What is considered traveling around the world?

Veröffentlicht: 17. Juli 2022, 14:20 Uhr

Aktualisiert: 09. Juni 2025, 23:07 Uhr

Von: wom87

Many people say they want to "have traveled to the world", but how can we quantify that? Visited countries? Pass stamp? Exceeded boundaries?

How many times did you hear someone say? Or read a blog post about it? Seen in an Instagram status or on a bucket list? Many people (including me) say that they want to "travel around the world", but how can we quantify that? According to the number of countries visited? Stamp in our passports? Exceeded boundaries? Experienced cultures?

Kia asked this question some time ago and received an answer from Jay Wacker, a former Stanford professor who offered Hasbros risk card as a measure and suggested that they can say that they traveled the world as soon as they visited half of the areas-that is 21 out of 42 in total.

Since April 2014, Kia and I have traveled in 15 or 16 risk card regions, but none of us saw the Pacific Ocean or was in South America. Our first big journey is without a doubt our boldest journey so far and will we surely have the honor of having traveled to the world?

Apart from the Antarctic, we will have seen every continent with a total of 60 or 70 countries in the 21 areas that are necessary to qualify as a “world traveler”.

Everyone will have their own criteria to answer this question. Regardless of whether it is countries, continents, cultures, languages or territories of the risk card, below you will find some interesting points that you should take into account.

The European problem

Europe is one of the smallest continents related to the land mass (only oceania is smaller); It is the third largest among the population, but has the second highest number of countries - 47 - which makes it one of the most densest and most compact continents in terms of population and borders.

I have traveled to over 30 European countries, which is in no way a relationship with the other continents that I visited.

Alt = “traveling the world” The crossing of Europe will cross many countries, but does it offer a number of cultures and people?

If I visited them all, it would make up about a quarter of all countries in the world, but only make up 6.8 % of the world's land mass. If I had visited all the countries of Africa (54), I would have visited over half of all countries in the world, but only two continents and less than a quarter of the land mass on earth - less than Asia alone.

Traveling through Europe alone will travel many countries, but would it really offer a number of cultures and people?

The Russia problem

I was in two cities in Russia - St. Petersburg and Moscow - and thanks to Russia's ridiculous size, I won half of Asia on the world map. I only visited a handful of states from the United States, but won a country that extends over a continent that extends from the Pacific to Atlantic. I saw a relatively small percentage of China, but win a country that is almost as big as Europe.

Alt = ““ I visited the red marked countries - 75 in December 2019

In Jay's answer to Quora, he emphasizes the difference between visiting a city and traveling through the country of a country: "When you visit Moscow, that's okay, you were in Russia. If you are slowly traveling through all Oblasts, you have certainly traveled more of the world."

I don't want to be the type of traveler who are only interested in deleting countries from a list (although I have a list). I prefer to travel landscapes and climb mountains. At the same time, I'm not a travel nob. I was in Russia. I hope that one day I can take the Trans -Siberian Railway across Russia and see more of it, but now, if someone asks about it, I was in Russia.

The stopover

When changing in South Korea on the way back from Cambodia, I had to kill six hours. I didn't really like Incheon's international airport, as modern and charming, so I had my passport stamped, climbed into a shuttle train and drove into the city.

To say that I saw Seoul would be a lie, but I saw something from Seoul - enough to get a strange stomach of a few rope noodles from a street snack.

Under the use of the risk map criteria, I somehow won the territory of Mongolia, which in my opinion, to say the least, is a little unfair. Kia had done the same trip a few weeks earlier and spent her time wandering through the lounge of the airport so that she did not (rather sour) conquer the territory.

I had stopped at some airports in countries that I didn't really visit, and I do not add them to the list of countries I visited (Doha in Qatar and Colombo in Sri Lanka).

I think if you don't cross the border and get a stamp (or the like), it doesn't count. I will take South Korea (and Mongolia) with me because I took the time to enter and see something (if only a very small part) of the country. But Qatar and Sri Lanka don't make it.

Which list?

There are officially only 191 countries that are not contested. Nevertheless, there are up to 257 countries or states in the world - that is a rather large discrepancy. There are all kinds of problems: certain states are recognized by some countries and not by others; Some are protectorates of former imperies; Members of the Commonwealth; Unclear autonomous regions and some are claimed by other countries.

Deciding what a country is actually can be a political swamp. Is Taiwan an independent country? Not according to the UN or China. The Palestinian areas? Kosovo? It depends on who you ask.

Recently we had the opportunity to take a day trip to Montserrat on a trip to the Caribbean. At first I thought it was an independent country, but actually it is a British overseas area. I didn't even know that these things still exist - isn't the empire dead?

I downloaded a fairly comprehensive list of the world states. There are 245 on my list, including the 192 member states of the UN. I cross those I visited and add a date. So far is the only one who is not a UN member state, the Vatican city ... God knows what I will do when I ever visit the Falkland Islands/Malvinas ...

The risk map is

Alt = "" "to reach half of the 42 different regions on the risk card is a better sample of the world"

After a long superior, I chose the risk map. This is by no means ideal, because there are still problems-to say the most likely the South Korea/Mongolia dilemma mentioned above.

However, the problems of Russia and Europe are concerned. My trip to Moscow and St. Petersburg means that I only win Ukraine. Likewise, New York only brings me the east of the USA, in contrast to two countries that extend over entire continents. And when I tick the 47 odd countries in Europe, I will only win seven areas.

Finally, the political and potentially controversial swamp of the country lists is navigated. The risk card is divided into regions that include roughly geopolitical areas, and does not try to include all countries or their true limits. The names on the risk card are quite confusing, although they are actually irrelevant. It is the areas that you cover that are important.

Against this background, I will judge whether I have traveled to the world or not by using Jay's train of thought: "To reach half of the 42 different regions on the map of Risk is a better sample in the world."

I think he's right and it's a good game that you can play ... although it is probably fruitless. As soon as I have the 21, I start thinking about visiting the other 21.

No matter how I measure my trips, I have the bug.

If you liked this article, we recommend Simon Garfields Excellent on the Map: Why the World Seen The Way It Does.