Argthtjtr

More idioms.

"I have been to somewhere" means that I have gone there and come back. But you can only use this in the perfect (present, past or even future): it isn't available in any other tense:

By the time I was twenty I had been to China.

By next autumn I will have been to China.

but not:

*I am to China.

*I will be to China.

*I am being to China.

The special meaning relates to the word 'been', not any other parts of 'to be'.

In most uses, "go" is unspecific about whether or not there is a return journey:

He's going to China next month.

is probably a trip, but could be emigration.

The case of "gone" brings in the special properties of the perfect. "He has gone" is talking about a state of affairs that includes, or relates to, the present. The most obvious interpretation of

He's gone to China.

is that he is still going, or still there. But as Robusto says the present-relevance could have a different interpretation, so

He's gone to China several times.

necessarily means that he must have returned (or gone somewhere else), so the present relevance is that the sequence of trips is seen as continuing. Contrast

He went to China several times.

which implies that the series of trips is over, and he is not going again.

(These are implications, and may be overridden by other words or by context; but in the absence of anything to the contrary, the sentences will have the meanings I am suggesting.)

Yes, there is a rule.

I've gone to China.

This means that you have gone to China and you are still there.

I've been to China.

This means that you have gone to China, but you have already returned, therefore you have been there.

Imagine the following:

Person A: Where's Peter?

Person B: He has gone to China.

This obviously means that Peter is missing, because he's in China.

Person A: Where have you been last week? I couldn't find you anywhere!

Peter: I've been to China.

P.S.: No matter how many times will you guys down-vote this answer, I'm still sure it's correct. Those who disagree are simply wrong.

In this current period in time, to imply that there is a difference between the two phrases is to grasp at straws when, regardless of culture or background, many native speakers use both phrases interchangeably.

The original implications and differences between the two phrases have faded, which is only natural for words and phrases in a live language. The difference between them is only relevant for explaining how language has evolved.

In short, given their usage in the example sentences, there is no difference in either phrase.

"Here is a puzzle: language change is functionally disadvantageous, in that it hinders communication, and it is also negatively evaluated by socially dominant groups. Nevertheless it is a universal fact of human history." (Univ. of Penn. Dept. of Linguistics)

Technically:

• "I've been to X" means that at some point in the past you were actually there at/in X.


• "I've gone to X" means that you at some point in the past left wherever you were and your destination was X.

In practice, they mean pretty much the same thing. However, the slightly ambiguous nature of the latter phrase makes it more appropriate for leaving signs behind (eg: "Gone Fishing") when you don't in fact know that the person in question has made (or will make) it there. To put it another way, the latter is good if you want the emphasize the trip, the former if you want to emphasize the destination.

I think there is a flaw on Richard Rodriguez's example. The dialogue:
Person A: Where have you been last week? - there is a grammatical error! No specific time (except a period of time) should be stated within a present perfect tense sentence/question! As opposed to that, it should be read as either:

Where were you last week?
or
Where have you been since last week?

Then Peter's response should be rephrased as: I was in China (last week).

"I have been to China since last week" also contains a flaw! It should be read as "I have been in China since last week".

Basically, the differentiation between "have been to" and "have gone to" is that we have to understand the background of the behavior. I will never disagree that "have been to" indicates the person has returned, while "have gone to" shows the person is still at such remote location. Perhaps there is another interpretation: "have been to" indicates an experience, while "have gone to" indicates an actual behavior, and even the completion of an actual behavior. Therefore, exception exists with the following example:

An office clerk whose job is to go banking once a day:

The manager: Miss X, I have some cash for bank deposit, could you do it for me?
Office clerk: Sorry! I have already gone to the bank today. Would tomorrow be too late?

Although other native speakers would say "I have already been to the bank today", I believe "have gone to" would be more understandable to indicate the completion of a routine or his/her duty.

On the other hand:

Office clerk A: (Excitingly) Hey! Have you been to XXX Bank today?
Office clerk B: No, why? what seems so exciting?
Office clerk A: Will Smith is supposed to be doing his new movie promotion there.

Office clerk C: You're kidding me! I have been to the store next to the bank and the neighborhood was as quiet as a cemetery!

This example of using "have been to" is to simply indicate the "pure experience" even just limited to a single day.