<p>As Boston and Rhode Island are whole areas more than points, the question is easier to answer the other way around: From which mountain you can see Boston and Rhode Island?</p>

<p>To answer the question I'll use the <a href="https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/" rel="noreferrer">SRTM Digital Elevation Model</a> at 30 meters resolution, and pick the following five mountains or hills that seem good candidates:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/sRAuQ.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/sRAuQ.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Shown elevations are the ones derived from STRM data. From each of these points I've made a view shed analysis. And for easier comparison I've put them together in the following animation:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/JAE9H.gif" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/JAE9H.gif" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>In these view shed analysis, the areas in read represent the one that would be visible from the corresponding mountain or hill. As you can see, <strong>Blue Hill and Moose hill are visible from some parts of Boston and Rhode Island. So that chain of hills (including Tower Hill) is definitely visible from many parts of both areas.</strong></p>

<p>For the mountains further inland as Wachusett Mt. and Monadnock Mt., they don't seem to be visible from the coastal areas of Rhode Island.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-24T02:59:53.097Z
So Wachusett might fit the equilateral triangle requirement best then? Also, "topographical prominence" is clearly a factor, so I was hoping for more empirical input.
Tomas By
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-24T03:10:13.173Z
@TomasBy If they say they recognized the same mountain from both places it must be Wachusett Mt. or another mountain relatively far, because the hills would have shown different aspects from each side, so I doubt they would have recognized any one individually.
Topographic prominence can be calculated but it is not the whole picture. Some very distinctive mountains can have low prominence.
If you know better where they made the observations I could do view shed analysis from each observation point and see where they overlap.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-24T03:37:46.300Z
The impression I get from the text (in translation, I cannot really read the original) is that it was not immediately obvious it was the same hills/mountains but something they realised after a little while. There is also the issue of "equal distance away from Straumfjord in both directions".
Tomas By
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-24T03:41:43.170Z
@TomasBy Interesting. Regarding the equal distance issue, some of the hills in that chain between Blue and Tower hills would also fit that requirement.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-24T19:16:40.270Z
Perhaps it is just my machine (or me), but that animation cycles much too fast to be comprehensible.  Perhaps you could overlay the viewsheds in different colors?
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-24T19:45:18.880Z
@jamesqf it should change every one seconds. It seems faster to you?
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-25T06:21:10.737Z
@Camilo Rada: It seems to change about once a second, so I guess it's me :-(  One second is just not enough time for me to take in the whole image, in detail.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-24T01:36:27.037Z
2019-02-24T01:36:27.037Z
Camilo Rada
<p>In the description of the Norse exploration of America, there are two places mentioned, "Hop" and "Straumfjord", with some relationship to the same mountains.</p>

<p>E.g. <a href="https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>The finding of Wineland the Good</em></a>, p. 50:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>They concluded that the mountains of Hop, and those which they had now
  found, formed one chain, and this appeared to be so because they were
  about an equal distance removed from Streamfirth, in either direction.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to the interpretation by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A5re_Prytz" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kåre Prytz</a> these places are Boston, Massachusetts (Straumfjord) and Rhode Island (Hop), and the meaning of the text is that (1) the three locations (Boston, R.I., the mountains) form an equilateral triangle, and (2) the mountains are visible from both Boston and R.I.</p>

<p>Casual inspection of a map suggests this might well be accurate, but I am wondering if the exact peaks can be pinned down more specificly?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T16:21:29.657Z
Hi. Are you accepting Prytz's theory, or challenging it?
Spencer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T16:43:52.540Z
@Spencer Does it matter?
Tomas By
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T16:50:32.783Z
It might affect what you consider "mountains".  Some people scoff at the Appalachians being called "mountains ".
Spencer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T17:02:01.660Z
In the [Saga of Erik the Red](http://www.heimskringla.no/wiki/Eir%C3%ADks_saga_rau%C3%B0a) the word is "fjöll", plural of [fjall](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fjall), which covers (I believe) both "hill" and "mountain" in English.
Tomas By
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T19:26:31.913Z
The only mountains that would be visible from anywhere near Boston or Rhode Island are those on the moon.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-25T11:51:22.570Z
Related: search for "what's that? " is a page in which you enter location and renders a list/map of mountais/places accessible to view.
Alchimista
<geography><mountains><gis>
Which mountains (or hills) are visible from both Boston and Rhode Island?
Tomas By
# Which mountains (or hills) are visible from both Boston and Rhode Island?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-02-23)

In the description of the Norse exploration of America, there are two places mentioned, "Hop" and "Straumfjord", with some relationship to the same mountains.

E.g. [*The finding of Wineland the Good*](https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich), p. 50:

> They concluded that the mountains of Hop, and those which they had now
> found, formed one chain, and this appeared to be so because they were
> about an equal distance removed from Streamfirth, in either direction.

According to the interpretation by [Kåre Prytz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A5re_Prytz) these places are Boston, Massachusetts (Straumfjord) and Rhode Island (Hop), and the meaning of the text is that (1) the three locations (Boston, R.I., the mountains) form an equilateral triangle, and (2) the mountains are visible from both Boston and R.I.

Casual inspection of a map suggests this might well be accurate, but I am wondering if the exact peaks can be pinned down more specificly?

**Tags:** geography, mountains, gis

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Hi. Are you accepting Prytz's theory, or challenging it?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Does it matter?  
> **username_1**: It might affect what you consider "mountains".  Some people scoff at the Appalachians being called "mountains ".  
> **username_0**: In the [Saga of Erik the Red](http://www.heimskringla.no/wiki/Eir%C3%ADks_saga_rau%C3%B0a) the word is "fjöll", plural of [fjall](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fjall), which covers (I believe) both "hill" and "mountain" in English.  
> **username_2**: The only mountains that would be visible from anywhere near Boston or Rhode Island are those on the moon.  
> **username_3**: Related: search for "what's that? " is a page in which you enter location and renders a list/map of mountais/places accessible to view.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-02-24. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

As Boston and Rhode Island are whole areas more than points, the question is easier to answer the other way around: From which mountain you can see Boston and Rhode Island?

To answer the question I'll use the [SRTM Digital Elevation Model](https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/) at 30 meters resolution, and pick the following five mountains or hills that seem good candidates:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/sRAuQ.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/sRAuQ.png)

Shown elevations are the ones derived from STRM data. From each of these points I've made a view shed analysis. And for easier comparison I've put them together in the following animation:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/JAE9H.gif)](https://i.sstatic.net/JAE9H.gif)

In these view shed analysis, the areas in read represent the one that would be visible from the corresponding mountain or hill. As you can see, **Blue Hill and Moose hill are visible from some parts of Boston and Rhode Island. So that chain of hills (including Tower Hill) is definitely visible from many parts of both areas.**

For the mountains further inland as Wachusett Mt. and Monadnock Mt., they don't seem to be visible from the coastal areas of Rhode Island.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So Wachusett might fit the equilateral triangle requirement best then? Also, "topographical prominence" is clearly a factor, so I was hoping for more empirical input.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 If they say they recognized the same mountain from both places it must be Wachusett Mt. or another mountain relatively far, because the hills would have shown different aspects from each side, so I doubt they would have recognized any one individually. Topographic prominence can be calculated but it is not the whole picture. Some very distinctive mountains can have low prominence. If you know better where they made the observations I could do view shed analysis from each observation point and see where they overlap.  
> **username_0**: The impression I get from the text (in translation, I cannot really read the original) is that it was not immediately obvious it was the same hills/mountains but something they realised after a little while. There is also the issue of "equal distance away from Straumfjord in both directions".  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Interesting. Regarding the equal distance issue, some of the hills in that chain between Blue and Tower hills would also fit that requirement.  
> **username_2**: Perhaps it is just my machine (or me), but that animation cycles much too fast to be comprehensible.  Perhaps you could overlay the viewsheds in different colors?  
> **username_4**: @username_2 it should change every one seconds. It seems faster to you?  
> **username_2**: @username_4: It seems to change about once a second, so I guess it's me :-(  One second is just not enough time for me to take in the whole image, in detail.  

---

