Farthest You Can See in Both Directions

[interstatefan990]

I think we need a few parameters set here, because being able to see mountain peaks off in the distance is not the same as having 1 long continuous view.

I second this.

[Bruce]

Seeing mountains can be a continuous view if you count the foothills.

Limiting to a completely flat plain would exclude a pretty good chunk of the country.

[Terry Shea]

Seeing mountains can be a continuous view if you count the foothills.

Limiting to a completely flat plain would exclude a pretty good chunk of the country.

Yes, but seeing Mount Ranier off in 1 direction and seeing Mount Hood the other way (not sure if that's possible but just using an extreme example) is not the same as seeing 1 long continuous land mass.  And I'm not saying that either scenario should be discounted.  I'm just not sure what the criteria is.

[MinecraftNinja]

South Dakota is very flat for this kind of thing.

[zachary_amaryllis]

this sort of pales in comparison... but if you look to the left of the truck, you can just barely see the foothills of the mountains. this point is 24 miles east of ault, which is 20 miles east of fort collins, and probably 4-5 more miles to the foothills from foco. almost 50 miles.

https://goo.gl/maps/tSWY3B3KfV4hmQrv9

[US 89]

From many points in Seattle and Everett, one can see both Tahoma (Mount Rainier) and Koma Kulshan (Mount Baker). If driving on I-5 north of Everett, that's about 81 miles to Tahoma and 57 miles to Kulshan. In fact, the lowest part of Tahoma is cut off from that distance due to the curvature of the earth's surface.

Another one from Colorado.  On clear days, you can see both Wyoming and Kansas, so upwards of 150 miles to the north and east.  And according to this, you can see the summit of Mount Antero which is about 73 miles away to the west.

I don't think you can actually see Kansas from Pikes Peak even on the clearest day thanks to Earth's curvature:

http://www.heywhatsthat.com/?view=SRRNJIQK

[webny99]

Seeing mountains can be a continuous view if you count the foothills.

Limiting to a completely flat plain would exclude a pretty good chunk of the country.

Yes, but seeing Mount Ranier off in 1 direction and seeing Mount Hood the other way (not sure if that's possible but just using an extreme example) is not the same as seeing 1 long continuous land mass.  And I'm not saying that either scenario should be discounted.  I'm just not sure what the criteria is.

Emphasis on being able to see the road itself a long ways into the distance, or at least being able to see land continuously unblocked by trees/hills/etc. That doesn't exclude mountains in the background - again, see my example in the OP.

[JayhawkCO]

From many points in Seattle and Everett, one can see both Tahoma (Mount Rainier) and Koma Kulshan (Mount Baker). If driving on I-5 north of Everett, that's about 81 miles to Tahoma and 57 miles to Kulshan. In fact, the lowest part of Tahoma is cut off from that distance due to the curvature of the earth's surface.

Another one from Colorado.  On clear days, you can see both Wyoming and Kansas, so upwards of 150 miles to the north and east.  And according to this, you can see the summit of Mount Antero which is about 73 miles away to the west.

I don't think you can actually see Kansas from Pikes Peak even on the clearest day thanks to Earth's curvature:

http://www.heywhatsthat.com/?view=SRRNJIQK

Ok.  How about this.  You can see Wyoming.  You can see New Mexico.  You can see within 15 miles of Kansas.  You can see within 5 miles of Nebraska.  That's still pretty remarkable.

Chris

[StogieGuy7]

From many points in Seattle and Everett, one can see both Tahoma (Mount Rainier) and Koma Kulshan (Mount Baker). If driving on I-5 north of Everett, that's about 81 miles to Tahoma and 57 miles to Kulshan. In fact, the lowest part of Tahoma is cut off from that distance due to the curvature of the earth's surface.

Another one from Colorado.  On clear days, you can see both Wyoming and Kansas, so upwards of 150 miles to the north and east.  And according to this, you can see the summit of Mount Antero which is about 73 miles away to the west.

I don't think you can actually see Kansas from Pikes Peak even on the clearest day thanks to Earth's curvature:

http://www.heywhatsthat.com/?view=SRRNJIQK

You are right, and I've said this for a long time.  But, the local tourism folks in Colorado Springs have been maintaining for decades that (on a clear day) you can see CO, WY, NM and KS from the top of Pikes Peak. KS is too far.  Back when I lived in COS, I drove to the top of Pikes Peak and was geeky enough to tune around on my FM radio.  Denver, Cheyenne, Ft. Collins signals all loud and clear.  Farthest east I could identify was from Burlington, CO; I received some stations from places like Vail and Aspen (which are never heard on the Front Range) but no Grand Junction/Montrose ones. 

Why is this relevant? Because FM signals primarily travel in a straight line (yes there are exceptions like tropospheric ducting) and are usually transmitted from some form of a tower. If you could actually "see" Kansas, you'd likely receive a decent signal from a station in Goodland, KS - which doesn't even mean that you can "see" Goodland, but does mean that the elevated transmitter site is within line of sight. Of course, in more humid parts of the county this isn't nearly as definitive because you get ducting at times which is why I often pick up signals from west Michigan here in southern WI - and they're not within line of sight, the signals are ducted to me over the lake under such conditions.

[Brandon]

Away from the mountains, and just a rise on an otherwise flat area: https://goo.gl/maps/dYHGE9AqdnDVm4H96

[CoreySamson]

That reminds me of another long bridge in Louisiana:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3653686,-91.6382205,3a,15y,253.05h,88.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s70f6FX_4vZ5k2h_41-qfug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656