My trip to Italy is already set, not trying to change anything. But I have to say I don't quite get the point of having a "base" city and doing tons of day trips 2 and 3 hours away from that base city. However, since everyone recommends it, I'm clearly missing something here. I see so many people saying, for instance, they will make Florence their base, and then drive an hour and a half down to Siena one day, and to Pisa and Lucca the next day. Why not just stay in Siena, and enjoy the evening quiet when the tourists are mostly gone, or savor the time in Lucca, and live like a local for one or two nights?
To me, it's so easy to pack up my bag and move hotels. Far easier than driving back to, say, Rome, after a day of visiting Umbria. Why not just stay in Umbria since you're already there?
My husband and I were in the Napa Valley and we moved around three times in a 7-night stay. And that was Napa, much smaller than Rome. But we didn't want to deal with traffic driving down the two-lane road back to the city of Napa, so we opted to break up our vacation in three different areas of the Napa Valley, from Calistoga, down to the Oakville area, and then the city of Napa. It took us an extra 10 minutes to pack our bags to move hotels, and another 10 minutes to check in, and that 20 minutes saved us 45 minutes of driving in traffic. And obviously in Rome/Tuscany/Umbria it's even more of a time savings since the distances are farther.
So, please tell me why a lot of people do this, and the benefits. I really want to figure out if I'm missing something here. I swear I'm not trying to start an argument, just really, really curious.