Travelling around Europe

Magda wrote:


On 30 Mar 2007 06:20:08 -0700, in rec.travel.europe, "Valmir"
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Hi,
...
... I'm thinking about to travel around Europe at the end of this year.
... I'd like to meet the following cities.

Greet them for me.

The number in the brackets are
... the days I intend to expend in each city:
...
... Rome (4)
... Florence (2)
... Piza Just stop to take pictures
... Barcelona (3)
... Madri (3)
... Porto (1)
... Lisboa (2)
... Berlin (?)
... London (5)
... Liverpool (2)
... Paris (5)
...
... Somebody that had already been in this places could advice me if the
... days I planned are enough? I culdn't find a friend that had been in
... Berlin, and I have no idea of how much time to expend there.

It depends on your interests, I suppose. What do you intend to do during your stay?



Aren't you going to offer to play tour guide...???

:-)

--
Best
Greg

On Mar 31, 3:29 am, Markku Grönroos wrote:
"Iceman" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

I think trains are a great way to see Europe. You get to see the
scenery instead of just flying between city centers and not seeing
anything in between, and it's a lot more pleasant than being on a
plane and being in airports. It's certainly possible to do your

People do NOT fly between city centers. Airports reside well outside city
centers unlike train terminals. Some older airports stand pretty close to
downtown like Tempelhof in Berlin (which is the main reason for it's
abolition). It is common that modern airports are built at least 20
kilometers out from big cities. For instance Gardermoen sits about 40
kilometers away from downtown Oslo. Therefore tranfser times tend to be
substantially longer from city centres to airports than to railway stations.
Moreover, it is typically possible and quite easy to buy a train ticket
beforehand on carrier's internet pages (or by a phone call). Therefore there
is little time friction at train terminals compared to airports: when a
traveller arrives in a train station, he can just walk in a car and occupy
his seat. To an airport he must arrive in much earlier in order to pass all
those "check" and "check in" points. Naturally for legs lengthier than 1000
kilometers flying is a true time saver.


I agree that many airports are not close to city centers - which when
you consider airport security and getting to and from airports, is why
trains are often roughly as fast as planes for short trips. Planes
are of course faster on longer trips.

My point is that if you just fly between cities you don't see
everything in between.

An advantage to flying, or at least to taking some flights while doing
most traveling by train or bus, is that you don't have to keep a
strictly linear or circular itinerary.

"Iceman" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

An advantage to flying, or at least to taking some flights while doing
most traveling by train or bus, is that you don't have to keep a
strictly linear or circular itinerary.

Naturally one can pick one destination here and another there far apart from
each other in Europe. Actually I find circular routes ideal in many respect.
You can stick to one sub-region of Europe, for instance one single country.
Let's say a traveller is on one month's leave for the first time to Europe.
He has made his mind to travel exclusively in Italy this time. This country
definitely keeps anyone busy for such a short ride. Actually he may consider
visiting only a few provinces in Italy. And flying in this selected region
becomes quite unecessary. Actually someting unavoidable. Some people say
that instant whims are better over carefully planned routing. They are wrong
though.

On Mar 31, 12:09 pm, Markku Grönroos wrote:
"Iceman" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

An advantage to flying, or at least to taking some flights while doing
most traveling by train or bus, is that you don't have to keep a
strictly linear or circular itinerary.

Naturally one can pick one destination here and another there far apart from
each other in Europe.


For example, if you have already traveled extensively to most of the
major destinations in Europe and the remaining places which you are
most interested in are far apart from one another. What if you've
already seen England, France, Germany and Italy, and want to see
Spain, Greece, Prague, Budapest, and Scandinavia?

Actually I find circular routes ideal in many respect.


I think linear routes often make more sense, if you can arrange to fly
into one city and out of another. For the original poster, for
example, going all the way to Portugal and back will take a lot of
time, as will going all the way to Berlin and back.

You can stick to one sub-region of Europe, for instance one single country.


I personally think that intensive trips in smaller areas are more
rewarding than seeing lots of places superficially, but I understand
that many people disagree.

Let's say a traveller is on one month's leave for the first time to Europe.
He has made his mind to travel exclusively in Italy this time. This country
definitely keeps anyone busy for such a short ride. Actually he may consider
visiting only a few provinces in Italy. And flying in this selected region
becomes quite unecessary. Actually someting unavoidable.


Yes - of course if you only want to visit one European country there
is no reason to fly.

Some people say that instant whims are better over carefully planned routing.
They are wrong though.


While traveling, I often meet locals or other travelers who have
information about interesting places I might not have thought of, or
even who want to travel together to places which were not on my list.
I like that kind of freedom. Travel is more than just seeing sights
A, B and C and then moving on to the next city to see sights D, E and
F. I don't like being tied down to a set number of days - if a place
has a lot more of interest than I initially thought, or if it really
sucks, then I want to be able to spend more or less time there.
There's a lot you find out from being in a place that you can't really
know when you're sitting in your home with a Lonely Planet book.
Could I have known that Marseilles, Brussels, and Liverpool were
actually very interesting cities, and not simply places you stop for a
bit on the way to somewhere else?

Iceman wrote:

On Mar 31, 12:09 pm, Markku Grönroos wrote:
[]
Some people say that instant whims are better over carefully planned
routing. They are wrong though.


While traveling, I often meet locals or other travelers who have
information about interesting places I might not have thought of, or
even who want to travel together to places which were not on my list.
I like that kind of freedom. Travel is more than just seeing sights
A, B and C and then moving on to the next city to see sights D, E and
F. I don't like being tied down to a set number of days - if a place
has a lot more of interest than I initially thought, or if it really
sucks, then I want to be able to spend more or less time there.
There's a lot you find out from being in a place that you can't really
know when you're sitting in your home with a Lonely Planet book.
Could I have known that Marseilles, Brussels, and Liverpool were
actually very interesting cities, and not simply places you stop for a
bit on the way to somewhere else?

On our recent longer trips, we've usually planned how many days we'd
spend in each place, and it's worked out well. I think there are fun
aspects to both kind of trip (planned and unplanned) myself. And there's
nothing wrong about travelling on a whim either. We're off to Venice on
Friday for two days on a whim- or rather because Ryanair happened to
have pretty cheap flights to Treviso those days when I checked skycanner
last night...

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

"Iceman" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...


For example, if you have already traveled extensively to most of the
major destinations in Europe and the remaining places which you are
most interested in are far apart from one another. What if you've
already seen England, France, Germany and Italy, and want to see
Spain, Greece, Prague, Budapest, and Scandinavia?

I have nothing against such plans. Actually by criss crossing Europe, one
can see how diverse it is in many respect. However, even most experienced
travellers to Europe has touched it only marginally relative to all the
interesting and worth visiting places and sites of Europe. This itinerary
above is possible but never "necessary".


Actually I find circular routes ideal in many respect.


I think linear routes often make more sense, if you can arrange to fly
into one city and out of another. For the original poster, for
example, going all the way to Portugal and back will take a lot of
time, as will going all the way to Berlin and back.

This is true. I would say the selection of leisure travel destinations are
always arbitrary. Why Portugal, why not sticking to Berlin and it's
surroundings. Or why Berlin, why not cruising solely in the Iberian
peninsula. And so worth and so worth. Time in use is one factor. Pure greed
another. Greed? Over an year ago I bought four air tickets to cater a route
Tallinn-Berlin-Rome. All this by 80.96 euros (tickets had been 13 euros
cheaper if I had had a debit card in hand to pay for them). I had nine days
for travelling and thought that why not. It was primarily the economical
tickets which made me to spend my holiday as I did.

In newspapers one can read that Estonia is a popular holiday destination
among the Brits in these days because beer and booze is cheap there. Well,
what an argument for a trip far away from home.......



Some people say that instant whims are better over carefully planned
routing.
They are wrong though.


While traveling, I often meet locals or other travelers who have
information about interesting places I might not have thought of, or
even who want to travel together to places which were not on my list.

Absolutely. I didn't mean to say that well planned has to be rigid.
Naturally one will do alterations to his plans often, for instance
concerning what he is going to do and where next day. As simple a reason as
a temporary closure of a museum which is not mentioned in travel guides will
result them.

Markku Grönroos wrote:

[]
In newspapers one can read that Estonia is a popular holiday destination
among the Brits in these days because beer and booze is cheap there. Well,
what an argument for a trip far away from home.......

But for a trip near to home it's OK? I was tripping over drunken Finns
in Tallinn. I think I saw you three or four times.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Mar 31, 12:57 pm, Markku Grönroos wrote:
"Iceman" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

For example, if you have already traveled extensively to most of the
major destinations in Europe and the remaining places which you are
most interested in are far apart from one another. What if you've
already seen England, France, Germany and Italy, and want to see
Spain, Greece, Prague, Budapest, and Scandinavia?

I have nothing against such plans. Actually by criss crossing Europe, one
can see how diverse it is in many respect. However, even most experienced
travellers to Europe has touched it only marginally relative to all the
interesting and worth visiting places and sites of Europe. This itinerary
above is possible but never "necessary".


Actually, I find myself traveling more and more to the fringes, having
already been to most of the major destinations in Europe, Asia and the
Middle East, in some cases multiple times. Of course there is a lot
more to see in many of the places I have already been, but when you
don't have a lot of time to travel you have to prioritize.

Actually I find circular routes ideal in many respect.
I think linear routes often make more sense, if you can arrange to fly
into one city and out of another. For the original poster, for
example, going all the way to Portugal and back will take a lot of
time, as will going all the way to Berlin and back.

This is true. I would say the selection of leisure travel destinations are
always arbitrary. Why Portugal, why not sticking to Berlin and it's
surroundings. Or why Berlin, why not cruising solely in the Iberian
peninsula.


Well, if someone has never been to Europe before then they probably
have a lot of places which they really want to see. They're usually
going to want to "do" seven countries in three weeks rather than
spending three weeks in Provence.

And so worth and so worth. Time in use is one factor. Pure greed
another. Greed?


It's not "greed" so much as economics. For example, because of the
weak dollar, a lot of American backpackers are going to Eastern Europe
instead of Western.

Over an year ago I bought four air tickets to cater a route
Tallinn-Berlin-Rome. All this by 80.96 euros (tickets had been 13 euros
cheaper if I had had a debit card in hand to pay for them). I had nine days
for travelling and thought that why not. It was primarily the economical
tickets which made me to spend my holiday as I did.


Yes - cheap flights have opened up a lot of possibilities - middle-
class Londoners can now take frequent weekend trips all over Europe.

In newspapers one can read that Estonia is a popular holiday destination
among the Brits in these days because beer and booze is cheap there. Well,
what an argument for a trip far away from home.......


They promote Estonia as a destination for packs of young men because
of the cheap strip clubs and beer, and you can do things like shoot
machine guns and have a crash derby with old Soviet cars. There is
still a lot of history and culture and architecture for those visitors
who want something more than a $0.50 beer and $5 lap dance.

Just letting you know that a good website for finding cheap flights to
Estonia is www.FerrisFlights.com.

On 31 Mar, 18:21, "Iceman" wrote:
On Mar 31, 12:57 pm, Markku Grönroos wrote:

"Iceman" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

For example, if you have already traveled extensively to most of the
major destinations in Europe and the remaining places which you are
most interested in are far apart from one another. What if you've
already seen England, France, Germany and Italy, and want to see
Spain, Greece, Prague, Budapest, and Scandinavia?

I have nothing against such plans. Actually by criss crossing Europe, one
can see how diverse it is in many respect. However, even most experienced
travellers to Europe has touched it only marginally relative to all the
interesting and worth visiting places and sites of Europe. This itinerary
above is possible but never "necessary".

Actually, I find myself traveling more and more to the fringes, having
already been to most of the major destinations in Europe, Asia and the
Middle East, in some cases multiple times. Of course there is a lot
more to see in many of the places I have already been, but when you
don't have a lot of time to travel you have to prioritize.

Actually I find circular routes ideal in many respect.
I think linear routes often make more sense, if you can arrange to fly
into one city and out of another. For the original poster, for
example, going all the way to Portugal and back will take a lot of
time, as will going all the way to Berlin and back.

This is true. I would say the selection of leisure travel destinations are
always arbitrary. Why Portugal, why not sticking to Berlin and it's
surroundings. Or why Berlin, why not cruising solely in the Iberian
peninsula.

Well, if someone has never been to Europe before then they probably
have a lot of places which they really want to see. They're usually
going to want to "do" seven countries in three weeks rather than
spending three weeks in Provence.

And so worth and so worth. Time in use is one factor. Pure greed
another. Greed?

It's not "greed" so much as economics. For example, because of the
weak dollar, a lot of American backpackers are going to Eastern Europe
instead of Western.

Over an year ago I bought four air tickets to cater a route
Tallinn-Berlin-Rome. All this by 80.96 euros (tickets had been 13 euros
cheaper if I had had a debit card in hand to pay for them). I had nine days
for travelling and thought that why not. It was primarily the economical
tickets which made me to spend my holiday as I did.

Yes -cheapflightshave opened up a lot of possibilities - middle-
class Londoners can now take frequent weekend trips all over Europe.

In newspapers one can read that Estonia is a popular holiday destination
among the Brits in these days because beer and booze ischeapthere. Well,
what an argument for a trip far away from home.......

They promote Estonia as a destination for packs of young men because
of thecheapstrip clubs and beer, and you can do things like shoot
machine guns and have a crash derby with old Soviet cars. There is
still a lot of history and culture and architecture for those visitors
who want something more than a $0.50 beer and $5 lap dance.

Make credence recognised that on Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:12:54 +0100,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) has scripted:

Markku Grönroos wrote:

[]
In newspapers one can read that Estonia is a popular holiday destination
among the Brits in these days because beer and booze is cheap there. Well,
what an argument for a trip far away from home.......

But for a trip near to home it's OK? I was tripping over drunken Finns
in Tallinn. I think I saw you three or four times.

I saw him hauling huge amounts of booze on his back in the direction
of the port. It was enough to make me wonder just how dull Helsinki
really is.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--