Itinerary or budget question? Please read this first before posting.
Replies: 99 - Last Post: May 24, 2013 8:39 AM Last Post By: ansh_jain_97
Jan 6, 2013 12:05 AM
Jan 9, 2013 8:32 PM
61When I went to Europe for the fist time I had made an itinerary that did not consider time restraints.. If the thorntree had been around in those days I would have asked the same question. But, once I was off on that trip I soon figured out that my itinerary was unrealistic. I think it is good advice that I have offered to others but most people will follow it once they go off.
Jan 10, 2013 9:15 PM
62I don't think its fair to suggest that those of us who enjoy whirlwind travel only do so as part of a tour group! The closest I have come to a tour is hiring a taxi/driver for the day in places such as India, the Middle East and North Africa. I enjoy fast travel - I like to see one or 2 highlights of a place before moving on to the next one, if possible by overnight train - (especially easy in Europe). That way I don't waste time travelling and save on hotels. If a place catches my interest I will return. But I'd hate to spend more than 2 full days in any one place on a first visit.
I just think the tone of the sticky is a bit condescending - it gives the impression that if you don't have a long amount of time to spend in each place then its not worth going at all, yet in 2 or even 1 day, its possible to see a lot of one city if you are organised.
Of course I've also had much longer trips, but even then I tend to spend much of the time doing nothing and then one or two days of concentrated sight-seeing. With European trips, its just as easy for me to spend those, "doing nothing" times at home ( UK) and going to a different city every weekend. Luckily, thanks to budget airlines, its affordable too! I was recently in Munich for a day and a half. Did I immerse myself in Bavarian culture? No, of course not, but then that isn't what I wanted. I wanted to see the Deutches museum, the Residenz, Marienplatz ,eat some sausagae and dumplings and drink some beer. I managed that easily in a day and a half and short as it was, it was better than spending that weekend slobbing around at home.
I'm now planning a 12 day trip which will take in Vienna, Budapest, Brasov, Bucharest, Kiev and Lviv. And I may try to break the flight home somewhere for a day. Ido think that I will want to return to Transylvania at a later date as I have only 2 days scheduled there this time and it looks beautiful. I had toyed with the idea of leaving out one or more of the other places to spend longer in Romania, but what if I'm wrong and I dislike it there? and wished I'd spent the time as I originally planned.
While the sticky made good reading, as I said , I do think it sounded rather condescending. And another poster said that the intention was just to let people know that there was an alternative to fast travel - again, very patronising - who doesn't know this??
Jan 11, 2013 6:05 PM
Jan 12, 2013 12:27 AM
Jan 13, 2013 5:25 PM
65"lots of people. Including the gazillion first-time travellers who post impossible itineraries here"
Are you suggesting that people don't know that the alternative to travelling quickly is travelling slowly? Maybe they just want to see as many places as possible and usually it is possible. Not ideal, but possible. You could see 6 European cities in 6 days if you make use of overnight trains and concentrated sight-seeing. I personally wouldn't want to go that fast, but maybe some do. And to suggest that people think there is no alternative to organised break neck speed tours is insulting. They know, they're just not interested.
This is exactly what I mean by patronising!
Jan 13, 2013 10:34 PM
66hiring a taxi/driver for the day in places such as India....? Did not know that India is a place you can visit in one day. Do you have more or other information like this as it is always helpfull to learn from others.
Jan 14, 2013 1:18 AM
67In my (long) experience there are many people who think there is no alternative to 'organised break neck speed tours'.
Lots of people who haven't travelled (or have never travelled in another way) believe that....travelling alone is more 'difficult'...is impossible if you don't speak the local language...is more dangerous...is more expensive.
Usually because of what travel agents or friends/relatives (many of whom have no actual experience of the place themselves) have told them.
This applies everywhere,not only Europe of course.
The amount of people who are amazed when I tell them places I have visited without tours is enormous ;-)
Jan 14, 2013 1:23 AM
68On the point of people 'wanting' to travel like that...I personally believe it is very few.
Of those who have tried both methods of course.Maybe some who want to tick off countries/sites..like a checklist.
I see so many posts/thanks on this site from people who get advice to take it more slowly,do it yourself,don't have too fixed a timetable.
I don't see the opposite.How many people come on here and say they had too MUCH time?
As you say,it is possible.Round the world in a month is possible..that doesn't mean that experienced travellers should be recommending it
Jan 14, 2013 2:52 PM
I never mentioned seeing India in one day, That is clearly ridiculous. I have spent a total of about 9 months in India over 3 visits and still have to go back to see more.I said the closest thing I had taken to a tour was hiring a driver for a day to cover a pre-arranged itinerary and that I had done that in places such as India
But again, this is the kind of smarmy remark that is so typical of these boards.
Jan 14, 2013 3:00 PM
I agree with you. Read my post, it clearly says that I personally wouldn't want to travel that fast. I was just pointing out that it was possible, in reference to the comment that newbies come on here and post impossible itineraries. I have seen many undesirable ones. I have never seen an impossible one.
I think if someone specifically asks for advice on their itinerary, then all well and good, point out that in your opinion, they are taking on too much. But what I have often seen is someone will state their intentions to go from A to B to D and will ask advice on, for example, buses between the places, and instead what they get is a reply telling them they are trying to see too much and how its a waste of time, when all they want to know is how to get from A to B.
And surely the sort of people who believe independent travel is too difficult and unlikely to post on these boards for advice? I see them over on Trip Advisor a lot, but not here!
Jan 14, 2013 3:00 PM
Jan 14, 2013 3:08 PM
72Lucapal - Me. I felt I had too much time! - I had too much time on a recent trip to Egypt, I spent far too much time in Luxor and not enough in Cairo. Due to the problems there I spent just enough time in Cairo to show my O/H the main sites and then we took the nightrain back to Luxor. We'd seen what we wanted to see in Luxor in the first 5 days and were getting antsy on the last couple of days. I wish we'd gone to Aswan, but I'd thought there would be plenty to keep me occupied in Luxor for a week and didn't feel we had enough time to go to Aswan and back. In short, I wish I'd planned to see more places by travelling faster in the time we had.
Jan 14, 2013 6:56 PM
Like it or not, the days that LP catered only to scruffy backpackers on low budgets are long gone.
Keep on flogging your dead horse- many people have found this thread useful, if you don;t- we have taken note. Thank you.
Jan 15, 2013 6:01 PM
74I don't see anything wrong with whirlwind travel. Day 1 Amsterdam, Day 2 Brugge, Day 3 Paris, Day 4 Munich, etc. Why is that not an acceptable way of travel? People call it "checklist travel" and scoff at any traveler describing such an itinerary. Well, to me the checklist traveler is the one who needs to spend 4 days in Paris to check every single highlight off the list before moving on to the next city. Contrary to what you write, I think a large number of travelers actually enjoy whirlwind travel, but there is a stigma on this board in admitting so.
(4 star Hotel)
From US$173.14 per night
(4 star Hotel)
From US$186.91 per night
(5 star Hotel)
From US$491.87 per night