European leg of an RTW trip

By two days, I hope you mean 3 nights. Takes a day for travel, bed to bed. Takes a half day for your free b'fast at a decent youth hostel and get your barings. Breakfasts stop being served at b10 am.

Don't rush. We learn valuable stuff by talking With folks. That's another plus of yh. Very important. You'll learn things that you wouldn't find in one or two books.

These places are people too. From everywhere. They have much to teach us. And that's really why we go.

Cordova can be a day trip. Maybe better to stay here, in Seville for a few. A good center for learning about Andelucia. And a hub for travel.

But then, day trips don't do either party justice.
The more extra nights stay, the more you get from your travels. We don't know of a place's potential till we get there and hang out.

www.hostelz.com

Also hope that x days = x+1 nights. If not - throw out 1/3 of the short "2 days" places - or reduce less interesting places (like Munich, remove the Disney-Neuschwanstein, Köln..)
But even if you have forgot the travelling days and actually only want to stay in those "2d" palces for a single full day I think you have a problem! If I just add the numbers in your list I reach a few days more than 90.
Maybe you have forgot to update your list of Schengen countries - they are today:

Belgium France Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Italy Austria Greece Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden AND of 21 December 2007: Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Slovakia Slovenia

I do not think that a 90 days limit for tourists is unusual at all - EU citizens will meet that limit when visiting most states and unions

Hi everyone,

Thank you for your replies. I shall take into consideration reducing the number of days spent in some places and maybe doing them as a day trip, to make sure the time spent looking for accomodation is minimized. Any other locations that people think we could spend less time in, without missing out on much? Also, any locations on my list where we really should spend more time than currently allocated?

gawkabout, I'm aware of the time that should be allocated to travel. But I've arranged the itinerary so that with a handful of exceptions, all travel between the cities should take between 1-4 hours, so that we hopefully don't waste more than half a day going from one hotel to the next. We're also going to try to do some of the longer travel legs at night (the ferry from the UK to the Netherlands or the train trip from Fes to Marrakech).

Bjoern, I'm fairly sure that I'm not exceeding the number of days spent in Schengen countries, as this was an important consideration when planning this trip. Keep in mind that my itinerary detailed above covers 153-156 days, and it includes Romania (21d), Morocco (18d), Turkey (18d) and England (7d), which are not part of the Schengen zone.

I didn't say that the 90 days limit was unusual, but I think that the EU should re-examine its requirements, since it has extended so quickly over the past few years and never changed them. The Schengen zone now covers a very large area, with the 3rd highest population in the world and a myriad of tourist sites. I think that it should at least allow for the possibility that some tourists can buy a 6 month tourist visa if they so choose. Right now, the only visa a Canadian citizen like me can apply for is a work or residence one for a specific country.

I appreciate the comments on travelling slower and the itinerary is not really set in stone. However, I wanted to have a good idea of it before leaving: we're going to be booking places only a few days in advance, so we can always skip some places if we feel it's all just a big rush. As for avoiding some places such as Neuschwanstein, because they are "Disney-like": I've been to some places which I would not return to because they are just too commercial, but I don't regret going there; I think that very touristy sites are that way for a reason and they should be visited at least once. We're planning on returning to Europe and we have already been to places like France and Italy, so it's not like we want to see all of it in this short amount of time. But at the very least we want to go to a good chunk of the places that we've always dreamed of. I think that right now we actually want to see the touristy sites before we feel like we need to go off the beaten path and spend time with locals. And if we get sick of rushing from one tourist-trap to another, nothing is set in stone and we can always change our plans.

Also, another consideration for us is that we're going to Egypt, India and South-east Asia after this, so we can't extend the time we spend in Europe too much without making the other trips crammed.

Edited by: tavi

Would it not be cheaper to fly from London to Amsterdam instead of getting the boat from Harwich? Have a look at ryanair and easyjet and see.

Also, Schengen is fine as it is. I just wish that the UK were as strict with their laws instead of letting every tom dick and harry in to stay as long as they want, but that's another discussion and not one for this thread.

If you intend returning to Europe as you say then why not save Spain and Portugal for another time? You're going a long way out of the way, geographically, to see those countries.

Thanks, I'll look into flyign from London to Amsterdam. The good thing about the ferry is that it runs overnight, so we can use that to save some money on accomodation. I'm not quite sure on whether we would save any sight-seeing time or not by taking a boat vs air.

Spain is one the countries we're looking most forward to on our trip, and it also provides a convenient spot from which to go to Morocco. Portugal we may still skip though.

"But I've arranged the itinerary so that with a handful of exceptions, all travel between the cities should take between 1-4 hours, so that we hopefully don't waste more than half a day going from one hotel to the next."

The reality is that even a move of 2 hours by train from one place to another ends up taking the majority of your day to do. A good rule of thumb is to plan on no less than 3 days/4 nights anywhere unless it is just an overnight stop enroute to somewhere.

I count 52 travel days in your plan (including 3 for Greek island hopping). That's a THIRD of your time on the move! It's not that it can't be done, but I don't think you will find anyone here who thinks it is a good idea. Go slow, see more.

"I'm a little worried that there is just too much to see and perhaps we have not allocated enough time to rest;" Your worry will without a doubt be justified with this hectic schedule. From my point of view, you have made one of the two classic mistakes of travel. Trying to cover too much in too little time. The other classic mistake is packing too much stuff.

You now have 5 people who have responded to your post. All 5 have said it's too much. Why did you post if not to listen? Take heed.

Edited by: BpGuruagain

Second #7: you check out at hotel/hostel - take bus or tram to main railway station - probably (hopefully) arrive far to early (you do not know how long it takes in city where you have only been 1-2 days) - stand in line for booking a seat (maybe) - wait for train - travel your 1-4 hours. arrive - walks around to find an ATM to get the currency - find the right bus/metro to hotel, realize that you must go to a kiosk to buy tickets - get tickets- back to bus - gets off two stop to late - walk back - get your bed/room (if booked - if not have to locate another ho(s)tel) - get back downtown to start you holiday in that city.....
All that has added 4 hours to your "1 day travel"

Thanks everyone. It's not that I don't want to listen to what people have to say, it's simply that I want to make sure that I properly explain my rationale before people pass judgement on it. I will think about taking out some stops here and there, reducing both travel days and extending time spent in other places.

What would people say is a reasonable ratio of days spent travelling vs days spent in one spot. 1 to 5? I guess it depends on people's personality, age and fitness, but I would like to hear from people who have taken extended trips before. My wife and I are both in our late twenties, by the way.

As I said tavi, a good rule of thumb is to plan on no less than 3 days/4 nights anywhere unless it is just an overnight stop enroute to somewhere.

Here are a couple of other things to consider. Every day actually travelling generally costs double what a day sitting somewhere costs. So the more days you stay in a place the better for your budget. Many places in Europe will give you a better price for a room if you book 3 nights or more.

The tendency of many travellers is to try to cover too much in too little time. Depending on our country of origin this manifests itself in one of two ways, both having to do with distance. People from Europe going to Canada, the USA or Australia for example tend to underestimate distances between places of interest. So they write about going to the USA for 3 weeks and driving from NYC to LA and ask, 'what are the must sees'. Ignoring the fact they will spend 8 hours a day every day in the car driving. Conversely, people from Australia will write about going to Europe and spending 3 days in each of France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, etc. They ignore the fact that there is as much to see in any 1 of those countries as there is to see in Australia and very little distance needs to be travelled to see something new.

So when you ask how much time to spend in a place vs. days of travel, I would suggest you think like this. Ignoring travel days for the moment, how many days would you say I need to really see your country? Allow the same number of days in each country in Europe.

Of course that means you will visit far less countries than you originally wanted to but the point is you will see and do far more in those you do visit. It's all about finding a balance. That balance will vary by individual depending on interests etc. but a day in Florence and 2 in Venice does not equate to having seen Florence and Venice. If you only have 4 days to spend, pick one or the other, it still won't be enough but it will be better than trying to do both. You could spend your 150 days in just 3 countries and really get a feel for them. Spending 50 of those days travelling between places though would still be a real waste of your time. Five nights in each of 5 places in each of 3 countries is a far better balance than 3 nights in each of 5 places in each of 10 countries.

One has 12 travel days and the other has 40 travel days. One allows you to find those little out of the way villages with the memorable little family restaurant where the food cooked by 'mama' deserves a Michelin star. The other only allows you to find food that good if you are willing to book and pay for a Michelin starred restaurant listed in a guide book. One lets you discover a little back street gallery with original old book prints of the area that will make an excellent souvenir when framed and hung at home. The other lets you visit only the major national galleries where you'll pay through the nose for a cheap reproduction print of a famous painting which when taken home and hung could have as easily been bought at home.

I have neighbours who are going to visit Greece in April. Only for 3 weeks, only to 5 places in Greece, on a cruise. Not what I would suggest for you, but then, they are 85 and 78 years old. They don't have as much time as you do. You'll have time to come back again.