I grew up on the prairie of North Dakota. I would spend all day wandering around fields, dry creek beds, railroad tracks, shelter belts. Just looking to see what there was. The occasional abandoned farm house to explore was always risky but fun. Farmers usually have storage buildings near the abandoned houses, so you never know when someone might be coming through.

When I got older and I moved to a small city and then larger ones and continuing on til now in my mid 30s, back in that same small city. And when I'm on vacation. I just wander. I spent months aimlessly wandering around Australian cities in my 20s. It wasn't any different than wandering around those shelter belts and fields and creek beds. I'd walk around the western suburbs of Sydney documenting graffiti one week and drunkenly walking through a nature preserve in Canberra the next. My favorite thing is to try and get lost and see if I can find my way back to where I started. I'd make maps in my head with graffiti tags as coordinates and find my way back that way.

Anyway, most everyone likes to walk around and explore whatever environment they're in. Nothing too noteworthy about it in my opinion.

> Anyway, most everyone likes to walk around and explore whatever environment they're in.

I know a lot of people who never walk anywhere, never really "wander", think it's weird at best, unsafe at worst. They will on vacation, in an environment branded for it. think cutesy town, think Disneyland.

What you're doing is maybe not exceptional, but it _is_ noteworthy that it's not universal.

Wandering in nature isn't really the sort of urban wandering the "flaneur" does either. That only exist in the industrialized city. It requires some anonymity, since it's a little voyeuristic. It requires leisure time, wealth, it's consumptive, since the flaneur and cafe culture are complementary. The city needs to be large enough to discover new experiences.

I don't think we're disagreeing overall, more maybe in our assessment how widespread it is.