This story is hugely reassuring. It proves that in a 21st-century world of virtual experiences, there’s still no substitute for going there. When my friends and I toured Colombia last year and found a country to which the Lonely Planet guide did not begin to do justice, we were perplexed. Unconvincing, unhelpful and thin, the guide seemed to have been dashed off in a hurry and missed the magic. It never occurred to us that at least one of the authors had not been there at all.

Lonely Planet was sketchy and vague where it should have been bursting with enthusiasm and information. The unbelievable Tierra Adentro country, for example, now safe for visitors - where stone manbird statues stand beneath dripping forest trees, our only link with a civilisation that has disappeared and of which almost nothing is known – was covered in a cursory way that gave no hint of the sense of mystery and revelation felt by any visitor. There was something half-hearted about this book – unaccountably smaller and inferior to the previous (1980s) edition, which our Colombian guide still kept with him.

The South American Handbook was not only more useful, but conveyed an authentic sense of the thrill of one of the world’s most beautiful, varied, spectacular and friendly countries. You cover a country properly or you do not do it at all. It is either safe enough for your readers to visit – and Colombia most emphatically is – or you should not be encouraging visitors at all.

But look on the bright side, fellow-enthusiasts for this little-visited country. An authentic account might have filled the place with tourists. By offering so flimsy an understatement of Colombia’s charms, Lonely Planet has helped to keep the secret – and done us all a favour.

Times recommends

• October: the time for foodie breaks to France
• The 10 best winter sun music festivals
• Your Say Pick of the Week – Oct 6