Journals

Today I read an article on Charles Veley, a strong contender for the title of "the world's most travelled man" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/feb/28/charles-veley-most-travelled-person?page=all), whose total stands at 813 "countries". Since the UN only recognises 193 different nations, clearly this is a more complicated (and contested) partition of the world- his site, http://mosttraveledpeople.com/ , maintains a master list of 871 destinations. The Traveler's Century Club, meanwhile, is open to anyone who has visited at least one hundred of the 319 countries they distinguish.   The next obvious question, having established the 'there's, is what it means to have visited one of them. Sarah Palin aside, a visit confined to the airport is generally agreed to be insufficient, but is simply clearing the border enough? Although I only spent a few hours visiting Malmo, it still seems fair to say I've /been/ there- but having not spent the night, perhaps I haven't stayed there yet. Is it enough to take photos? To eat local food? Should you stay until you have a story to tell, or have made a friend? Veley does at least seem keen to do more than simply collect stamps in his passport - the story opens with his observation that "there's always a bar".   Although I found the article interesting (and couldn't resist computing my own, barely double-digit, totals) I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea of 'competitive travel'. Certainly I'm keen to increase my total, but to me the motivation should be the travelling itself, not simply collecting points for a shot at the high score board. For instance, I'd much rather explore more of Norway (despite three previous trips) than visit countries I wouldn't expect to enjoy!   But I can't help wondering who SoSauce's most travelled person might be...