More surprising to me is that on the Atlantic coast there's small towns on either side of the border seemingly without a road connection to other adjacent towns in their respective countries, as well as no cross-border connection (but there's a short hiking route): https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/8.6626/-77.3683
So it's not only an issue of crossing the swampland of the greater gap itself, but also the general underdevelopment of these countries.
Panama is not necessarily that underdeveloped. It is a middle income country as is Colombia. Colombia due to its size and war is more uneven in the development of infrastructure. Having towns only accessible by boat is not necessarily a measure of the capacity for a country to build infrastructure. It isn't that uncommon for even a rich country to have areas accessible only by boat. Consider Jeanu, Alaska.
Northern South America has some incredible challenges when in comes to terrain in general. The former columnist on Latin America at the Economist left it as his final thesis that this fact explains why the region is not more rich, despite a wealth of natural resources:
If one has ever been on the road between Villavicencio and Bogotá or passed through Tungurahua to Pastaza in Ecuador they can appreciate the difficulties that were overcome to build those roads. The rough terrain is one reason why less than 50 miles from modern cities in Ecuador there are still uncontacted native people. Given this northern South American baseline, if someone who knows the area says the terrain is unforgiving it is unforgiving.
"Colombia due to its size and war is more uneven in the development of infrastructure."
Colombia has parts that remind you of Miami. I guess the drug money had to go somewhere :-)
But Colombia IS an amazing place. Its culture, people, history, food and extremely diverse climate, it just overwhelms you. From the Caribbean, to the mountains to the Amazon, there are few places in the world with such a diverse climate. Medellin is the city of eternal spring. And Bogota, the district of Candelaria, I always found it a magical place. But I think nobody likes Bogota except of me.
T-Shirts worn by the tourist information: "Colombia, the only risk is that you want to stay"
Every person I've spoken to who visited Colombia warned of two things: 1) There is a very large homeless/beggar population in the cities, who prey on tourists. 2) If you like to explore countries beyond typical tourism, it's safer to do this with a native Colombian that you trust, who knows the dangerous places.
Oddly when I speak to Colombians, they refute both of these warnings every time. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing to downplay danger or discomfort, but those are #1 on my travel priority list.
> Oddly when I speak to Colombians, they refute both of these warnings every time. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing to downplay danger or discomfort
It's just a practical bias. You see this everywhere on Earth.
Natives aren't the victims of the crimes alleged, so since they don't see it, they assume it's not actually happening as often as reported.
For example, #2-- I've heard the same about Brazil, then heard the denials by Brazilians, and shortly after that there was that tourist couple who got murdered when their GPS routed them through a slum.
Tourists anywhere are conspicuous, vulnerable and lucrative prey. The #1 travel safety advice anywhere is never letting yourself appear lost or confused. Hence, the advice to only travel off-course with a local you trust.
Bogota is comparable to a large American city in terms of safety, visible homelessness, and so on. The rich neighborhoods feel like suburban California.
Like most of Latin America the very poor areas are beyond anything you’re likely to see in the US but unless you’re the kind of person who’s also afraid of Miami or New York City you’d have nothing to worry about.
Many countries that aren't systematized to the same degree as advanced economies don't report the true level of crime, and those who rely on tourism have additional incentive not to. Much of Colombia is palpably dangerous and overflowing with prostitution, even minors, while cops look the other way.
I shared global per-capita murder rates by city, a notoriously difficult-to-falsify metric. I verified the data's reliability by cross-referencing Wikipedia (Statista) with official UN and OECD sources.
Regarding prostitution in Colombia, it's legalized since 2016, which may explain its greater visibility.
Colombia's major exports are commodities; while tourism has grown, it's not the primary export.
This advice sounds a bit out of date. I spent 3 months cycling solo through Colombia a year or two back and it was fine. Lots of villages to stop at, most of them have places to eat and stay the night. To be fair I neither went deep into the jungle nor spent any time in either Medellin or Bogota, but there's plenty of countryside to visit along the Rio Magdalena that is pretty safe.
It might be back up to date due to the Venezuelan immigrants (that don't have money). I have been there at least 10 times. Never hat any issue with counterfeit money. Last time I got stuffed with it.
> Northern South America has some incredible challenges when in comes to terrain in general.
The Gotthard tunnel was completed in 1882, after 11 years of construction. And that was with the incentive of linking northern and southeastern Europe!
Columbia declared independence in 1810.
So it's not surprising that a project of complexity that economically required European levels of industrialization hasn't been successful.
They CAN do it, they just don’t want to. Same reason that BART doesn’t go to from San Francisco to the North Bay. A road network connecting South America to Central America would be encourage the free flow of drugs, crime, and human trafficking.
Boats are the most appropriate transport to connect those villages. You can even see a ferry service marked on OSM which stops at several towns. I've visited similar places, and there are generally water taxis that will take you where you need to go, deliver goods and post etc. Motorised land transport isn't useful in a small, isolated village surrounded by extremely rough terrain.
i was in Colombia 6 years ago for work (Medellin). 2 things stuck with me:
- there was a part of the city that was kind of fenced off for security purposes. that’s where all the hotels were. once outside of that area guns were everywhere. and you could tell there was a gun culture as every gun was modified.
- the locals were telling me to never go to the north of the country. apparently the people there were in the habit of kidnapping for ransom. there were also rumours of drug/gun trafficking.
> there was a part of the city that was kind of fenced off for security purposes. that’s where all the hotels were
I've been to Medellín several times, and stayed in some of the nicest and most popular hotels, as well as in various local neighborhoods. I never saw a fenced off part of the city.
when i was there guns were everywhere. guards at fancy houses with big guns, checkpoints near my hotel, police with guns on the street, etc coming from the UK where even the police doesn't have guns, it was weird, but expected.
regarding the "fenced off" hotel area, not sure what was happening, but it was known to the locals that that was the "safe tourist area". maybe it was a temporary thing? maybe some foreign/local politicians was staying/visiting? no idea. but there were checkpoints all around the hotel area.
The FARC group goes back 50+ years and was inspired by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. There are still radicals who have not laid down their weapons or profit from drug trade or gold mining operations.
>More surprising to me is that on the Atlantic coast there's small towns on either side of the border seemingly without a road connection to other adjacent towns in their respective countries
This is also true of Newfoundland. There are many small fishng villages on "the Rock" with no road connections; the only link to the rest of the world is by sea.
(This is also true of many small villages in Alaska, whether on the coast or not, but there this is less surprising.)
"underdevelopment" is a loaded and also dominionist term. If we connected every human settlement on earth with roads, it's game over for the remaining natural reserves. Putting roads through the Amazon is what really accelerated development of agricultural territory.
No, it’s an accurate and objective term. All you’re saying is that we need to keep some places underdeveloped in order to protect the environment. Which is an entirely fair point.
It's not objective. "Under" implies some ideal state of development, and that anything under that threshold is deficient, which is subjective. That's why I say it's a loaded term.
Fair enough - I guess I should have been a little more precise: I really meant that "underdeveloped" has a specific meaning, rather than "under" by itself.
"Underdeveloped" doesn't mean "less than average development", it means "not and/or insufficiently industrialized", implying a problem to be solved.
I don’t know about you, but if I walk into a restaurant’s toilet and see the river flowing below the hole,[1] I’d say that it might need a little more development. I don’t think literal shit rivers can be part of any developed nation. Objectively. Much less rivers where people fish and swim in.
[1] I saw it in person in Laos and also in this popular video https://fb.watch/nQ-Xvh9iLO/
No, "under-" means "below some baseline". If that baseline is objective (e.g. "the mean development of the most developed country") then "underdeveloped" is objective, just relative.
It implies a problem that needs solving. Undernourished, underbaked, underachiever. I’m struggling to think of a word so-constructed that doesn’t imply a need for improvement, aside from ones that are purely positional (undercoat). Underbid, I guess, but that seems in a different category to me.
It seems appropriate to me to describe a slum with poor roads and power as underdeveloped, but weird to describe wilderness as underdeveloped. The former brings to mind philanthropic NGOs, the latter, villains from popular pro-environmentalism fiction.
Sure, but that doesn't make it a subjective adjective. It just tells you something about what the person who uses the word thinks about what the word is being applied to.
It seems weird to me to refer to wilderness as "underdeveloped", but more because if it really is a wilderness then it should be undeveloped. If someone starts building things in it but few enough that the zone can be called "underdeveloped" then it's no longer the wilderness. In any case, what the original person said was that the country was underdeveloped. If there's not even a single road or rail between it and its neighbor, I'd say that's a fair assessment.
"under" implies a relationship to something else, a point of reference. That point of reference would vary (which is getting close to a definition of subjective).
Somewhat by design. Many proposals to connect the countries have been made but there is very little interest in completing. 1) indigenous communities don't want it, 2) sensitive environment 3) mostly it's a natural border control, which would otherwise have drugs and guerilla fighters flowing through. Instead they often mule to Nicaragua skipping panama altogether.
This is one of those things I had literally no idea about until I thought “surely you can drive from the US to South America in my 30s” and Googled it! It’s just not a thing we were taught in American schools. The Darién Gap was a major surprise to me. I’ve heard some people have traversed it using motorcycles, which has a fascinating and up to date article about how difficult it is to take a motorcycle to South America if you are bound and determined to go from USA to South America on your hog [0]
Fun fact, the first successful motorcycle crossing took months of planning and multiple failed attempts, back in 1975.
In durability demonstrations, 4 out of 5 1964 Mercury Comets ran 100,000 miles over 100 miles per hour. This was under ideal conditions using the Daytona track.
This record stood until 1984 when Mercedes blew it away using a luxury car having 10X the purchase price of the lowly Comet.
For the 1965 Comet they went from the tip of South America to Fairbanks, Alaska. These were not ideal conditions.
The 1966 model was slightly upsized compared to other compact cars, and it outperformed all off-road vehicles in African safari testing.
I drove from the Northern tip of Alaska to the Southern Tip of South America, 40,000 miles through 17 countries. I shipped my Jeep inside a shipping container around the Darien Gap from Colón in Panama to Cartegena in Colombia. [1]
It is a very common thing to do, takes about a week of paperwork and a friend that did it recently paid $1000 USD all in. It's important to note it will be a lot more expensive if your vehicle does not fit inside a 20 foot shipping container (or a 40 foot high cube if you share with someone else).
Note: It's the door height you need to check, which is lower than the actual container height.
I heard a rumour that before the 2014 soccer world cup in Brazil, the Brazilian government said they would pay for the road to be built if someone would step up and build it. Obviously it never happened (For context Brazil built a TON of roads through the jungle and what-not in the lead up to the world cup)
Pre-pandemic it was a dangerous place with a high risk of running into drug smugglers or just people who might kidnap you. Some would try and cross it on foot and a fair few of those were simply never seen again. The terrain is horrendous. Mud, mountains, many streams and rivers, thick jungle and often torrential rain [1].
Nowadays there are a lot of migrants that cross the Darien Gap. This should tell you something about how truly epsperate they are [2].
At this point in time undocumented Venezuelans would be by far the biggest risk. But to be fair saying influx of undocumented people -regardless of nationality- would more accurate given that Panama has a bigger GDP per capita than every single country in South America.
With the number of people crossing the Darien Gap and the number of new routes that are constantly being open, I can’t help but wonder if one of the routes will eventually be developed enough to turn into an actual road.
Fun fact: Costa Rica and Panama run buses from the migrant center at the southern Panamanian border all the way up to Nicaragua (who aren't cooperating with the scheme). Migrants pay $40 a ticket if they can afford it, but it's free otherwise.
Also, these buses stop in many towns along the way in Costa Rica.
There, migrants decide to get off and spend some time in these towns. Primarily to recuperate after crossing the Darien Gap, but also to panhandle, and sometimes commit various petty crimes.
These small towns do not have the resources nor infrastructure to handle ~5k people per day passing through. There aren’t enough public toilets, police officers, ambulances, nor shelters to handle this volume of people.
I happen to live in one of these small towns, size ~2k people. It’s been very difficult to deal with. The government does nothing, so the townspeople are left trying to add some order to this chaos.
The level of human suffering is high. These people went through some serious shit in the Darien. This isn’t a humane process for anyone involved.
Like living anywhere there are pros and cons. The pros list is pretty freaking long, and the cons list has gotten smaller over the years.
This situation has certainly added a con to the list, though it hasn’t changed the balance of the equation so far.
For me, the whole thing is more emotionally taxing than anything. Though it’s not that different from living in Manhattan in terms of the sadness you see every day.
I like the idea of just tunneling the whole length to avoid and protect the sensitive surface. Just like the Chunnel: A rail link could be used to maximize throughput for the tunnel size. Cars and trucks could travel on shuttles on the rail link.
Maybe 2-3 times the distance of the Chunnel, but doable for connecting two continents.
That approach would be easier to physically secure against threats (people and pests) compared to a surface road.
The article sites a lack of bedrock to use for bridges, that could be a blocker for a tunnel. Though I'm sure there's rock down there somewhere if you dig deep enough.
I'd like to see zip lines. The longest and highest capacity ever built. Carry cars and freight. It'd be an engineering stepping stone towards the tether for a space elevator.
tl;dw: the Darien Gap and U.S. interest in the potential for the Panama Canal were critical to Panama's goal of independence from Colombia. Today, neither wants to make it easier for Colombia to gain access to its former territory. The gap serves as a critical barrier to: 1. The drug trade; 2. People migrating to the north in hope of a better life; 3. Any adventurism on Colombia's part.
> People migrating to the north in hope of a better life
This phrasing seems off, and it seems like it's trying to invalidate the concept of a nation maintaining its borders. One could also justify murder as done "in hope of a better life", as if pursuing a better life justifies the means.
If the US could secure its southern border people would likely be much more open to a road right to it.
Back in 2011, I rode from Alaska to Argentina over the course of six months - Prudhoe Bay to Ushuaia. In fact I jumped in both the Arctic and Antarctic oceans!
We followed the Pan-Am most of the way. When we got to Panama, first we rode down south into the territory of the semi-autonomous Indians, the Guna Yala in the San Blas Islands. They charge a small toll to get in their territory.
Then we put our motorcycles onto dugout canoes and ferried onto a tiny island. You could walk clear across in about 5 minutes. They live on an archipelago of islands, and the women dressed traditionally, with piles of bracelets on their limbs. They had a sort of museum there with their own Flood myth, interestingly.
After a couple days our hope of a boat stopping by seemed unlikely, so we ferried back to land, rode back to Panama, and found a hostel run by a couple of Germans.
They contacted a British couple sailing around the world, who were happy to hoist our motorcycles on either side of their mast and take us to Colombia along with a few other couples also traveling, with a few stops at gorgeous Caribbean islands for snorkeling.
Migrants to the US now cross it, and there are "guides" who supposedly keep you safe. I think the indigenous people are very unhappy about all the traffic.
Make it HSR and make it start from South East Asia, go up over the Bering strait, come down through Alaska and to South America.
Take a train from Tokyo to San Francisco... I think this project is inevitable. Not in my lifetime, but maybe someone's born before I die. It's a potentially 0kg C02 journey if built right and business class accommodations would probably be 1/10th the price of a plane trip and a heck of a lot faster than a boat.
High speed rail costs $20M-$250M/mile to construct. So laying 19,000 miles of track across the Americas would cost anywhere from $380 billion to $5 trillion. At 200mph, it would take 4 days to go from one end to the other. Maintenance would be over $2 billion per year. If you had 3.5 million passengers per year (far more than pre-covid flying numbers), paying for the maintenance costs alone would be $600 per ticket. Paying off the project within a century would require charging $1,700-$14,000 per ticket.
Right. It wouldn't be built stupidly like that. You can take any project and give it the drooling moron building plan and come away with ridiculous numbers.
Let's do lowest possible speed and highest possible cost of an automobile road and we get something like 0.25 mph traffic with mangled bodies in crashed vehicles everywhere and tollbooths every 5 miles where everyone is forced to drive million dollar Bugattis.
Really, this is like someone in the 1970s claiming smart phones are impossible because you can't fit a rotary dial, satellite link, tape storage reel and a CRT in your pocket.
I think it'll be easier/cheaper to figure out how to economically manufacture carbon-neutral kerosene from renewable energy sources (rather than digging it up out of the ground) and just fly normal airplanes, than it will be to build that mammoth HSR route. And the journey will be much faster too.
The point of such a road is not to traverse it from one end to the other, it's to be able to get on and off it anywhere along its length. It also has symbolic meaning.
In it, customs officers went through the train like a ticket checker to check your passport as the train travels near jet speeds through the Russian forests.
That wasn't the plot of course, but it's part of the setting. The characters desperately cling to 19th century ideas of nationalism like small European countries still have a king even in a time where vast oceans no longer matter. There's a cadence problem with the emotional salience of our institutions and their relevance. This includes the personal.
All things start and end as ceremony and theater but somewhere in the middle, they become real.
At the end of the day, shipping by sea is much more efficient than shipping over land, and the narrow spit of land connecting North and South America has lots of sea access, including car ferries to connect the road networks.
So you wouldn't expect a road connection to be developed if it's super expensive given that this more efficient alternative already exists, and, well, the road connection is super expensive.
In a sense we might think of this fascinating story as a sign that we are past "peak unsustainability".
Remaining pristine areas will serve as nuclei for a new period of rewilding and healing the planet while we make smarter use of the spaces we have already colonized.
I remember reading articles (15+ years ago) about how dangerous and impassable the Darien Gap was. Clearly that's not the case, or at least not anymore, considering the number of migrants (including children) walking through every month.
Perhaps they should develop some infrastructure, like roads or tunnels.
It could be that it is just as dangerous as before but people are more desperate. I don't know either way but desperation was the first thing I thought while looking at the photos of detritus left by people trying to cross the Darien gap a while ago. If it is so dnagerous then I guess I hope some trail/route evolves into something more durable.
I don't remember if this was the specific article, but this one about Afghan refugees was memorable. The people here are not why the routes exist but show some of what is involved.
The average Venezuelan cannot survive on what they can earn because of poverty and inflation caused by the incompetent and corrupt socialist government of Venezuela.
> I remember reading articles (15+ years ago) about how dangerous and impassable the Darien Gap was. Clearly that's not the case, or at least not anymore, considering the number of migrants (including children) walking through every month.
This comment really belongs at the unfortunate juncture of privileged assumptions and geographical/geopolitical naivety.
The volume of people making the crossing doesn’t signal that it has somehow become less treacherous. All this shows is that the reward for crossing outweighs the risk of dying along the way - both of which are preferable to not attempting the cross (which is pretty bleak when you think about it).
> Perhaps they should develop some infrastructure, like roads or tunnels.
This is a very “thanks I’m cured” sort of statement that appears to be informed by nothing except your own lived experience in a place where terrain is mild and the political landscape is such that this is even possible.
If you have not seen this sort of terrain for yourself, it’s hard to imagine it. Miles and miles of stinking swampland, ankle to waste deep in mud, bounded only by limestone cliffs with a shear drop to salty oceans below and plenty of rain to keep it muddy. Malaria is a literal plague and the mosquitos that carry it are not in short supply.
Getting construction equipment there is difficult at best absolutely impossible otherwise. Tunnels would require multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar investments, boring through bedrock. Making coast-adjacent roads is difficult due to the isolation of the place and two closest cities you could link are on facing opposite oceans.
>The volume of people making the crossing doesn’t signal that it has somehow become less treacherous. All this shows is that the reward for crossing outweighs the risk of dying along the way - both of which are preferable to not attempting the cross (which is pretty bleak when you think about it).
If people become more desperate they may attempt to do things that they believe are risky. It's perfectly possibly that they are more desperate and also that the trip is not as dangerous as they believed. It's true, the mere fact that, say, 1000 people successfully made the crossing doesn't tell you much by itself. How many attempted it? How many were in any way injured along the way?
> The volume of people making the crossing doesn’t signal that it has somehow become less treacherous.
It does. Most migrants use guides / "coyotes" to guide them through. Kinda like the sherpas of Everest. This wasn't so easy back in the day. Now it's pretty cheap - one guide for a group of 30-50.
15+ years ago the Darien really was more dangerous due to guerilla activity that, while still present, has abated. You might want to read Karl Bushby’s account of walking the Darien Gap around the turn of the millennium, and listen to interviews he has given on the subject. He had to coordinate his traversal with the Colombian military and, as a former soldier himself interested in intelligence matters, he got a good idea of just how much was going on in the jungle at that time. Not only the anti-government FARC but also right-wing militias that could be just as dicey.
While building a road across the Darien Gap is very tricky, if there would be a will, a tunnel across the Gulf Of Darien could solve the problem easily. It's not an engineering problem really merely an economical one: the cost of such a tunnel might exceed the yearly nominal GDP of Panama.
Where would the tunnel connect to on the west side? While there seem to be many villages and resorts along the west side of the gulf, I don't see that any of them are connected to Panama's road network. I don't see road connections anywhere beyond Cuango, or maybe a town or two to the east.
No, it really isn't: the migrants who cross it on foot do so because they have no other options, and the dangers involved are hair-raising. All legitimate trade continues to cross by boat.
One additional major factor not mentioned in the article is that Colombian side of the Gap is still largely controlled by various insurgents/guerrillas/traffickers, meaning the Colombian government would struggle to build a highway even if they wanted to.
The articles up you're both linking to describe people hiking a small portion or part of the length of the overall gap, after which they'll presumably take a boat to continue their journey.
So it's not comparable to driving the whole way, which would be a much larger distance.
You're splitting hairs a little. It's 57km from Acapi to Boca de Cupe; 96m from Boca de Cupe to the end of the secondary road (7.842236, -76.738162) that connects to Road 62 that connects to Medellin.
> 250k have done it already this year, with 64k children.
Without knowing how many attempted it and turned back, or started and never showed up on the other side, that statistic is meaningless. How many completed the crossing without encountering significant trauma or abuse?
> The border between Panama and Columbia is where the dream faltered.
Spelling Colombia as Columbia is a very infuriating error to many (not all, but many) people who speak Spanish, particularly Colombians, obviously. It's as jarring to read as "Englend" or "Onited States". I urge the author, if around, to fix it, and any readers who are around to be very mindful of not making it as it can be disrespectful.
Since English "Columbia" has the same meaning as Spanish "Colombia" (namely something like "Columbian (land)"/"(land) of Columbus"), I'm curious why the former didn't ultimately end up being considered "the English version" of the latter. In some other cases we have English names that are considered correct ways to refer to foreign locations (e.g. Deutschland → Germany, Köln → Cologne, Roma → Rome, Warszawa → Warsaw, Italia → Italy, España → Spain, Lisboa → Lisbon, México → Mexico, Perú → Peru, Brasil → Brazil), which are considered perfectly normal, although some are contested (Türkiye → Turkey, Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast).
I agree that this didn't happen in the case of the English name of Colombia, and that the English name of Colombia is "Colombia", not "Columbia", but again I wonder why this didn't end up being regarded as a "translation" of the country's name.
Similarly, one could wonder why Ecuador is Ecuador in English, and was never anglicized to Equator.
The insistence of the leadership of the “Ivory Coast” that the country be called “Côte d’Ivoire” even in English, does seem to have been broadly successful. I rarely see “Ivory Coast” in English-language scholarship or in travel resources these days. I’m a bit surprised that Wikipedia still uses the English version throughout its article on the country.
I don't know if there's been that much success in pushing Côte d’Ivoire. I imagine if it is used at all in English-language countries, it's copy-pasted due to the "ô" not being easily accessible on English keyboard layouts. In spoken English I haven't heard anyone I know say "Côte d’Ivoire" and, being into football and having football-loving friends from Ghana and Gambia (countries in the same region who cannot be accused of being ignorant Brits or Americans), there's been plenty of opportunities.
Same goes for Türkiye/Turkey - those umlauts and the "toor-kee-ye" pronunciation will scare off most users of English, who will fall back to the more familiar "Turkey".
"Czechia" doesn't even have the problem of diacritics and it's still not that widespread. I find it a bit awkward and don't use it even though I live here.
Old habits die hard and, whether they like it or not, Ivory Coast, Turkey, Czechia etc are gonna be around for a while.
Easy on a Mac. Just press the base letter for a few seconds, and a small pop up will appear and you enter the number (one digit) corresponding to the variant you want. On iOS it’s similar but even easier. Short press, then drag you finger to the variant. Õōøœóòöô. Way easier than alt codes on windows.
I do a bit of work in music engraving software and you run into needing to type things like dètaché.
Ah fair, I thought you were suggesting that typing the official name was no big deal, rather than just suggesting something helpful for macOS/iOS users.
you could probably write Türkiye as Turkiye too, and it would still be better than Turkey. in this case it's not only the issue of a foreign name but also the confusion with the bird. i did see german translations food articles where "turkey meat" was translated with the country name instead of the bird name, which differ in german.
In Turkish, the word for “India” the country and “turkey” the bird are the same. Somehow the Turkish state doesn’t ascribe to India the same “respect” it demands for its own country’s name.
i am not sure that is fair. for one, india in turkish is hindistan, so there is a noticeable difference, and second the bird seems to be named after a presumed country of origin in many places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_(bird)#Names
Anglicised names are historically grandfathered. The post-colonial consensus, pushed by emerging powers (China etc), is that all topological names should be equally maintained in the source language. The classic example is Peking, which is now called Beijing everywhere.
As such, progress should mean even historical names are reverted to what current inhabitants call them, i.e. we should all visit Firenze, not Florence.
Yeah, if someone would pronounce "Gdańsk" with silent "G" then that would be true. But someone fluent in Polish would pronounce "G-dańsk" with clear "gh".
For the curious: both "Columbia" and "Colombia" arise from Christopher Columbus' name, spelled with a 'u' in English and in Latin but with an 'o' both in Spanish and Columbus' own native Italian.
Hence, in English-speaking usage, "Columbia" (with a u) is more common, as in the Columbia River or District of Columbia. But the (Spanish-speaking) South American country uses the 'o' spelling.
It probably doesn't really count, but via OpenStreetMap I found that they have a joint military base that crosses their border.
Everything's airlifted in, but on the photo in this article it looks like they've got at least a couple of ground vehicles there, and presumably tracks crossing the border: https://www.critica.com.pa/sucesos/no-existe-ninguna-base-mi...
More surprising to me is that on the Atlantic coast there's small towns on either side of the border seemingly without a road connection to other adjacent towns in their respective countries, as well as no cross-border connection (but there's a short hiking route): https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/8.6626/-77.3683
So it's not only an issue of crossing the swampland of the greater gap itself, but also the general underdevelopment of these countries.