3 ms·
That's not remote: there's a paved road that goes there! Remote should be somewhere that requires weeks of travel by sailboat or camel to get to.
by jacobolus 2y ago
That's not remote: there's a paved road that goes there! Remote should be somewhere that requires weeks of travel by sailboat or camel to get to.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nl 2y agoI might be wrong but there are few places that already have population and yet require a week of travel via camel to get to. My sister lived in Wingellina[1][2], Western Australia which was a 6 hour drive on unpaved, 4WD required track from Alice Springs. That's close to one of the most difficult, isolated places to get to in Australia, but even there isn't a week on Camels. Maybe going further west into the Great Sandy Desert might get close (although you get close to small townships in WA if you go too far). The Empty Quarter has low population density but is smaller than isolated areas in Australia. There are probably places in Siberia and Canada that are fairly isolated too. I agree that there are more isolated islands. The Pitcairn Islands is the most obvious case. [1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q2wL9KCa9aXht3YS9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q2wL9KCa9aXht3YS9 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingellina,_Western_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingellina,_Western_Australia
- neltnerb 2y agoI mean, I guess camels are not especially fast swimmers.
- ponector 2y agoThat is not remote: instead of weeks on camels you can easily fly basically anywhere. But a good example of remote is Nulato, Alaska.
- MarkusQ 2y agoThe heck with camels. All these places are still within a few meters of the Earth's surface. If you want remote, you've got to think outside the biosphere!