I know it is a very nice 'problem' to have, but...
DP and I have found two beautiful venues. Neither are completely 'perfect' and so it's a pros/cons situation.
We have made lists and talked about it until we are blue in the face with no decision! There are lots of small children coming, and I don't want to be the subject of an AIBU thread want it to be comfortable and easy for everyone.
So, MN jury, would you rather attend a wedding at...
Venue 1.
Pros: City centre location, 10 minute walk from train station. Beautiful and spacious. Lots of outside space for kids to play. Easy to find as city 'landmark'.
Cons: it doesn't have a licence for ceremonies, so we would have the ceremony ten minutes down the road at an art gallery, a bit squished if all our guests came, and you can only hire one room. People would then walk to reception venue (or we could lay on a bus in case raining? Wedding is in the Autumn!)
Venue 2.
Pros: ceremony and reception in one place. Equally spacious and beautiful. On site accommodation for wedding party.
Cons: 30 minutes drive out of city centre, a 'middle of nowhere'-ish location so poor to no phone reception, and people not staying on site have a 30 min drive back to city or 10/15 minutes to nearest village. (We would also lay on transport/shuttle service, and make sure there was pleeeenty of food, but I do worry that if people did need to nip back for something, we are sort of stuck and it is a hassle?)
Now I have written it out maybe we should just keep looking 
Both have great food (a priority for us!) and great local reputation. Both offer child-friendly meals, and a 'chill out' room that we could put games, colouring books etc in.
If I were being totally selfish I would probably go for venue 2, as I do think it is less hassle to get married and have party in one place, and it is beautiful. But of course I won't enjoy the day if people aren't having a good time, and I have always enjoyed city venues more as a guest.
So..which wedding would you rather attend? Which should we go for?