Talk:Next-to-impossible destinations/Archive 1

Criteria?

I added 'Ilha da Queimada Grande' (snake island) in Brazil because it is extremely dangerous to visit, and forbidden by the Brazilian navy in any case. To me this counts as a 'next to impossible' destination, although geographically it is not that remote. Does this kind of destination count? Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does. There should be both an absence of regular/frequent transportation (or for land areas; roads) and no services to speak of at the destination. If there are additional nasty surprises on the island itself it's only a bonus for an article like this one.

I've listed Sealand too. It can be seen from the English coast, but the royal family isn't letting people in so easily. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm also wondering:

• Is it cheating to use large swathes of land such as "Northern Canada and Alaska" ?
• There are countless islands in the world that qualify for this article. Should there be some interesting about them as well?

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] I think the title of this article is misleading. Just because Saudi Arabia doesn't offer tourist visas doesn't mean it's hard to go there for the Hajj if you're a Muslim or on business, regardless of your religion, if you have an invitation. And some of the other listed places aren't close to impossible to get to, just very expensive and time-consuming. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also be careful to categorize Mecca and Medina as 'difficult to get into' for non-Muslims. It is simply not allowed. You could lie about your religion in which case they are not hard to get to at all, although it would be morally questionable and potentially very dangerous. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There are aircraft which fly to the three Canadian territories and Alaska. There are some specific points (such as a national park 600km north of Grise Fiord) which are really hard to get to, and Nunavut in general is impossible by road (unlike Whitehorse. Yellowknife and the Alaska Highway, which are awkward but possible). An uninhabited island in the high Arctic would be awkward to reach, though, much like the North and South Pole aren't easy to get to. K7L (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Impossible to get to by road" does not equal next-to-impossible to get to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Should this article be retitled "Difficult-to-get-to destinations"? Even then, just how difficult is it to fly or take a cruise somewhere inaccessible by road? Expensive, time-consuming, but how difficult? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "Challenging-to-access destinations"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A populated place with no road will likely have either a coastal outport ferry or a bush plane, unless there are other factors rendering the point inaccessible. There's a huge stretch of coast between Sept-Îles and Blanc Sablon like that, plus a few remote villages in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's not quite the same as an Area 51#Get in entry of "Join the United States Air Force. Prove your mettle as one heck of a test pilot. Get a really high security clearance and a prototype warplane to test that operationally requires your presence at this site." For that matter, an unpopulated island in Nunavut would be hard to reach as there is no scheduled service and no infrastructure. K7L (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

When this topic was proposed I was expecting it would be filled with lists of places that are visited by only a tiny handful of people each year, and the text would include interesting discussions of how one might arrange a trip to those places. Some of the most remote areas of Antarctica or very remote islands like Palmyra Atoll would fit that description. To me that would make for a far more interesting topic than one that includes places that are expensive to reach but are still visited by thousands of travelers each year like the Antarctic Peninsula or South Georgia Island. I think a good rule of thumb for this article might be that if you can join an organized tour to the place, it isn't "next-to-impossible" to reach. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That would definitely knock Mecca off the list as Hajj is as beaten-path as it gets. K7L (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

How about climbing Mount Everest? My (limited) understanding is that it requires a planned tour no matter how proficient you are... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be very dangerous to climb Mount Everest, and several (I think 14 or so?) people lost their lives on the slopes last year. However, so many people have climbed that there is a major problem with garbage and human waste on the mountain, so no, I really don't think it's "next-to-impossible" to visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are some comments from the person who's written most of the article:

It was very hard to come up with a suitable name for the article, so I just used Ryan's suggestion here. Feel free to come up with a more suitable name and move the article.

Many places might not be as difficult to reach as people believe, including the South Pole, and totally inaccessible such as Area 51. But if they aren't there, someone will wonder why they aren't and perhaps add them. Therefore it's better to have them there with a disclaimer.

Concerning how difficult it should be to get to a place for it to qualify for this list; well, for example Pitcairn Islands can be accessed by a passenger ferry that visits the island four times a year. I think Pitcairn would qualify. The same with Tristan da Cunha.

I would not place Everest or other mountains on the list for the reasons Ikan just outlined, nor any dive site. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would just say that an article such as this wanting to go somewhere REALLY off the beaten track is a great idea. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a good idea, and I could easily see this eventually becoming a ftt, but I wouldn't want that to preclude also featuring any of the linked destination articles as otbp. So how about "Difficult-to-access destinations"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Difficult to access" is more accurate, but rather lacking the sense of adventure with which the article was trying to capture. How about "Extremely remote destinations" ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the ring of that, but I guess some of these destinations aren't remote, just off-limits? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Distance has little correlation with inaccessibility. Many faraway places are on the beaten path. One can drive huge distances on the Pan-American or Trans-Siberian Highway but try to drive to Fort Severn, Ontario? There is no road. Prepare the bush plane for takeoff. Everest Base Camp Trek's accessibility or inaccessibility has little to do with its geographic distance; apparently there's a really tall hill there or something? Hajj is a mecca of beaten path travel (to invoke a well-worn cliché), even if they didn't like your Israeli passport, so shouldn't be in the article. K7L (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Muslims are welcome as Hajis in Mecca. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Other possible titles Where few have stepped before or Unknown destinations ... actually this is hard. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Where few have stepped before" is not bad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

...or maybe "Inaccessible destinations"? K7L (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't 'inaccessible' mean that they can't be accessed? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and some of these are merely expensive and time-consuming to access, but "inaccessible" has a non-literal feel to me, whereas "next-to-impossible" really sounds literal. Perhaps you read these differently. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on the name?

While I am not really enthused with any of the proposed names (maybe we could split it with this article only listing the really tough nuts and another article listing those of the "softer" category). And in a sense many a place is "next to impossible" to reach. At least if you don't own a car and can't drive ;-). Also the term "next to impossible" may be interpreted differently by different people. As are the very words "next to". Somebody in Nuremberg may not in fact acknowledge that the city is "next to" Fürth, whereas as Victorville, California apparently is "next to" Los Angeles (at least if you ask that one railroad project). So I think the concept of something being "next to impossible" is rather hard to define. "next to" impossible means it is possible (which, some might argue, actually excludes Area 51 as it is off limits to all but a small subset of people who have to be citizens of one country to be able to even begin to qualify). Some of those places are "next to impossible" for the general public but actually a workplace for some (un)lucky few. The phrase "reassigned to Antarctica" comes to mind. In short, while I find the discussion as to a new name for this travel topic fascinating, I have no clue what it should be and thus tend towards keeping this name by default. But I could probably be convinced and as a non-native speaker my authority on the meaning of words is rather limited ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Next-to-impossible" simply means "almost impossible". If that's inaccurate for some of these destinations, they should probably be removed from this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Truly Off the Beaten Path"? ϒpsilon (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OtBP as a marketing term has been abused so thoroughly as to be meaningless, https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=Toronto+off+the+beaten+path anyone? K7L (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the current name is fine, at least for native or other very fluent English speakers. I'm not sure if it might be confusing for readers with a less-than-complete grasp of the language. Comment, anyone? If that is a problem, I'm not sure how it might be fixed. Pashley (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster explained how. They could interpret "next" literally, as in the phrase "City X is next to City Y".

My bigger problem is if any of the destinations are merely time-consuming or inconvenient and not nearly impossible to get to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The merely time-consuming or inconvenient likely shouldn't be here, or this article will bloat to something huge and off-topic. K7L (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well where should the line be drawn? To some people Antarctica is mainly time consuming and inconvenient to get to, to some it is about as out of reach as the moon. And than there are the truly impossible destinations like South Detroit, that, if I am not misinformed are not and should not be part of WV anyway. So what would be a more or less workable definition? After all, many of the places listed here are islands, and most islands can be gotten to on a ship of some kind. Maybe including a helicopter, but people who own their own craft and are experienced enough will have different approaches to how "impossible" it is to get to certain islands... Also the way this article is right now, I don't see it as so broken as to needing a major realigning fix, but again that may just be my opinion... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit/index.ssf/2015/06/there_is_a_south_detroit_after.html but, if I see any piece of the Windsor-Quebec corridor or w:Ontario Highway 401 in this article, I fully intend to revert on sight. A next-to-impossible destination is most often one where the infrastructure to get in does not exist - no freeway, no railway, no airport, no dock to accommodate a ship or no scheduled service of any kind. In that respect, some of these "coastal ferry" outports are marginal for inclusion... but some bar in Windsor (Ontario) and the T-shirt http://blog.thedetroithub.com/2011/09/27/south-detroit-t-shirt-really-sings/ to go with it? Too beaten-path.

If the only way in is to charter (or buy) a ship or aircraft for want of infrastructure and scheduled services? That's different. K7L (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that if one were to go South from downtown Detroit, it would land one in Windsor (Ontario) - definitely the beaten path if there ever was one in Canada. But the fact still remains, that Windsor (Ontario) is not - in fact - Detroit. Hence there is no South Detroit. And as for the restaurant... I guarantee you, there are restaurants "in" or named after Middle Earth, Narnia, Bush jr.'s birthplace in Texas or other imaginary places as well... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A beaten-path location under a silly name isn't the same as a remote outpost with no transportation infrastructure. If a "city boy" can take "the midnight train going anywhere", this isn't a next-to-impossible destination. Furthermore, Walter Chrysler (or the chariot "born and raised" which bears his name) is there. Inadvertently boarding a tunnel bus, ending up stuck at the VIA station until 5:30AM and not making it into Hogtown until 10? Painful, but hardly a journey worthy of Amundsen and the South Pole. Hardly comparable to distant and obscure destinations where the train no longer stops, which are truly plentiful in Canada. Detroit to Windsor by rail redlinks, but Don't Stop Believin', as Harriet Tubman is working on a train that runs underground which is certain to be all the rage in the futuristic 1850s. K7L (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Places with interesting names could be another travel topic. Heck, someone apparently already has requested it. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I chuckled at all the puns and references. Though I probably only got half of them... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In any case, we have Mordor and Narnia (as April 1 pieces, if nothing else) so it's just the New Haven#Texas steakhouses which are as hard to find as Bush's fictional WMD in Iraq. K7L (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Africa

So judging from this edit there seems to be disagreement as to the off the beaten path-ness of Africa... I think both the removed statement and the way it looks without it go a tad too far. What do you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

When this article was proposed it intrigued me to see what destinations people would come up with that truly require perseverance, a small fortune, special access, or some other quality that essentially made them off limits to most travelers. There are hundreds of daily flights to Africa from around the world, within Africa there are well-developed transportation routes, and millions of tourists visit the continent every year, so I'm very much in support of removing "Africa" itself as a next-to-impossible destination and replacing the over-broad listing with the more specific places within Africa that truly are spots that only a few hardy souls will ever see. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Featured Travel Topic?

I was thinking of nominating this one for Ftt. Is there still something that needs to be fixed? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments, anyone? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Varosha, Famagusta?

Place in Cyprus . . . extremely hard to visit. SelfieCity (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, Varosha (WP/WV) is not just hard but impossible to get into unless you are a Turkish Army or UN personnel and have an official reason to be there. Even then, I heard, you cannot stop or drive below a certain speed especially in the "downtown" area (which is why almost all of the pictures of the place all over the Internet show the same buildings—those that lie close to the perimeter of the closed area—from the same angles over and over again).

But then again, we already have listings for other places off-limits to civilians, such as Diego Garcia or Wake Island in this article, so why not one for Varosha as well? Vidimian (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What about now? The article says the Turkish Army declared it open for tourism last year. So is it now not so hard to visit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If it's now a normal destination that anyone can visit then it should be removed from the list. Ypsilon (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can gather from various sources, only a part of the beach and a couple streets leading to it are open to visits, with most, if not all, buildings along those streets still being cordoned off. So most of the suburb is still off limits, at least for the time being. Vidimian (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

North Korea — easy to visit?

Someone (an IP) keeps trying to change the text about North Korea to make it sound as if it is easier to visit. Should we lock the page for registered users only? Just a thought. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No the policy should not change, and no justification has been given. And some other thoughts:

• Changing policy because of objections to fake information is flawed thinking.
• Why include North Korea in this article when it is easy to visit, albeit on organised and escorted tours, as Wikivoyage itself explains.
• There have been news reports of safety issues in North Korea, but these are rare and certainly rarer than safety issues in other countries such as rapes in India and mass shootings & civil disturbances in the USA.
• If ‘warnings’ about visiting North Korea are deemed necessary then make them appropriate and accurate, such as the severe consequences of insulting the leadership and proliterising.

—The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

No one is suggesting a policy change. In fact, restricting the editing of articles that are the target of edit wars is a well-established element of policy.

The process of visiting North Korea is easy. The process of getting approval to visit North Korea, both from North Korean authorities (who are known to be very choosy about who they grant visas to) as well as from authorities in one's home country (many of which, such as the U.S., have made travel to North Korea illegal), is another story entirely.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please direct warnings about edits to those make blend reverts without edit sumamries and
• Getting approval to visit North Korea is easy as this is done by the travel agency.
• If the US prohibits their citizens from should be noted but that does not make the it difficult for majority of the world.

—The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

And in my opinion, if getting approval to go there is practically impossible, then we should consider getting there to be difficult, too, since it's hard to reach somewhere that you're not supposed to visit. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

But your opinion is not correct.—The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

By the way, the IP continues to battle over this. Maybe we should block the 3 IP addresses that have been changing the information; in particular, the 106 one who commented above. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, you've already protected the page. Thanks. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, going on a tour to North Korea might not be as difficult as people expect (after all, it may come as a surprise to some that NK allows in any tourists in the first place). But the point of the article is that North Korea, outside of those few places visitors go to during a tour is under all circumstances entirely inaccessible to visitors. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That is valid, and is accurate. ‘Opinions’ about difficulties in obtaining a visa are not.—The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

IP user, when you make a comment on a talk page please sign it using four tildes (~~~~) so we can keep track of who is saying what. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I lived in China a while, though nowhere near the Korean border. I talked to a Brit who had been to NK abut 2005. He said the tour company did not want to let him sign up, claiming tours were for Chinese only, but relented when his Chinese friends pushed them. The tour was entirely in Chinese (he was fluent); even the tour company's Chinese guide had poor English & the NK guides had none. All they saw was a resort area — casino, karaoke, bar, whorehouse & hotel — near the border & with Chinese-speaking staff.

This does not sound easy for most visitors. Pashley (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

One indirect experience 13 years ago is not relevant. I have visited much, much more recently. And here are some agencies offering tours now: , , —The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

Edit warring aside, is the IP user correct or not? I think it's unambiguously clear that a warning should be included, because when North Korean authorities do decide to detain anyone, the consequences can be fatal or otherwise extremely dire, but is the detention of foreigners in fact relatively uncommon compared to the number of visits by foreigners? I don't express an opinion on this, but I think it's a relevant question to be answered. If everyone prefers, the topic could be discussed at Talk:North Korea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

From a recent news article: ’Under leader Kim Jong Un, North Korea has placed a high priority on developing its tourism industry as a source of much-needed foreign currency and as an industry that can be fairly closely controlled and monitored.’—The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

And another recent news article

And 2 recent personal reports: and

—The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

I move that we ignore the IP user's posts and consider him a vandal unless he starts signing his posts. I believe this is the same unpleasant individual who over the years has consistently engaged in edit warring, made ornery edit summaries and steadfastly refused to sign any post despite being repeatedly told to do so - and who also makes it hard to communicate with him because of his refusal to register. He's also probably the same user who dissed a valuable contributor in edit warring about Oman some time ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not insult people. I also do not understand your reference of ‘consistently. And I assume as a wiki there is some similar policy to the Wikipedia guideline along the lines of comment on content not the person. —The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

Should we block? ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed with Ikan Kekek, and more broadly, I think policy ought to have something to say about users who refuse to sign their posts despite entreaties to do so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As for blocking, the IP user hasn't chimed in for awhile, but if he resurfaces with the same pattern of behavior I would say yes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And should the significant support about the comparative easy of visiting North Korea be ignored (and based on nothing other than groundless and personal opinion about the contributor and not the content, and which descended to insults) then you are ignoring the published prime policy of The Travelled Comes First My edit to the article was with this, and only this, in mind. Others appear to have other agendas. —The preceding comment was added by 106.77.71.92 (talk • contribs)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@AndreCarrotflower: They're back. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Not anymore. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rub al-Khali doesn't belong in this article?

There's an IMO very silly edit war taking place that amounts to a "which desert is more inaccessible" competition. The Rub al-Khali, a vast desert with undefined international frontiers, is most people's epitome of inaccessibility. If we can't have it here, I think we should junk the whole article. Does anyone other than User:TravelAroundOz want to argue that it shouldn't be included? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I take the edit comments to mean TAO hasn't been there, and just draws conclusions based on distances or whatever. It may be that parts of the Australian Outback are even more remote, but they are indeed included. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course we should have the Rub al-Khali here, it's 1000x500 km of little but sand and rocks and places like that is what the article is for. Ypsilon (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am saying, there are some "towns" not places in the middle of nowhere not included here. TravelAroundOz (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with Rub al-Khali? Unless someone has a serious reason to support this absurd crusade (irony intended) against listing most people's epitome of remoteness in this article, I'll restore the listing within a few hours and will expect the edit warring to stop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If it's only 1000kms away from any town, then it's not hard to take a 4WD and go 1000km off road. I'm serious. TravelAroundOz (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No-one agrees with your opinion that the freakin Empty Quarter shouldn't be in the article. Stop edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I lived in Saudi Arabia. Among the expats, going out in the desert — mostly along the old Hejaz railway that Lawrence & the lads blew up — was common. They needed 4wd vehicles with winches & travelled in convoys so they could rescue each other when they got stuck. Bedouin drove past in their 2wd Toyota pickups, & never got stuck.

Neither the expats nor the Bedouin ever went beyond the edges of the Empty Quarter.

I'd say it is obvious it belongs here. Pashley (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've restored the listing, and I trust the edit warring is over. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I still don't agree. I've been to Cape York before. It is 900kms away from the nearest city. It's hard and there's little paved. Google Maps tells me it only takes 8 hours to get to the empty corner. But I guess since I'm the only one who disagree because I've been to more "harder to get to" places.

TravelAroundOz (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)