On these forums, we all understand the term “Backpacking” to mean carrying everything you need to sleep outside for one or more nights on your back in a backpack. But in places like Europe especially where there are a lot of transit options – the term “Backpacking” refers to international travel without a suitcase and bringing only what you can carry on your back. It implies a minimalist and low cost approach to travel often staying in hostels instead of hotels. It also implies you are either flying, or taking a train or bus instead of a private car (the latter of which would make it much easier to bring more gear or clothing).
I first noticed this disparity in meaning on dating apps when using a keyword like “Backpacking” meant very different things to different people.
Since car travel is so ubiquitous in the US, it is assumed to be the default for almost all trips outside the home. Therefore the term “Camping” usually means driving to an established campsite and setting up a tent nearby your car. This can also be considered “Car Camping” but strictly speaking that should be reserved to mean sleeping in your car or using a rooftop tent and or using some sort of camper van or Winnebago.
The term “Wild Camping” is mostly used by people in Europe to distinguish away from “Backpacking” which does not usually mean sleeping outside.
So the discrepancy in meaning arises from whether one is emphasizing their mode of travel or whether they will be sleeping outside and their distance from a vehicle.
I admire and see the value of travel in a minimalist style with no need for checked baggage. It prioritizes spontaneity and ease of movement which allows one to better adapt on the go and make choices on the fly rather than needing to plan where you will stay and eat with reservations far in advance. It’s also lower in cost.
But I must admit I find it slightly annoying that the minimalist travel meaning of “Backpacking” often undermines or conflicts with the meaning of “Backpacking” that people on this forum know it as.
The term “Wild Camping” helps to differentiate away from the default assumption in the US that camping means pitching a tent at an established campsite near your car. The “Wild” implies you are walking on foot away from civilization and thus carry everything you will need for one or more nights on your back.
So the problem with the term “Backpacking” is that is doesn’t specify where you are going (one city to another or somewhere in nature) or where you will be sleeping (hotel/hostel or outside near a car or far from a car). Kids walking to school weighed down by heavy textbooks could be considered to be “Backpacking”. Or maybe they are “Bookbagging”.
The problem with the term “Camping” is that it doesn’t specify how you will get to where you are camping and thus how much gear you will bring with you.
The three pieces of information are the mode of travel (car/plane/train/bus vs. on foot), where you will be sleeping (hotel/hostel vs established campsite/wild campsite), and how you are carrying what you will bring (car/plane/train/bus vs your back).
The term “Wild Camping” lets people know you will be sleeping outside, and that it will not be near a vehicle and thus it is obvious and implied that one must carry everything they will need on their back.
The common thread between the two meanings of “Backpacking” both emphasize minimalism. But going from city to city is a very civilization focused form of travel. Camping deep in the woods is the antithesis of this in many ways. Therefore I grudgingly feel the need to use the term “Wild Camping” to avoid being confused with those who use the term “Backpacking” while traveling within the bosom of civilization never very far from a vehicle, restaurant, hotel, grocery store, police, or healthcare, etc.
What do you all think? Perhaps this is a trivial subject, but this lack of clarity in terms does create ambiguity and cloud discernment about what we are doing when we tell people we are going “Backpacking”.
