Bridge vs Rebel with 18-300~ zoom

I currently have the following kits:

a) Canon 6D + 17-40 + 70-300 + 85mm f1.8 : I often carry the whole lot with me when I go on a trip and want to have everything covered

b) Eos M + 22mm f2 : I carry it with me all the time, it takes up next to no space in a backpack and it can take really nice pictures

There are times though when I'd like something in between. For example, if I go hiking or on a bicycle ride with my wife there's no way for me to carry all the 6D setup + tripod with me (my back won't allow me), and the Eos-M with just the 22mm prime is not always ideal.

Things that I've been considering are:

a) 100D / Sl1 + a zoom with very wide focal range (18-200 / 18-270 / 16-300 or something like that).

b) Canon SH60 or SH50

c) Buy the 18-200mm Tamron lens for the Eos-M

Cost:

The cheapest solution would be the bridge camera, followed by the M lens, followed (far away) from 100D + lens.

Image quality:

100D + lens should be ahead of the group, not sure about the comparison between the Eos-M and the bridge camera.

Focal range:

The bridge camera wins hands down, especially the SX60 has insane range.

Size/Weight:

Eos M + Lens > Bridge >>> 100D + lens

Other thoughts:

The extra lens for the Eos M would make it a reasonably portable all around kit with a fast prime and a zoom lens with large focal length. Getting a 100D on the other hand would give me an extra camera to use my other lenses with, so on a trip where I can carry all my gear I could keep the 17-40 on my 6D and the 70-400 on the 100D for extra reach. The bridge camera has the convenience of being able to handle basically any focal length I can think of with good image quality.

The wallet is making me lean towards either the M lens or the bridge camera, but any suggestion will be greatly appreciated!