Talk:Extreme points of Earth

From a point of view that's very possible the earthenmost and westernmost places on earth must not only be in the 180th meridian, they must be, simultaneously, the closest to the equator possible, if not in the equator itself... So that would be a nice addendum to the article...

I'm not sure why that would make them any further east or west, but if you can find a reference that this is an opinion which had been aired, then we could add them. Warofdreams talk 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the international date line / 180th meridian is located arbitrarily. So, I wonder what makes the eastern and westernmost points so special (i.e. worth mentioning on this page)? 19:27, 28 september 2009 (CEST)

For the record, the radius of an ellipse of semi-minor axis b (6356.78 km) and semi-major axis a (6378.14 km), at latitude λ (measured at the centre), is:

${\displaystyle r^{2}={\frac {a^{2}b^{2}}{b^{2}+(a^{2}-b^{2})\sin ^{2}{\lambda }}}}$

And thus we have:

Urhixidur 16:48, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

(Wasn't quite sure which section this should go in, but this seemed like the best bet.) Something's wrong with the numbers given for Chimborazo vs Everest. There's no way that Chimborazo's summit is only ~6000m from the Earth's center. That's roughly its height above sea level! I may try to fix it, but I'd like someone who's actually done the math to check my numbers if I do.-Athaler (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, the statement in this section of the article that "(the bottom of the Mariana Trench is 6,366.4 m (20,887 ft) from the centre of the Earth)." is clearly wrong. Whether it should be 6,366.4 KM or the computed 6377.7 km, I don't know, but some one should edit the correct value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.31.106.49 (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What are the extreme inhabited points? Rmhermen 05:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Meaning what? The most densely populated spots?

Urhixidur 17:31, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No I just meant furthest north, furthest south, most isolated, etc. Rmhermen 20:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

See Northernmost settlements and Southernmost settlements as a starter. Warofdreams 09:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which island is the most to the south? --Palnatoke 13:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the List of antarctic and sub-antarctic islands, my bet would be Roosevelt Island, inside the Ross Sea, at 79°25′S 162°00′W. Its hard to be sure because the "sea-level" line is icebound and hard to delineate. Maybe a better question would be which island is ice-free and most to the south?

Urhixidur 22:17, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Maybe the "Sandwich" Islands? or South Shetland Islands? (Don't have the wikilink handy) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Peter I Island is further south than them, but our map of Antarctica suggests that there are some ice free islands off Victoria Land - can anyone their names? Warofdreams talk 16:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems they are named Scott Island and Balerry Islands, according to a zoom of the map on Victoria Land's page. But, Peter I Island doesn't look very much "Ice free"... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right there. is useful - it comes up with Duke of York Island at 71deg38S. It's not clear, but Coulman Island at 73deg28S may be surrounded by water (although as it has glaciers, it's not really ice free). But there could be some even further south. Warofdreams talk 16:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the article, is a Coulman "an ice-covered island"... Let's stick with the Shetlands and we'll update if we find something else. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

But Duke of York Island is definitely ice-free and much further south! Warofdreams talk 09:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

According to my atlas, Franklin Island lies at about 76 degrees South, but still far north of the permanent ice of the Ross Ice Shelf. There is also an unnamed little island north of Ross Island, at 77 degrees. I think this is Beaufort Island, at 76deg56. Eugene van der Pijll 23:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So be it, then. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Warofdreams, that's a great link to the Antarctica gazetteer! It looks like it's a work by the U.S. government, and therefore public domain, so I've just created a Duke of York Island article straight from that page. I think I'm going to mention this gazetteer at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles... Eugene van der Pijll 16:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't know much about the copyright status of U.S. government works, but please go ahead and mention it - perhaps we could use it in the same manner as the 1911 encyclopaedia? Warofdreams talk 17:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica. Eugene van der Pijll 22:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Berkner Island is NOT the southernmost island. Its most southern extension is called Mulvaney Promontory and reaches 80deg51S. Deverall Island lies at 81deg28S. --Jamiri (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've suggested that The world's most northern be merged into this article. Tell me what you think. --Newguineafan 17:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

sure, is the a world's most southern article?? mexaguil 05:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

make a worlds most southern section, then u can add the worlds most northern page above it

Bourbons3 13:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The two seem to be quite different in content. I don't have any strong feelings, but think they could easily be kept separate. And as Mexaguil suggests, add a most southern article too - MPF 01:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the two articles separate. The content is quite different and of a different nature - "extreme" is mostly geographical whereas "most northern" includes more unusual... I don't think the world's most northerly golf course really sits with most northerly island! Definitely keep them separate. Iancaddy 12:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This has run for nearly two months; the voting seems to be for keeping them separate, so I'm deleting the merge tags now - MPF 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the section about the points that are the "center" of the world have to do with extreme points of the world? It seems kind of offtopic, considering the center is not extreme. --Michael White^T·C 15:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The center is an extreme in the way that as a relative feature is absolute, i.e. in a circle divided between "north, south, west, east" the northernmost point is defined as "farthest point in the northern section in relation to the southernmost, easternmost and westernmost points", a similiar definition goes for the other extremes, and with this the center happens to be "farthest point within the circle from the northenmost, easternmost, westernmost and southernmost points". My point really is that its all 'bout perspective...

I would like to agree with Michael that 'center' cities at least do not belong in this article. The simple reason is that these points have no basis in geography: they are not geographically extreme in any way. Rather, they are slogans. Given the fact that neither Istel nor Dali are experts of geography, nor are their claims recognized by any majority of people or world governments, I do not believe these sayings belong here.

As an example of why this section will not stand scrutiny, consider the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma. I happen to know that there is a monument in the city describing itself as 'The Center of the Universe', with an obelisk that no doubt rivals Felicity's pyrimid. I would not be surprised if hundreds or even thousands of other cities around the world make similar claims. What, then, would stop people from adding each of these cities to the list, making this section longer than the rest of the article combined?

The fact that this article does not and cannot include every city in the world calling itself the center makes it necessarily P.O.V., currently towards the United States. Furthermore, the topic of this section (slogans) does not fit with the rest of the article (geography), and I am therefore going to delete it. Âme Errante 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be extremely interesting to get informations about the planet's highest villages (altitude). I know this'd be difficult, but it'd be an imporant part of a list like this. 213.47.219.86 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See list of highest towns by country. Warofdreams talk 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the technical term for this would be but I think this should also include more information dependent on habitation (like it does by mentioning Hawaii) What is the northernmost permanent settlement? What point on earth is farthest removed from human settlement? And perhaps also what places have been the historicall least accessed, but I can understand how that might belong on a different list. 140.180.166.176 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The roads listed in Tibet are certainly not the highest in the world. As far as I know, the highest road goes to the summit of Aucanquilcha, a volcano in Chile, 6,176 m (20,262 ft). This is a service and haul road for a sulfur mine, passable by 20-ton mining trucks. See this reference:

• McIntyre, Loren (April 1987). "The High Andes". National Geographic. 171 (4). National Geographic Society: 422–460. (includes description and photos of Aucanquilcha summit road and mine)

I've added this info to the article. This mine has been shut down since the 1990s, and the road is falling into disrepair, but increased demand for sulfur could perhaps result in resumption of mining activity someday, and resumed maintenance of the road. --Seattle Skier (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be right to add the southernmost point on land except Antarctica to the Latitude and longitude list?--ImPaladin 08:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The northernmost point of the World is the geographic North Pole, in the Arctic Ocean.

I'm not sure that's correct. Dur dur dur dur dur. --76.223.221.122 08:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe the most northerly point is Magnetic North, which is somewhere around Ellesmere Island these days. The question featured on the programme Top Gear: Polar Special. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the title for most remote island in the world is being disputed by Tristan da Cunha and the relatively nearby Bouvet Island. I'm quite certain that Saint-Paul island, located in the southern Indian Ocean is definetly further away from any landmass. The closest you can get to St. Paul is the Western tip of Australia, which is over 3,500 kms away. The claim that Tristan da Cunha is the remotest island on Earth is obviously not true, since it's "only" 2,800 kms away from South Africa. I'm going to leave this here so we can get some discussion on it and some time from now I'll fix the article itself, if anybody has any islands that are more remote, go ahead and discuss! Neoncitylights 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Saint-Paul is not the most remote island in the world, as our article states that it is only 53 miles from île Amsterdam. We could always have a new section for the island furthest from any continental landmass. Warofdreams talk 16:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a clarification on what it means to be remote? Does it refer to the closest ANYTHING? or anything of significance? Another inhabited island? Accessibility? (Example, because Easter Island has an airport and Tristan da Cunha doesn't makes E.I. less remote?) Billy Nair 16:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ile Saint Paul is also "only" 800 miles from Kerguelen, and is closer to the Antartic than it is to Australia. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition of an archipelago has to be clarified. Should the island of Gough, which lies 400 km away from Tristan Da Cunha, be considered as part of the "archipelago of Tristan da Cunha"? If yes, then how about Island Bouvet, who's 1,845 km away from Gough Island?霎起林野间 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is not yet clear to me whether île Amsterdam and Saint-Paul island would be regarded as in one archipelago.霎起林野间 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

---its not island; it's archipelago

Here's a Google Maps link to Tristan da Cunha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shutupgeek (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Remote, with an island, would mean distance from a continental land mass. That's what an island is - land that is not part of a land mass and surrounded by water. Therefore, remoteness would be distance from a non-island. This article currently suggests that remote refers to distance between groups of humans, not land surface. Easter Island is much further from land than Tristan. Also, distance from another island is not the metric of "remote", as Tristan is an archipelago with islands nearby too. Saint-Paul is further from another island than Tristan's main island. The island that is farthest from another island or atoll could be defined as most "solitary" island. As far as isolation of human beings, you'd have to define the population limit or define it as most remote "island settlements" (else the metric would dissolve as people move around or if a large cruise ship approaches). Wikipedia says Easter Island is 2180mi from land. I'll let somebody else accurately measure Ile Saint-Paul's remoteness but there should at least be an entry on this page for remoteness of an island itself (and not its peoples as is currently suggested).Tangverse (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Remote should mean distance from any other land mass, not only continental landmasses (otherwise, an island just off the east coast of Greenland, or Borneo, for example, is apparently highly remote). In terms of people, clearly the reference is to permanent settlements, not boats. Warofdreams talk 10:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody verify that the island of St. Helena is the habitation furthest from any other land in the world? i.e. Tristan da Cunha is the most remote inhabited archipelago, while the island of Tristan da Cunha itself is relatively close to the uninhabited Inaccessible and Nightingale Islands. Whereas the nearest landmass of any kind to St. Helena, AFAIK, is Ascension, so St. Helena is the inhabited place on Earth with the most ocean in all directions. Or ne c’est pas? —Wiki Wikardo 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

St Helena is not that remote from Africa. On the other hand, however, I have computed the distance between St Helena and Tristan Da Cunha on google maps using its labs, which is shown as around 2,434 km, definitely closer to the distance of so called "2,816 km (1,750 mi) from South Africa" (what's more, the closest distance between south africa and Tristan Da Cunha is actually shown as around 2,770 km rather than the 2,816 km).霎起林野间 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

in no way is wellington the most remote cap city. i would immediately recognize that canberra is more remote, as it is 1689 miles from port-vila, vanuatu; wellington is 1667 away from port-vila. this is not to say that canberra is the most remote cap city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjwr42 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has objected, so I added Canberra too. Of course, the shortest distance from Canberra to another capital (i.e., to Wellington) is the same as the shortest distance from Wellington to another capital (i.e., to Canberra). Unless we both, and all who read your comment, have missed something. -- Jao (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Canberra doesn't meet the guidelines either. If you're looking for the most remote capital city you can find, try Perth, Western Australia. The nearest city of any kind of comparable size is Adelaide, South Australia, some 2,500 kilometres away. If you follow the "same size or larger" theory, that would then make Melbourne, Victoria your candidate which is around 3,400 kilometres away. (since Adelaide's population of 1.3 million is easily smaller than Perth's 1.6 million) --Rjch au (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Perth, Western Australia is not a country capital. Luis wiki (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just looking at a globe here... but you can simply go from northarmerica (new foundland) though the atlantic, past south africa, to autralia. (Tasmaina) in one line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.108.125 (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Or you could keep going, cross the Pacific and the North-West Passage, to arrive where you started. New York Bay to Long Island Sound, the long way-30,000 miles?Moonraker12 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But what does all this have to do with the article, which only talks about longest continuous distance at sea along constant latitudes/longitudes? -- Jao (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Got there before me! I'll have to type faster! Moonraker12 (talk)

This presumably means along a particular line of Latitude; but you should be able to go from Argentina eastwards all the way to Chile along a line around 50 South. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions Kaffeklubben Island, but what about ATOW1996, I see that Kaffeklubben Island is mentioned as the northermost point on land in it's own article too. I'm not sure what's the correct one... anyway this and Kaffekluben Island's article needs to be corrected or the article about ATOW1996 needs to be corrected.

I think reference to the Kola_Superdeep_Borehole should be made some where in this article. May be as the deepest man-made hole. Mahadevan Subramanian (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the deepest man-made hole, and it pprobably qualifies as the deepest "location", in other words closest to the earth's center, but it all depends on your definition of "point" or "location". The borehole is only about 21 cm wide, so does the bottom of the hole qualify as a "point" or place? Additionally, the hole is so deep in the crust that when they pulled the drill out, the hole closed because of the amorphous and plastic nature of the crust at those depths, temperatures and pressures. So it's also a question of when the measurement is taken. To summarize, it's quite arbitrary to discuss these things, you can't really put a number on it unless you define a lot of other things first. Arcades (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found that if a distance measurement is of the type that could be verified by any user or any editor with any atlas or many mapping sites on line, then a large majority of editors, administators, etc. do not classify that in any way as original research (and don't require listing any source such as "Times Atlas" and Times gazetteer.) If they were, then 4/5 of WP geography ("10 miles east of.....border Pacific Ocean for 100 miles.....4 miles off the Northern Territories coast"......etc., etc. would have to be deleted,yes? Measurements are certainly verifiable.

I think most would agree that if Auckland at 1 million pop. had a 900,000 pop. city nearby, then it wouldn't be listed as "remote", right?

So where is the "cut-off?" Common sense (and a dictionary definition of "remote") would dictate that a city would be disqualified as "remote" with "big" 400,000 pop. cities like Wellington and Christchurch not too far away (by Perth and Honolulu standards!). For a long time until a few weeks ago, most readers/potential editors of this article apparently seemed to feel that the proximity of a couple cities nearing half a million to Auckland disqualify Auckland from "remote" status, when Perth and Honolulu have no cities over 50,0000 (!) or so pop. anywhere near them. I think most still do. I sure do....makes sense, yes? Comes down to a definition of "remote", I suppose..... But by any definition, "remote" certainly does not mean nearby(by Perth-Honolulu standards!) 400,000 pop. cities, so I reverted back to the way it has been for the past year or two.DLinth (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to compare things with similar attributes - oranges with oranges, apples with apples, and cities with one million people with other cities with one million people. If you start making exceptions you break down the integrity of what you are trying to demonstrate.

Thus is the trouble with multivariate analysis.... Kransky (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So, your City A of 1.1 million, 50 km from two cities of 900,000, would be "remote" according to you as long as it's 1000 km from the next million person city. Meanwhile, my City B of 1.1 million has no cities even 1/10 its size until a million pop. city 999 km away, but that's not "remote" by your definition.

Time to put aside multivariate anaylsis and pick up a dictionary.DLinth (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to accurately identify the superlative of anything in which two independent attributes are measured. You may as well ask who is the biggest person in the world (the tallest or the heaviest?). OK, suppose we say it might not be Auckland because of the proximity of Wellington. Then why not (say) Antanarivo is the most remote vis a vis the proximity of Port Louis (which is smaller than Wellington but which is further from Madagascar than the distance between the two NZ cities). We are then forced to make our own secondary definitions of what is a "decently sized" city, so that we can say a city of 999,999 would not make a city of one million plus remote if it is nearby. We are pretty much bordering on original research in developing a benchmark.

Keep it simple - compare cities of a million plus with other cities of a million plus. Kransky (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Kransky. "Most remote capital" in the sense of "capital furthest away from another capital", "most remote million city" in the sense of "million city furthest away from another million city". Anything else would be stretching it to arbitrary definitions and original research. The only other option – and I'd say it's a reasonable one! – is striking the entire remoteness section. -- Jao (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of discussion above (under "longest continuous distance at sea"), that seems to relate to the section "Along any great circle", but mixed up with furthest distances "along particular lat/long"; not necessarily the same thing, so I'm adding this under the specific heading in the article.
Regarding any great circle, I seem to remember reading somewhere that a great circle was possible from a point somewhere on the coast of either Alaska or the Aleutian Islands, down the Pacific through the Drake Passage and then 'up' through the Mozambique Channel and up to a point on the coast somewhere on the Arabian Sea. This looks like a longer trip than the two mentioned in the article, but I don't no for sure if it's possible. Can anyone else confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.209.92 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how that discussion could have related to a section that did not exist at the time it was held (May 2008). Anyway, the section suffers from tremendous sourcing problems. As we don't have a source saying "this is the longest etc", what we have now is just OR (and probably, as you note, not even correct). —JAO • T • C 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the longest distance at sea, the article text clearly does not claim to provide the exact longest route along any Great Circle, but rather just states that 1) there are many that are greater than the antipodal length and 2) gives 2 good examples, along with approximate lengths. I think it's fine as it is until someone can add more examples, or a more precise statement about what is really the longest such route at sea. I don't fully agree with the box above citing original research, since a) no claim of longest route is made, merely examples are given and b) anyone can verify these things themselves by using Google Earth to measure distances on the earth. Facts that can be verified by (basically) anyone through observation and measurement (ei. the earth is round, sky is blue, the distance from X to Y is Z kilometers) should not constitute original research. If a claim is made in the article later that "the longest route at sea along any Great Circle is such and such" then you would need to source it, and state who says that it is the absolute longest. (No such claim is currently made in the article.)Arcades (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough I did some research on this a few years back. It was done by sampling an enormous number of great circles (of which there are an infinite number) covering most of the globe and actually calculating the surface distances using a global digital elevation model. I have no intention of posting the results, as there is no evidence that they are in fact correct (there were limitations involving the sample size, the coarseness of the elevation model, the oblateness of the spheroid, etc.), nor am I confident that there is any possible way to calculate these to any accuracy. anon 66.45.149.190 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the furthest point from the Earth's axis? This would be the fastest moving "point" on earth. The summit of Cayambe seems a likely candidate, as a point on it's slopes is the highest point on the equator. Zarano (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite well know and established that this point is the Chimborazo's summit. Or maybe the axis differs from the Earth's center? ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely different, yes. Chimborazo's 1.5 degrees off the equator brings it about 2,200 m closer to the axis, more than compensating for the difference between its and Cayambe's elevations. —JAO • T • C 18:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Checked Cotopaxi, the only peak further from the center of the Earth with a reasonable latitude to be a contender. They were close, but not enough. Bandana man95 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I was quite enlightened by this extreme point, but found that I was confused by the following wording: More importantly, however, it being so near the equator means that the majority of its distance from the center of the Earth goes into it being away from the axis.

It seems to me that this could be explained in relatively simple mathematical terms in a more concise way other than "goes into it being away from the axis"? I think I understand what that is saying, but it does not seem to me to be wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.96.130 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, perhaps this section should mention that this fastest point is relative to the center of the earth. It does not take into the account the movement of the earth, nor the solar system or galaxy etc. It's nitpicky perhaps, but the concept of declaring that a mountain peak is moving at 1,675.89 km/h, when in fact the earth is moving through space at ~30 km/s relative to the sun (or technically to the center of the solar system), and ~220 km/s relative to the center of the galaxy, and ~1k km/s relative to the great attractor and ~390 km/s relative to the cosmic background radiation (if you trust https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/). Again, it's nitpicky, but seems appropriate for this arbitrary declaration of a mountain peak's speed. All it needs is "relative to the center of the earth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.96.130 (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• The south coordinate needs to be changed to the north corrdinate.

24.117.177.65 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is not enough specificity in this request. Exactly which coordinate should be changed, please? BrainMarble (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"However, one could perhaps" Is a weasel statement and is speculation. It needs a citation.71.85.200.32 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This was by me. Adam in MO Talk 02:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this section should be there at all, or needs to be completely reworded. Currently it has no relation to most of the sections. The part referring to latitude and longitude (longitude in particular) being a bit arbitrary could be a note in the Latitude and Longitude section. But suggesting any other centre seems pointless to me. We could also pick many other centres - biggest city, centre of largest landmass, centre of all landmasses, the antipodes of any of these, either of the poles, etc.Richjhart (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Kola superdeep borehole record has been surpassed many times. See Sakhalin-I for more information.

On 28 January 2011, Exxon Neftegas Ltd., operator of the Sakhalin-1 project, drilled the currently world's longest extended-reach well. It has surpassed both the Al Shaheen well and the previous decades-long leader Kola Superdeep Borehole as the world's longest borehole. The Odoptu OP-11 Well reached a measured total depth of 12,345 metres (40,502 ft) and a horizontal displacement of 11,475 metres (37,648 ft). Exxon Neftegas completed the well in 60 days.^[4]Cliff (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a new low (har har). Namely, it's an extended-reach well, and the reach is mainly horizontal, as said in the quote. The "depth" of the borehole is quoted imprecisely here: it would be in fact its length. If the borehole was perfectly straight (which it probably isn't), then its maximum absolute depth would be 4552 m by Pythagoras' law. Borehole length records have been previously broken already, but Kola Superdeep Borehole remains the deepest point from surface. --vuo (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Vuo, Thank you for the clarification. Should we try to make the difference clear? More talk about this. Cliff (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The entry needs to be rephrased anyway: as the "Lowest point underground", the answer would be the center of the earth. It needs to be rephrased to mean what it actually means, but I can't think of how to do it without making it too verbose or awkward....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't answer the following question:

What is the closest point from the center above ground or water ?

The bottom of the arctic ocean doesn't qualify. Bomazi (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer likely is: top of the arctic ocean (or, putting that more scientifically, ocean surface at the North Pole).
Among these on land, either Kaffeklubben/Oodaaq/whatever or southernmost point of Antarctic shore... or maybe some low depression elsewhere in the Antarctic (Google Earth flubs it up by having large parts of inner Antarctica with near-zero altitude, which is almost certainly bogus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.141.71 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)