What does it mean to "do" a place?

Sasha, That's a difficult question to answer, as that depends on the circumstances in each case, and what each traveller considers a "must see". The sights that I consider to be essential when I "do" Florence could differ in your case.

I don't use the term "do" a place. My rule for saying I've "been there" depends on the destination -ultimately it's a question of whether I've had a decent look at the place or not. I've "been" to Hall in Tyrol - we walked around, saw several sights, and had lunch, but I haven't "been" to Boston, even though I've flown through there a few times and, once, even went downtown to look around for a few hours during a long layover (approximately the same amount of time I spent in Hall). So you can, as an example, "do" Dinkelsbuhl in a few hours but you can't "do" Berlin in a few hours. That's probably why I don't cross a border just to say I've been to the other side. If I don't have time for a decent look around, I don't consider it actually having "been there' anyway.

My wife has simplified this enormous question by saying "You can do another person but you can't do a place or thing".

Same rules as apply to "when can I put a pin in the map." In my book, you can't say you've "done" a city if you've only passed through the train station or changed planes at the airport. But, yes, it is a personal thing. My personal measure is to be able to walk away from a city with a sense that (A) I know the basic lay of the land, (B) can navigate around the place fairly well, (C) have a "feel for the place". That last one is a bit abstract but it involves walking about, maybe going to a local eatery and munching a regional specialty, seeing a sight or two. You don't necessarily have to see all the sights. But you hit the nail on the head when you said it shouldn't be a chore. It should come naturally. Although –god love 'em--there are those who want to do 8 countries in 3 weeks and collect as many pins as they possibly can on an "in and out" basis. But who am I to judge? Maybe it is their one and only chance to see Europe. Personally, I'm a slower traveller these days. I guess there is no one right answer, but it's a fun topic.

I agree with your perception. I'm not so concerned about terminology but mentality: places have becomes things to see, and get validated by others. Went to Paris and didn't go to the Eiffel tower? What a pity, you didn't "do" Paris then....

Yeah, I mean if "doing" a place means hitting the major sites, I haven't really "done" Berlin despite having been there 3 times for a total of 9 days, because I haven't been to the Pergammon museum, or toured the Reichtag dome, or gone up the telespargel, or whatever. Been to Paris 3 times and still haven't done the Eiffel tower (by going up it), and hadn't been to the Louvre until the last time. I try to focus on what interests me about a place, not the "must see" sights, because what's a must-see for some is boring for others. I personally really like medieval/Renaissance art so for me, visiting art museums is important but a lot of people don't really care yet go anyway. Why? It's expensive and time-consuming to do the big museums. I don't want to sound high and mighty because travel styles differ, but when it comes to major cities, I generally want to "do" them over and over again because I enjoy being there, not because it's a "check it off the box" thing. I do have a few checkboxes - I will see Neuschwanstein at some point because I am fascinated by Mad King Ludwig but I doubt I will return. But in general when I travel I want to be able to spend time in one place getting to know it. That would probably drive other people crazy since I could be seeing more sights/places. Different travel styles, I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all style to travel.

Sarah, I follow a philosophy that my travels are all about me and my companions/family. I don't travel to a place I don't feel attracted just because "everybody who goes to X visit Y", though a major site usually will attract me naturally. Also, I hate the "me in front of famous monument 1234" picture thing. I rarely take pics of myself in different places.

"Also, I hate the "me in front of famous monument 1234" picture thing. I rarely take pics of myself in different places." I agree Andre. In all my travels the only places I have pictures of me is in front of the tower in Pisa (it was my birthday - had to do it) and me and my companions on the Great Wall in China (something most people will never see). When I travel, usually alone, strangers will ask me if I want a picture of me in front of a monument and I will say no thanks. They usually look at me like I'm weird or something. I don't need a picture of me there to know I was there. Sasha, to "do" a place is whatever it means to you and how much time it takes is very personal and individual. Some people do Paris in 5 days, I'm going for a month and hope I can do it in that time. Although, I may want to go back and "do" it again - ha ha.

To do a place means bad grammer to me.

I got it.

What does grammar (good or bad) have to do with this post?

I mostly agree with Andre and Nancy on the photo thing; what kills me even more is taking pictures of museum exhibits. The postcards from the gift shop will turn out WAY better, why bother? I used to be guilty of this, back in the film days (why did I waste so much film?!?) but realized after I got home how silly that was. I have a photo of my favorite painting, with a nice glare from the glass. And it's sort of blurry in one corner and I think there's a shadow from another traveler. Whoopee. But with the pictures in front of monuments, I try to treat them more as family pictures with unique backgrounds. Those pictures are just as likely to end up on my wall as some of the more artistic ones I've taken because they function like a portrait for me. I would much rather hang a picture of our family in Europe than the often cheesy and unnatural family portraits you might get from a studio. So, it's not so much about documenting that I really did see the Eiffel Tower as it is about taking the opportunity to get a potentially nice family picture and preserving a nice family memory. Make sense? To each their own, of course...and those people who want to take photos of museum exhibits can certainly continue to do that (as long as they turn off the flash)...I just hope they won't make me sit through looking at them!

I'm inclined to give the "to do" people a little slack. Maybe the verb "do" isn't quite the right word, but I think they usually are asking how much time should be allotted to a particular place. Not how big a chore it is. As an example (and this should be on the schedule!) we often get posts about how long for Bruges. The answers seem to vary widely. Some found that 2 hours was plenty, and others would love it for a week. There is not one correct answer, but hopefully, the posters would expand on their answers, and the OP will come away a little better informed. Now, can anyone tell me how long it will take "to do" my housework? I seem to be on the computer instead of cleaning.

O.K. you guys. The word "do" was in quotes in the OP and I'm sure everybody knows what was meant. Karen: "get off the computer and go do your homework!" Just kidding. Monte: I'm a little worried about that "doing" another person thing. Sounds a little risque to me. Now, I have to get off this computer and go do MY housework.

I think it takes a minimum of five days to experience an important European city (eg. London, Paris, Rome). The first day is spent getting over fatigue from the overnight flight. It takes a couple of days just to get oriented to getting around.