both are valid. Travel is about what makes the experience enjoyable for you, not about proving skill or “authenticity.”
As long as you’re respectful and open to where you are, you’re doing it right.

Oh wait, we won six Super Bowls. I believe that’s six more than Cleveland. ; )

Ha ha ha, Carroll, that made me laugh! Although I should probably shut up now before David points his finger at Cincinnati, lol!

madmax13, what amazes me is that some people find the greatest pleasure in a driving tour of Albania in the same way (slow fast or whatever) as they do a city break in Rome.

What's the right way to travel? Simple, the way that provides the greatest personal reward for the specific trip. I can spend 10 days laid back cruising around Montenegro, but the winter trip to Lviv or Kyiv is a no-nonsense direct in with a fairly full planned schedule and a direct run back to thr border. Fishing trips on Bosnis have no plans but the river. Paris and Rome fall in the middle. Carryon only or checked bag .... a solid yes! Yes to whatever best suits the trip.

et tu, brute? Carroll and Mardee, ouch!!

Happy travels!

P.S. As long as everyone smiles in the end, it all works out… especially if you just do carry-on!

You did ask for that, David. I honestly felt you’d be disappointed if no one from Pittsburgh responded.

For the record, I always carry on, but I don’t care what anyone else does. Actually, I love that people check because I’m more likely to find space for my carryon.

David, mea culpa! And as I mentioned, you could always throw the Bengals Super Bowl record (nonexistent) back in my face. 😂

I wondered the exact same thing. Why didn’t anyone help these young ladies? Chivalry is dead, so it seams.

I frequently travel by train to one of our offices in Amsterdam. To get there and back home I have to change trains at the train station at Amsterdam Airport. Many times I, a woman, help people get their luggage on and off the train. It really isn’t a big deal and it helps speed up the process.

Edit: Got on a Metro in a different socio-economic neighborhood than central Paris today and nobody offered a seat. I had half expected it bc they see exhausted, struggling people all day long. Since I still have a sprained ankle, I asked two girls if I could sit, and they were lovely about it.

People almost always offer me a seat either in the tram where we live or in the metro when visiting Paris. My husband isn’t offered a seat nearly as often though he went gray long before I did. The first time he was offered a seat by a lovely young person, he was shocked for days to have been considered old. Now, when offered a seat, I’ll give it to my husband who has back issues.

If they don't make life more difficult for others, I don't see a problem.

It does not matter the volume of luggage not one bit whatsoever.

As I've spent a lot of time on European trains, I can tell you that people who travel with an inordinate amount of luggage often, or even usually, create difficulty for the other travelers. If you haven’t struggled to negotiate a pile of oversized luggage in the aisleway of a moving train, you can't know the magnitude of the problem.

Nowadays the people who create the problems seem largely to be "influencers" who feel compelled to pack a large number of wardrobe changes for their little productions. My patience with these folks has worn pretty thin.

As for Chivalry.....I'm at that age where I've been getting Medicare for awhile. Last week, I boarded a crowded tube train. All seats were taken by young people. Not one offered their seat. (They were too busy looking at their phones and listening to whatever is in their ears.)

That's quite unusual in my experience. I'm in my 50's but I'm generally looking to see if I give up my seat at every stop when it's busy. You must look young and fit I guess. As a sweeping generalisation, American over-60's may look younger and healthier than British over-60's, especially the ones who are travelling to Europe. I'm often really surprised by the stamina for travel some people on here talk about.

Not everywhere. I hate to say it but it's mostly London where I rarely see anyone "young" give up their seat to someone older.

I'm surprised you found that. I thought London was pretty good on average for that sort of thing.

I hate to say it but it's mostly London where I rarely see anyone "young" give up their seat to someone older.

Hmmm.

I thought London was pretty good on average for that sort of thing.

It is. Every tube train I get on, without fail, one of the kids will immediately stand up and insist that I take their seat. I don't board with an expectation that anyone should give me their seat. If I sat I'd block the aisle others would have to step over me and I'm most comfortable standing at the padded "bench"/grab bars at the end of the car. I have to insist and assure them that I don't need their seat.

We're now back in the US after nearly 5 months in Europe. It was the right way for us to travel this year. But it wouldn't be again.

Elizabeth, I will never offer a seat, but that because even as an old-fart, as long as my two feet will support me and there is a lady standing on the train, tram, bus you wont find me sitting in the first place. In my home town I see gentlemen, and ladies, doing the right thing from time to time, but not nearly as often as it once was.

Nowadays the people who create the problems seem largely to be
"influencers" who feel compelled to pack a large number of wardrobe
changes for their little productions. My patience with these folks has
worn pretty thin.

Jphbucks I understand.

Realistically there are situations where carry-on is definitely better and it imay be useful to point this out so people can plan accordingly. For example, checked bags usually mean it will take you more time to get in and out of airports. When there is a threat or prediction of airport personnel strikes, which is not uncommon this year, carry-on is safer if you can manage it. Carry-on size and weight luggage will be easier to handle if someone plans to take trains a lot between cities and/or public transportation rather than taxis within cities.

I sometimes feel that I have embraced slow travel because as I get older, I am just slower :). I find that I have less stamina to keep moving and it takes me a little longer to get oriented to a new location, or even to read the dimly lit text in some museums. I push myself some, but if I pushed much more, I think I would enjoy the experience less; so I make an effort to savor the time sitting in a cafe or park, or finding things to keep me interested for longer in a museum or church. I don't think this is any more or less enriching than how I traveled 10 years ago.

"Carry-on size and weight luggage will be easier to handle if someone plans to take trains a lot and/or public transportation rather than taxis within cities." How true !

These latest trips since 2023 I have managed to avoid using the taxi option within cities regardless if I had only carry-on or that plus the small spinner on the RER to the airport, though I was pretty tempted after that one particular taxing experience on the RER to CDG.

I first read this thread before our recent trip to Naples, a city which we have visited many times and love. I've reflected on Carol now retired' points a lot since we have returned and I want to comment on them.

1. We try to carry-on only, but the airlines have made that difficult. Even though we take the smallest 2-wheel bags we often must gate-check because we cannot usually fly direct from Indianapolis and must fly on small planes, and we fly economy, so are usually in boarding group 6. I've decided that on future trips I am packing a small 20" duffle; I have never seen anyone carrying a duffle or backpack of any size asked to check their bag. Convincing my husband to return to his duffle may take some effort.

2. My husband and I have traveled together for 50+ years and that was preceded by years of independent travel. Things have changed a lot. More people travel every year and opportunities for affordable unique experiences have become difficult to find. It also seems that in making highly visited sites accessible to more tourists some sites have become less accessible to all tourists. There are a lot more barricades, gates, and closed doors in churches, palaces, and outdoor locations. There is also a lot of misinformation about openings, closings, etc. in guidebooks and on websites that are not maintained that makes planning difficult. We like small ship cruising (we usually explore ports on our own) although time in ports is never enough. And we are aging out of some possible destinations, like the Everest base camp; we are in good physical condition but must be careful, like most septuagenarians. We are running out of time.

I think that the side of group travel that we don't like is the wide range of background knowledge that tourists have. We research our destinations extensively, reading suggested literature, watching related films, and expanding on these. Many travelers don't utilize the enrichment resources offered by the touring companies. Related to that, we also don't expect everything to be like it is at home when we travel. In fact, that's one of the reasons we travel.

1. We have always preferred slow travel, but it has become difficult since the loss of our house/dog sitter. Two weeks has become our maximum. When we were younger that would never have been enough. We also do not like crowds, so we have begun traveling in shoulder- or even off-seasons, which means opportunities for access and accommodation may be limited.

We are lucky to have traveled when traveling was not an industry, but was an adventure.

Enough of this "right" way to travel! Let's talk about the “wrong” way to travel.

1. Tipping an ATM machine for good service.

2. Wearing a Pittsburgh Steelers jersey to a Cleveland Browns game.

3. Telling someone who is taking the time to give you directions they should learn to speak English better, especially when you are in Scotland.

4. ??

We are lucky to have traveled when traveling was not an industry, but was an adventure.

One of the best lines ever posted!

We are lucky to have traveled when traveling was not an industry, but was an adventure.

I'm lucky that my wife and I still regard it as an adventure.

We don't travel the Rick Steves way, which I interpret as "go as many places as possible, see as many things as possible, in as short a time as possible, and as cheaply as possible." Not that there's anything wrong with that. For us, the right way to travel is more like just moving to another place for a couple of weeks and basically hanging out, seeing the sights at leisure and watching the world go by.

We don't travel the Rick Steves way, which I interpret as "go as many
places as possible, see as many things as possible, in as short a time
as possible, and as cheaply as possible."

Interesting take Other Marty. Not my take though. I believe most folks who think they travel the Rick Steves way would also disagree with that. But hey, you could be right.

Either way, happy travels!

Edit -- added the below :
I think the Rick Steves way of travel is to be curious, a cultural chameleon, and an engaged traveler. Seek out hotels in city centers, travel light so to be flexible, avoid tourist traps and instead explore local experiences. Use public transport, plan to avoid lines and busy times— and be a smart consumer.

As folks age, they like to travel slower than young’ens and higher energy folks. "Slow down"— like that old Cat Stevens song “father and son”:

It's not time to make a change
Just relax, take it easy

Nothing wrong with that either. I think Rick would have no problem with seniors moving slow. He loves watching the people during the evening strolls! Ah, the evening stroll! How perfect!

We are lucky to have traveled when traveling was not an industry, but
was an adventure.

I'm lucky that my wife and I still regard it as an adventure.

So are DH and I, jphbucks. Here's to many more adventures!

We don't have a particular way of travelling as such. We decide what works best for us in relation to where we are going, what we hope to see and do, time available and cost.
Even within any trip our way of travelling can vary greatly sometimes even on the same day.

In regards to carry on. Never tried it never felt the need. Our recent trips have had carry on weight limit of 7kg. Most of our trips involve quite a bit of adventure so necessary equipment can take up most of that weight. To me trying to restrict my luggage to 7kg would be an unnecessary pain in the arse. If it works well for someone all good.

Organised Tours. Only done one multi day organised tour that was 15 days Everest Base Camp. It cost 1100 USD (8years ago) with everything included inc 3 meals and 3 hot drinks each day. That was with a group of 11 friends rather than a bunch of randoms.
Couldn't have done it independently for that. It was good to have the support crew.
I've looked at a few tours and generally they cost 5 to 7 x per day what we typically spend on our trips (we are frugal tight arses). We often include some single day guided tours which generally have been great. I don't fancy spending a few weeks with a bunch of randoms but some people seem to love that sort of thing.

Slow travel. What does that even mean? I generally average 30,000 steps a day when travelling that is usually at 6 to 15 kph so pretty slow. On the other hand we do a lot of one night stays particularly when roadtripping (is that fast?) but we might also stay 3 to 8 nights in one location. We usually restrict to 2 hours driving per day if practical.