>>1931900I completely forgot to add the UK to the list. It would have gone under meh tier: some bits of Scotland, Wales, and North England are ok but the rest of it is bad. Other countries not listed are shit tier.
>>1932199>your though on this categorisationA rough combo of size, population, population density, undeveloped land, and environmental diversity. Eg Iceland & Italy both are ok tier but for different reasons: Iceland scores high on population, population density, and undeveloped land but it's very small and almost exclusively tundra and glaciers; Italy scores very high on environmental diversity, medium on undeveloped land and size, but it's quite populated and the population is fairly spread out (compared to say France or Spain) so it's difficult to ever find yourself truly alone and away from civilization.
Obviously the list is inherently faulty and subject to change based on preferences: someone into bushcrafting wants ample uninhabited forests to get lost in and loose camping laws not to get into trouble; someone into bikepaking might actually prefer developed lands with clean bike lanes and evenly spaced rest stops (with drinking fountains and charging stations). Perhaps another list could be made based on geographic locations rather than political borders, but even that would vary significantly based on the /out/ activity.
>you've placed in the bottom, coutries that are as pure in natural habitat as your Scandi homelandSuch as? I'm from Italy btw.
