web Musings of The Global Traveller

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Travel to Remote Places

This recent thread on Flyer Talk has given me some great ideas for off the beaten track locales to visit. However, it also got me thinking about what remote means to different people.

There seems to be a wide range of interpretations including:

  • far away
  • hard (or expensive) to get to
  • unpopulated (or low populated)
  • rural
  • wilderness
  • less developed
  • somewhere few people have been
  • somewhere few tourists have been

That then lead me to wonder - if its somewhere you can get to as a tourist, is it really that remote? Does publicly commenting on a spot make it less remote - perhaps not now but over time? If its easy to get to, except for regulations or other bureaucracy limiting visitor numbers, can it still be considered remote?

Does perception of remoteness vary according to what you can see or hear? For example, if your in a wilderness area and there is a main flight path overhead which you can see aircraft flying, or a highway behind that hill which you can hear traffic travelling, is it still remote? Conversely, if you are in a secluded spot in a major city park or reserve and unable to see or hear any sign of the city, is that remote?

Are there any places that are truely remote left?

No comments: