I asked this question yesterday and someone suggested closing it as being off topic. Personally I disagree as there are many similar question on this site (albeit about people wanting to do the same thing when coming to the US).

So to support my case I jumped to the On Topic section and see at the very top to see welcomed questions as including:

customs & border crossing, visas and other travel documents such as permits

IMHO so far so good. But then, at the end of the same list:

working while on the go (WWOOFing, volunteer travel etc) - not immigration or work visas, see below

Okay .. maybe there is something that I am missing. So I look below and the only relevant thing I can see is:

issues related to immigration / expatriates (see Expatriates Stack Exchange instead)

So there seems to be nothing related to the or work visas clause. So now I am confused as to whether my question is on topic, and/or whether there is a missing clause from somewhere below

So how should I be reading the On topic section?


1 Answer 1


Business visas are not work visas, two different things. Work visa is when you plan to work in a country permanently or for prolonged periods. While business visas is when you have some work related tasks overseas, such as training, seminars or consultation, Big difference.

In work visas, you are being paid by a company based on the host country, but while on business visas, you're not. Sometimes you are being paid the accommodation fees, that's ok and not considered an income.

So, your question is indeed a business visa related question, which is 100% on-topic. The confusion I assume was from the usage of tag, I changed it with tag.

Also, I think the existence of in Trave.SE might cause a lot of confusion. I think it should be removed and replaced with other more specific tags, such as , , etc.

  • Its not really the tagging of my original question that that prompted this question (but I see that your tag changes may be an improvement.) It just seems to me that the text on the on topic section reads badly with the see below clause which doesn't seems to lead anywhere
    – Peter M
    Commented Jun 4, 2016 at 16:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .