This reminds me of something I saw on a backpacking blog sometime last year. Project Remote, a family that's finding and hiking to all the "most remote" place in each state of the USA.
Here's some of the statistics:
The most surprising one to me is: Least Remote: Kansas (0.8 miles from a road).
As someone who lives in the very densely populated greater Boston area, Kansas doesn't exactly strike me as a prime candidate for not being able to get away from roads.
Their website seems to have been commandeered by some Indonesian online casino scam thing in late 2024 and is now offline. I'm unsure of the ongoing state of the project.
I'm extremely surprised that Wyoming is more remote than Alaska! I wouldn't think Alaska has that many back-country roads running through it.
Edit: they have another page describing Alaska. It seems that the linked page might only describe the contiguous US? But also, wow. This seems stupid:
> Thoughts of roadless Alaska came to mind and our amazing, wild trek through the Brooks Range of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We hired a bush plane to drop us off in a nameless valley. At 50 miles from the nearest village or road, we were awed with excitement and healthy fear. We agreed to meet up 9 days and 35 miles later at a flat spot where he could land on the tundra marked by a heap of moose antlers. He looked at us awfully cock-eyed when we told him we had no satellite phone. He asked, “well, why not?” We told him that we were deliberately here to remove ourselves from civilization and contact with it. Watching our pilot fly away, we realized we were as far from towns and roads, and therefore, humans as we could possibly imagine.
I've done some pretty stupid things in my day relating to various activities far* from civilization (my dumbest being an offroad motorcycle trip by myself for which I was not nearly experienced enough, dumped the bike several times, crossed a bridge that definitely wasn't designed to hold a motorcycle, etc.), but I both applaud and receive second-hand anxiety from their massive commitment.
*technically not remote at all in this context as they all took place on trails
I've been to this area and being close to a road does not mean human contact. I drove on that road for nine hours and saw a handful of people/buildings.
"Towns" on a map might literally be a single home up there. It's as remote as can be even alongside utility roads.
Well Kansas has the benefit of being utterly flat and also quite homogenous biome wise. Even though it has no people I' assuming without looking at it that the entire state has been chopped up into square mile sized squares.
Also probably context for many LA people, as most seem to consider those mountains a Hollywood backdrop, not a place you can be in 90 minutes from anywhere in LA (with favorable traffic).
It turns out that Claude at least loves devouring arcgis maps, and has already found interesting things about my area that were always out there, but not correlated.
somewhat sad to say that if you follow the map link (https://caltopo.com/m/4N7A) there's in fact a trail right next to the "point of inaccessibility" that includes trails + roads.
The path was added to OSM two years ago, which is after the analysis was done. OSM is a moving target!
This isn't really a path, and certainly not an official trail. It's a use trail [1] that should probably get (edit: now has) an informal=yes tag [2]. I think it still counts!
I once made a similar map at work, but for the whole USA. You can view it if you use onX Hunt - called the "Roadless" layer under "Roads Trails & Rec."
This reminds me of something I saw on a backpacking blog sometime last year. Project Remote, a family that's finding and hiking to all the "most remote" place in each state of the USA. Here's some of the statistics:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240621094642/https://www.proje...
The most surprising one to me is: Least Remote: Kansas (0.8 miles from a road).
As someone who lives in the very densely populated greater Boston area, Kansas doesn't exactly strike me as a prime candidate for not being able to get away from roads.
Their website seems to have been commandeered by some Indonesian online casino scam thing in late 2024 and is now offline. I'm unsure of the ongoing state of the project.
I'm extremely surprised that Wyoming is more remote than Alaska! I wouldn't think Alaska has that many back-country roads running through it.
Edit: they have another page describing Alaska. It seems that the linked page might only describe the contiguous US? But also, wow. This seems stupid:
> Thoughts of roadless Alaska came to mind and our amazing, wild trek through the Brooks Range of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We hired a bush plane to drop us off in a nameless valley. At 50 miles from the nearest village or road, we were awed with excitement and healthy fear. We agreed to meet up 9 days and 35 miles later at a flat spot where he could land on the tundra marked by a heap of moose antlers. He looked at us awfully cock-eyed when we told him we had no satellite phone. He asked, “well, why not?” We told him that we were deliberately here to remove ourselves from civilization and contact with it. Watching our pilot fly away, we realized we were as far from towns and roads, and therefore, humans as we could possibly imagine.
I've done some pretty stupid things in my day relating to various activities far* from civilization (my dumbest being an offroad motorcycle trip by myself for which I was not nearly experienced enough, dumped the bike several times, crossed a bridge that definitely wasn't designed to hold a motorcycle, etc.), but I both applaud and receive second-hand anxiety from their massive commitment.
*technically not remote at all in this context as they all took place on trails
I've been to this area and being close to a road does not mean human contact. I drove on that road for nine hours and saw a handful of people/buildings.
"Towns" on a map might literally be a single home up there. It's as remote as can be even alongside utility roads.
Well Kansas has the benefit of being utterly flat and also quite homogenous biome wise. Even though it has no people I' assuming without looking at it that the entire state has been chopped up into square mile sized squares.
Yeah, if "road" is satisfied with tractor path that leads back to a road, that sub-mile distance doesn't seem hard to believe
Context for non-Los Angeles residents: the San Gabriel Mountains are those seen looming behind downtown LA in many photos.
https://www.treehugger.com/special-places-in-the-san-gabriel...
Also probably context for many LA people, as most seem to consider those mountains a Hollywood backdrop, not a place you can be in 90 minutes from anywhere in LA (with favorable traffic).
It turns out that Claude at least loves devouring arcgis maps, and has already found interesting things about my area that were always out there, but not correlated.
somewhat sad to say that if you follow the map link (https://caltopo.com/m/4N7A) there's in fact a trail right next to the "point of inaccessibility" that includes trails + roads.
The path was added to OSM two years ago, which is after the analysis was done. OSM is a moving target!
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1255896413
This isn't really a path, and certainly not an official trail. It's a use trail [1] that should probably get (edit: now has) an informal=yes tag [2]. I think it still counts!
[1]: https://ironhiker.blogspot.com/2025/08/baden-powell-x3-and-r...
[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:informal%3Dyes
The OP a big OSM user and maintains https://eispiraten.com/ where there was more than one discussion about this
https://eispiraten.com/viewtopic.php?p=53599
Makes the Pole of Inaccessibility easier to visit - win-win!
I once made a similar map at work, but for the whole USA. You can view it if you use onX Hunt - called the "Roadless" layer under "Roads Trails & Rec."
There's a link at the top of the article for that too: https://notes.secretsauce.net/notes/2017/09/25_pole-of-road-...