Would be true if the question was about the furthest east or west you’ve been in a certain building in Greenwich, England. But the actual question is about the furthest east or west you’ve been on the planet – that is, the absolute values of the positive and negative longitude numbers.
North: 0’00" latitude (magnetic North Pole specifically)
East: Approximately 080’ East longitude (Colombo Sri Lanka, specifically)
South: Approximately 034’ South latitude (Capetown, South Africa specifically)
West: Approximately 123’ West longitude (San Fransisco CA specifically)
Places still on my bucket list:
Maui, Hawa’ii (Approximately 157’ West longitude)
Nuku Hiva (Approximately 140’ West longitude)
Pitcairn Island (Approximately 128.3’ West longitude)
Tokyo, Japan (Approximately 140’ East longitude)
Sydney, Australia (Approximately 151.5’ East longitude)
Cape Horn (Approximately 056’ South latitude)
No desire at all to see Antarctica. International Dateline would be cool, but I can live without it. I’m good being a Shellback and a Bluenose.
ETA: These are all quick calculations. I make no claims as to authenticity of coordinates.
Nope. From the meridian in Greenwich, you can walk a few feet east or west. And that’s how extreme you’ll be. Just a few feet east or west.
It’s the opposite side of the globe, out in the central Pacific ocean, where you can be 10,000+ miles east or west.
In a soundbite: Greenwich is zero distance east or west; the other side of the Earth is the max distance east or west.
But extreme East and West are both in Greenwich if we are taking the prime meridian as the starting point.
Can someone please answer this question? It would sure simplify what we are all talking about.
This is pedantic, but correct.
They seem to be talking about the International Date Line.
North: Banff, Scotland
West: Seattle, USA
South: Galle, Sri Lanka
East: Galle, Sri Lanka
That’s an interesting and non-standard take on it. In terms of position, by definition you can’t get farther than 180 degrees from Greenwich. Continuing past there in the same direction, you’re not getting farther from where you came (Greenwich). Instead you’re getting closer to where you’re going (Greewich).
If you are trying to define “east” & “west” as distance traveled in an easterly or westerly direction, not a the position attained by that travel, one could argue that as you approach Greewich again after your circumnavigation you’ve gone 23000 miles e.g. eastbound. But if so, why stop there? If you decide to make a second circumnavigation the same direction, have you not now gone 46000 miles eastbound?
It’s the confusion between position and distance that’s at the heart of all these contending ideas.
And the distance traveled idea is not the way the world navigates.
No, they are not. Slightly east of the Prime Meridian, your longitude is a small positive number. Slightly west, your longitude is a small negative number. The absolute value of the coordinate numbers keeps increasing as you get further away. There are no “extremes” there!
Just tell me if Tokyo is East or West of LA.
Farthest north: Shawville, Quebec 45°36′N
Farthest south: Shah Alam, Malaysia 03°04′ N
Farthest east: Genting Highlands, Malaysia 101°48′ E
Farthest west: Pacifica, California 122° 30′ W
There are two competing definitions.
In terms of position, Los Angeles is to the west of Tokyo. or equally, Tokyo is to the east of Los Angeles. In fact 100% of the western hemisphere is to the west of Tokyo. And 100% of the eastern hemisphere is east of Los Angeles.
If one was talking about traveling from one to the other, one would probably use the competing definition of “use whichever direction is shorter”. In which case Tokyo is to the west and Los Angeles is to the east.
Clear as mud yet?
North: Gulfoss Falls, Iceland 64°19’37.6"N 20°07’17.4"W
South: Bangkok, Thailand 13°45’20.9"N 100°29’58.3"E
East: Wan Chai, Hong Kong 13°45’20.9"N 100°29’58.3"E
West: Golden Gate Park, San Francisco 37°46’08.2"N 122°29’11.8"W
Personally for East/West I think folks should use their birthplace as the zero point or possibly the place of their earliest memory if they moved as an infant.
Doesn’t matter for me:
North: The Canadian border (White Pass) on the train line out of Skagway (~59.6deg N)
South: Falmouth, Jamaica (~18deg N)
East: Just east of Greenwich (~0.01deg E)
West: Just west of Skagway (~136deg W)
North: London, UK
East: London, UK (hmph)
South: Miami, Fla (thought it would be in central Baja California, but nope)
West: Napali coast of Kaua’i in Hawai’i
I really should start traveling more internationally now that I’m retired. But lord do I hate long plane trips at my age 
.
Not at all. Thanks for trying, though.
Umm, if the latitude is xx-xx-xx East, it’s east, if the latitude is xx-xx-xx West, it’s west.
For example, I counted Tokyo as furthest east, though I flew west to get there.
I stopped for a few hours at Narita Airport, but I don’t count that as really being to Japan. I only count it when I set foot in the country outside the airport.
What about driving on surface roads? If I drive right through Ohio without stopping, does that count? Yes, you’re traveling on the ground.
What if I took a boat up the Missouri past the South Dakota border without getting out of the boat, does that count as being in South Dakota? Yes, river boating absolutely counts. Only airways and airports don’t count.
Well, yes, obviously since the Prime Meridian is the reference point with a coordinate of 0°, the farthest east or west you could get from it would be on the opposite side of the planet.
But there’s no “line to cross over” in that sense. If you were heading east, got to coordinate point 180°, and kept going, you’d still be heading east. The earth would still be turning in the same direction, so you’d still continue to lose one hour for every 15° of longitude. There would just be a date change at the IDL.