The centre of these rings sits at 51.5085, -0.1257, and the circles go out 5, 10, 25 and 50 miles from there. Nothing on the page is a guess. Each distance was measured across the curve of the globe, from that centre to the published coordinates of the place in question, then rounded to one decimal.
Around London the rings fill up fast. 12 places inside 5 mi, 51 by the time you reach 10, 229 once the circle hits 50. Add those to London’s own 8,961,989 and the outer disc covers something near 21,291,565 people. Worth knowing before you draw a radius and call it a trade area.
If you want one landmark to calibrate against, use Willesden. It’s 4.9 mi west-north-west of the centre, so it sits almost exactly on the inner circle. At the other end, Cambridge is 48.9 mi out to the north-north-east, near enough the edge of the 50 mi ring. Everything in between scales from those two.
Read the distances as point to point. GeoNames gives every settlement one coordinate, roughly central, and these figures are the gaps between those coordinates. A sprawling suburb whose centre lands at 10 mi might well start at half that. Where the boundary actually matters, draw the circle and look at where the line crosses.
12 places inside 5 mi, 1,079,871 people, 79 mi² of ground. The 8 largest are in the table; 4 smaller ones aren’t.
| Place | Distance | Bearing | Population |
|---|---|---|---|
| City of Westminster | 0.9 mi | SSW 209° | 247,614 |
| Islington | 2.1 mi | NNE 27° | 319,143 |
| Camden Town | 2.3 mi | NNW 341° | 26,122 |
| Highbury | 3.1 mi | NNE 21° | 26,664 |
| Fulham | 3.7 mi | WSW 238° | 87,161 |
| Archway | 4.1 mi | N 355° | 215,667 |
| Shepherds Bush | 4.1 mi | W 267° | 39,724 |
| Willesden | 4.9 mi | WNW 290° | 44,295 |
39 places between 5 and 10 mi, 2,018,034 people, 236 mi² of ground. The 10 largest are in the table; 29 smaller ones aren’t.
| Place | Distance | Bearing | Population |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cricklewood | 5.1 mi | NW 311° | 65,000 |
| Tottenham | 7 mi | NNE 21° | 130,000 |
| Finchley | 7 mi | NNW 335° | 65,812 |
| Walthamstow | 7.2 mi | NE 38° | 109,424 |
| Mitcham | 7.5 mi | SSW 194° | 63,393 |
| Wembley | 8 mi | WNW 292° | 90,045 |
| Edmonton | 8.6 mi | NNE 20° | 82,000 |
| Croydon | 8.7 mi | S 173° | 173,314 |
| Barking | 9.2 mi | E 79° | 218,534 |
| Ilford | 9.2 mi | ENE 68° | 168,168 |
92 places between 10 and 25 mi, 4,220,074 people, 1,649 mi² of ground. The 12 largest are in the table; 80 smaller ones aren’t.
| Place | Distance | Bearing | Population |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enfield Town | 10 mi | N 10° | 156,858 |
| Harrow | 10.1 mi | WNW 299° | 149,246 |
| Sutton | 11.4 mi | SSW 196° | 187,600 |
| Bexley | 12.7 mi | ESE 111° | 228,000 |
| Hayes | 12.8 mi | W 272° | 93,928 |
| Dagenham | 12.9 mi | ENE 77° | 108,368 |
| Romford | 14.2 mi | ENE 71° | 95,000 |
| Watford | 15.4 mi | NW 311° | 125,707 |
| Slough | 20.2 mi | W 270° | 164,793 |
| Harlow | 21.1 mi | NNE 29° | 93,300 |
| Hemel Hempstead | 21.9 mi | NW 321° | 95,961 |
| Woking | 22.8 mi | SW 235° | 103,900 |
86 places between 25 and 50 mi, 5,011,597 people, 5,890 mi² of ground. The 12 largest are in the table; 74 smaller ones aren’t.
| Place | Distance | Bearing | Population |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basildon | 25.4 mi | E 80° | 144,859 |
| Crawley | 27.4 mi | S 185° | 124,008 |
| High Wycombe | 28 mi | WNW 288° | 133,204 |
| Luton | 28.5 mi | NNW 334° | 225,262 |
| Chelmsford | 30 mi | ENE 58° | 111,511 |
| Southend-on-Sea | 36.2 mi | E 86° | 295,310 |
| Reading | 36.6 mi | W 265° | 318,014 |
| Basingstoke | 44.8 mi | WSW 248° | 107,642 |
| Milton Keynes | 45.6 mi | NW 324° | 256,385 |
| Brighton | 47 mi | S 181° | 283,870 |
| Cambridge | 48.9 mi | NNE 12° | 145,674 |
| Worthing | 48.9 mi | SSW 193° | 113,866 |
Place names, coordinates and populations come from GeoNames, which the site uses under CC BY 4.0.
Here’s the thing people get wrong about a radius. Double it and you quadruple the ground underneath. Going from 5 miles to 50 multiplies the area by a hundred, so 79 mi² becomes 7,854 mi². The outermost band on its own, the gap between the 25 and 50 mi circles, accounts for 5,890 mi². Three quarters of everything inside the big circle, in one band.
| Radius | Area inside (mi²) | This band only (mi²) | Places in band | People in band |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 mi (8.05 km) | 79 | 79 | 12 | 1,079,871 |
| 10 mi (16.09 km) | 314 | 236 | 39 | 2,018,034 |
| 25 mi (40.23 km) | 1,963 | 1,649 | 92 | 4,220,074 |
| 50 mi (80.47 km) | 7,854 | 5,890 | 86 | 5,011,597 |
Cross the two tables and something useful falls out. The 25 mi disc holds 16,279,968 listed people across 1,963 mi², about 8,293 per mi². Push out to 50 and you buy 5,890 mi² more for only 5,011,597 extra people. Most of that last band is empty, which is what you’d expect and still surprises people when they see it drawn.
These are straight-line rings. That’s the right tool for a coverage question and the wrong one for travel time. A 30-minute drive out of London comes out as a lopsided blob, an isochrone, racing down a motorway and stopping dead at a bridge. Drawing one properly takes a routing server. This site hasn’t got one, deliberately, because everything runs in your browser with no account and nothing uploaded.
If travel time is genuinely what you need, use these rings to narrow the field first and check the survivors properly afterwards. The circle is cheap, instant, and honest about what it measures. It also can’t tell you that the 10 mi to the north crosses water while the same 10 mi to the south is dual carriageway the whole way.
Two things about the method. Distance is measured over the curve of the Earth, not across the flat map image, which is where a surprising number of simpler tools quietly go wrong. And the Earth gets treated as a sphere when it’s really a bit squashed, costing a fraction of a per cent. Fine for a catchment. No use for settling a boundary, so don’t try.
All of it was computed when the site was built, then written into a file that ships with the page. Nothing here is fetched while you read. That’s why the tables are in the HTML the server sends rather than appearing a second later, and it’s why the figures can’t drift: rerun the build and every number on all fifty of these pages is recalculated from the same dump.
Most of the traffic to a page like this is practical. Somebody wants to know which towns near London fall inside a service area, or how many people live within 25 miles of a site they’re weighing up. The table answers the first one outright. For the second, take the ring populations as a floor, since everything under 15,000 people is missing from them.
The five closest cities with their own page are listed below, measured from this same centre. Birmingham is nearest at 101.1 mi north-west, which means its 50 mi ring never comes anywhere near this one.