If I learned one thing from long distance motorcycle travel, it's that there will always be someone who's more hardcore than you. You can try to beat that person, or you can focus on your own experience, which will undoubtedly be unique and memorable.

In any case, no one is keeping score. No one will check your route to make sure it was as long and difficult as possible.

Ships are inevitable. They let you avoid long detours or countries where your passport is no good, or where you must be escorted during your journey. In my case, that would be either Iran or China.

It's not like "going round the world" is even well defined either - you could just walk in a circle around one of the poles. Thing is, are you doing it because it's an amazing experience, or because you want to have satisfied some arbitrary criteria?

And quite frankly, if you manage to pass through every line of longitude while lugging a bicycle the whole way, I don't give two hoots how many boat rides it took. That's heroic.

> It's not like "going round the world" is even well defined either - you could just walk in a circle around one of the poles.

The traditional answer to that is that you have to pass through a pair of antipodal points.

> Thing is, are you doing it because it's an amazing experience, or because you want to have satisfied some arbitrary criteria?

I find having a goal makes for a more fulfilling experience, and can help me push myself a bit further than I would otherwise. I'm planning to ride around Shikoku starting in about a week, and I'm glad there's an official organisation with a set of rules to follow for that (collect stamps at these given places).

Every version of "cycling around the world" I've heard seems a bit unsatisfying somehow. To the point that I think maybe aiming for Shanghai-Paris or similar might be more fun.

> And quite frankly, if you manage to pass through every line of longitude while lugging a bicycle the whole way, I don't give two hoots how many boat rides it took. That's heroic.

It really isn't though. If you take that challenge literally, you can just book a cruise ship and take a folding bicycle along.

> It really isn't though. If you take that challenge literally, you can just book a cruise ship and take a folding bicycle along.

You could, but that’s not going to impress anybody when you tell them about it.

People do this kind of thing for their own personal satisfaction, or to impress other people. That accomplishes neither.

> The traditional answer to that is that you have to pass through a pair of antipodal points.

Tedious.

I would be happy defining it as a journey greater than 40,000 km since that constitutes the circumference of the earth.

> Every version of "cycling around the world" I've heard seems a bit unsatisfying somehow.

Well make up your own version, no-one's stopping you.

That's why I bring it up for discussion :). Maybe there's a satisfying standard that I've missed.

Thanks for replying. I've no idea why you're getting downvoted. I do understand the drive towards some kind of exterior criterion to "keep you honest", and I didn't know about the antipodal criterion - which seems too stringent if I'm honest! I don't think I'd begrudge someone the accomplishment if they made it all the way around a single hemisphere.

> The traditional answer to that is that you have to pass through a pair of antipodal points.

Really? I believe that for ocean circumnavigation the rule is that you had to cross the equator, which rules out polar shenanigans.

My little sister has done some long distance biking (not around the world but across India and a big chunk of the US) and the appeal for her seemed to be for the experience of adventure rather than a contest-like achievement with a certain set of rules.

Different things appeal to different people. Personally I've found that I enjoy audax much more than unstructured touring, so I'd like to have a similar framework for a challenge.

The rules are made up and the points don't matter.

I asked someone from the British Cycle Touring Club (CTC) about cycling across the USA - his advice was “The middle bit will be week after week of hard slog across endless farmland - sun, wind, dogs - you’d be better off cycling the good bits and catching a ride for the rest”.

Advice I’d probably apply to riding around the world - no sense torturing yourself for ‘completeness’.

Even driving or taking a train across the middle of the US is a bit of a slog. I can't imagine trying to get up for one's thirteenth consecutive day of corn, followed by corn, followed by more corn, then a small farming town you can cycle past in about a minute, then... corn... more corn.... and you check the map and you've still got several days left to go. You'd better love cycling for the sake of cycling itself.

imagine living here

A permanent opener that was always presented as a joke but that's also eerily close to a rule of life, albeit on the nihilist side.

There is at least one person circumnavigating without using any motorized transport. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-bqpGT7rVPJ-CEEdFIeTDQ They do mostly mix between sailing and cycling. With this one it is more about the interesting people and places and not just the trip, so no strict rules on land or sea travel. But they do strictly follow the rule of not using motorized transport so getting in and out of port can be interesting, often they need to get help from the locals to paddle in and out.

That's pretty cool, but if I tried to follow those rules then I'd degenerate into just sailing the whole way (which is definitely the easiest way to achieve the "objective" in a narrow sense).

Rules? I'm sure, if you want to break some Guinness Book record, they have rules for ya, but I'd think most world travelers just want to see a lot of it or partake in cultural exchange. Those don't need rules to pick their destination or mode of transportation.

You could take a ship most of the way around but then it wouldn’t really be cycling around the world, would it? Obviously you can’t solely cycle around the world (barring a short jaunt around the poles), so you just take a boat when you must. Why must it be all or nothing?

I'd like to draw a line in a place that makes sense. A lot of round-the-world cyclists take a boat further than strictly necessary (e.g. going from Singapore to Australia or California), and I don't think that invalidates it. But skipping the hardest parts of a round-the-world journey (such as the Darien Gap) that way feels like cheating too.

There are pedal powered boats. People take canoes across the ocean so it isn't impossible if you are prepared. Every pedal boat I've seen has been worthless in even a gentle breeze, but this should "just" be an engineering challenge.

Sure, but at that point wouldn't you just pedal boat all the way round the world?

As others have said, I think these "around the world" cycling things are more just about touring. For actual challenges, like Everesting or becoming a High Rolleur, there are hard cut rules.