What do you prefer - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

dudeman · 10-20-2008, 03:26 PM

If you have two months to travel do you prefer to stay to one region and really see all the sites and absorb the culture, or cover more ground and see more with less depth to the places you go? Like covering most of western Europe as opposed to Spain and France for two months. Just curious.

**Diorama** · 10-20-2008, 03:44 PM

I definately dont like rushing. I would rather stay in one spot longer and get a real feel for the place. And I usually like seeing the whole country . I get annoyed when I just see a section of it.

**Dig** · 10-20-2008, 04:15 PM

I agree. I like to take my time and adsorb the feeling of a place. If I rush around from place to place it seems like I am focusing alot on traveling and not being.

**joe7f** · 10-20-2008, 05:36 PM

Depends on the region. For Spain, I have spent 4 months there...and would spend two months again no problem

--Joey

**aliz** · 10-20-2008, 06:02 PM

I love staying in one place for an extended amount of time, but it's so hard to do for us aussies... say to go to europe, we pay nearly $3000 and spend about 24 hours travelling to get there, it feels like you should make the most of it and see as much as you can, you know? but now that I've done that a few times, I'd love to travel slower next time!

**offhegoes03** · 10-20-2008, 06:50 PM

I know not every city deserves an extended time, but I really enjoyed when I had 6 nights in Berlin or 10 nights in Gimmelwald. You really get to know how things work in the city and you can show off at the hostel when new people show up. You're also not rushed and compelled to try to see everything in 1-2 days. You can take your time and if it's raining one day, you can stay in the hostel and read or play boardgames.

**marc873** · 10-21-2008, 03:48 PM

If I had the time on the road, I would probably stay 10 days or so per city, with several day trips. But since we are usually limited to 4 weeks, we try for 4-5 days per city.

**joe7f** · 10-21-2008, 06:29 PM

One more comment, to me the most important thing to do is have the flexibility to stay longer somewhere if you are having a good time. Sometimes you just get this great chemistry with your fellow backpackers and you have a great time doing the tourist stuff and just hanging out.

I remember I met these two awesome Canadian girls in Sevilla as a group of 5 of us were headed to Portugal. One of them wanted to come along, the other said no, we really need to go to Malaga and then on to Granada to stay on schedule.

They probably had a great time but I just can't help think they would have had a better time in Lagos than in Malaga (which as a city doesn't strike me particularly great other than a great place to go to great places

)

--Joey

**Elizabeth** · 10-21-2008, 10:29 PM

maybe they were recovering alcoholics

...lagos is known for

i cant spend less then 3 nights in a city or else I get travel fatigue, mostly I can't be bothered to pack up all my crap (yes I am the one you hate with their crap all over the floor)

Every first timer has the temptation to see it all, which I think should kinda be done. No less than 3 nights in a city though. Some people come on here and post these crazy itineraries where its like Amsterdam 2 days, Berlin 2 days, Munich 1 day, Vienna 3 hours, Budapest 1.5 days, which by Munich they will be stuck in bed passed out from exhaustion. Once you get a reasonable overview then you can choose what you like and do that country or region more in depth.

**mbo108** · 10-22-2008, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizz

Some people come on here and post these crazy itineraries where its like Amsterdam 2 days, Berlin 2 days, Munich 1 day, Vienna 3 hours, Budapest 1.5 days...

Yeah, this is usually me. Oh well. I get my two weeks of vacation from work and I pack in as much as I can see. I get fatigued back at work but thats really my employers problem! I like bouncing around and of course everyone has a different opinion of what is best. I'm trying to slow down though. I'm probably going to Europe for 6-8 days this spring and I swear, two cities max.

I think the remark about flexibility was spot on. If you're hating a place, why spend another 4 days there? Be out.

**offhegoes03** · 10-22-2008, 05:43 AM

I agree with the philosophy that you can stay in a city longer if you really love it or you can leave early if it's not your favorite. The only downside is the fact that it's becoming increasingly difficult to be spontaneous. Especially during the summer, if you try to be too spontaneous and wait til the last minute to book everything you either won't find a hostel or everything will be too expensive. I've never couchsurfed before (I will definitely take advantage of it for my next trip), but that is always an option I suppose. CouchSurf for a couple days. If you really like the city, try to find a hostel or another host for a couple more days. If you don't like the city, leave and you don't have to worry about cancelling at your hostel if you booked ahead.

**Canadian Bacon** · 10-22-2008, 08:55 AM

Wow I think I asked this exact quesion 5 months ago.

I decided it was better to see more regions in a short period of time, cuz you'll get a general better overall feel and when I travel long distances it adds to the backpacking feeling.

dudeman · 10-22-2008, 09:05 AM

Last summer two friends and I did London, Paris, Madrid, Pamplona, and Amsterdam in a little over two weeks. It felt exhausting, but it was the only way to do what we all wanted to. The reason I asked is that I graduated and am having a hell of a time finding employment. If the dollar keeps gaining on the euro, I might be able to move around some funds and travel for a while. Gaining some good insight on here, I definitely dig the spontaneous travel myself.