I answered this question a few minutes ago - and then noticed that it was edited - see revision history. I've done my fair share of edits and edit reviews and am quite sure that this edit would be considered "too minor". So what's the point of doing it? Or is it simply badge-hunting for 600 edits?
The point of doing the edit is improving the content. Bad typography is painful to me and I got into the habit of improving anything I can by contributing to Wikipedia for many years. There is nothing more to it.
It might have something to do with this experience of Wikipedia and my generally fastidious personality but initially I was quite frustrated by the edit system on SE sites and I am still genuinely surprised when people seem able to overlook misplaced spaces before commas or random capitalization while answering questions. I just can't…
Incidentally, I didn't do such edits when I still needed approval and got rep points for it. The fact that the automatic threshold for edits disappears once you reach a certain level of reputation seems a clear indication that small edits are desirable, but only when they don't require additional scrutiny or clutter the review queue.
Finally, since the text seems indisputably better after the edit, the question could also be “What's the point of not doing it?” One answer to that question is that editing a question bumps it to the top of the question list, thus potentially “hiding” new questions. But immediately editing a question that's already active has no downside I can think of, especially on a site with a low level of activity like Travel.
Yes, the edit is minor but the editor is high-reputation user and IMHO it's ok. Sometimes there isn't much to improve. Minor edits are not always bad edits, the idea to reject a edit as too minor is to discourage new users to waste the time of the reviewers.
The Editor already has the golden editor badge, so that could not be the reason.