There will be end up being a long list, because I'll keep adding (what I consider) great locations here. Suggestions warmly invited.

Submission Criteria
===============
Totally open to debate, and has changed many times already:

No Nukes (no nuclear power plants or missiles or dumps) within 200 miles
No Volcanoes or Calderas (active or dormant) within 200 miles
No Earthquakes (none in modern history, not on a fault line)
No War Nearby (use own judgement)
Not Near a Large Population >250,000 people (too many survivors after what you have)
Clear Land Available (forests and woods can catch fire)
600 Metres above Sea-Level (or 2/5 of a mile)
400 Kilometres Inland (or 250 miles)
Fertile Soil
Drinkable Water
Accessible (road/rail/airport)
Near a Town/City >20,000 people (supplies now, scavenge later perhaps)



That's 12 factors, and I'll guess you'd want to have all the red ones, at least one of the blue ones, and three or four of the green ones.

If it isn't a 12/12, let us know which factors it fails at.
Keep the description of the location as broad as possible, while still meeting the criteria.



Other Desirable Factors
==================

Be on a continent - so that if your location turns out to be no good (especially climate-wise), you are able to travel by foot to somewhere better
Close to your current home - that way you might actually do it, rather than just plan and dream
Not near a sand desert - sand storms can be nasty
Modern, Western Civilization - it's just easier if that is what you are used to, and, big generalization, probably safer for you before and after
Nice Weather! - hard to build a bunker if you are snowed under, in a monsoon, or scorching heat

I've made some pages of information that can help you on your quest - maps of volcanoes, elevation, nuclear plants etc

Determining Global Safe Spots
Determining USA Safe Spots



THE LIST

12/12 Just East of Albury, VIC, Australia
---------------------------------------
It suddenly gets very hilly, plenty of spots above 600M.


10/12 Near Bald Rock National Park, QLD, Australia
----------------------------------------------------
950 m above sea level, a 2 1/2 hour drive form the coast of Baron Bay or Surfer’s Paradise. Good nearby river.
Not near a population center. Not sure about clear land or volcanoes
Home of a micronation:
http://www.sabotage.at/sos/baldrockistan.php

.

Thanks CockroachYet - 4 criteria added, but I don't think eating animals is a necessity.

There's one criteria that is the "x" factor:

a space nasty is discovered, and its headed straight for your location, and it will make impact in 90 days or less.

Time to go to Plan B - "Get the Hell out of Dodge" (go to your back up location). I always think of the comet that hit Jupiter in '94...we had no idea it existed just a few years earlier.

In the US, I can think of a good state to survive in.
I have been though almost all the flood maps I can find, and the best survival state I could see, is northern Idaho.
According to nuclear target maps, Idaho is a pretty safe place to stay in the northern parts.
Volcanos shouldn't be a problem either [one in southern Idaho, but you'll be staying away from that (it'd end up being underwater too)]
Earthquakes may be a problem in some of the state (3.0ish in central-northern Idaho).
The population of Idaho (since 2006) is about 1.4million, compared to the US's 299million.
Most of the state is protected land, and undeveloped. Not sure how the forest is, I think there's mountains there, and there are alot of natural springs.

Land seems pretty cheap too.

Most of the state's elevationp is between 1200-1800 meters above sea level.

Rob:

I found your criteria of the best survival locations to be quite interesting and thoughtfully presented. However, I believe that certain modifications might improve some of the variables that you cite. For example, I can understand your insistence that the area should not be within 200 miles of dormant or active volcanoes. Nevertheless, I think that you should also include active or dormant caldera. The problem is that whereas volcanoes can be easily identified from their physical appearance, the calderas can usually only be identified by a competent geologist. Calderas are really "hidden volcanoes"; they are considered to be more numerous than standard volcanoes and wreak just as much havoc when they explode. You should, therefore, get a qualified geologist to check the two areas in Australia that you cite.

I am puzzled by your inclusion of Modern/Western civilization as a factor. In so doing, you have ruled out most of the world. I think that this is a serious flaw. Most of the people of Western Europe and North America will probably not survive the effects of a polar shift. You merely have to look at a map of these areas to see how the location of capital cities and the heavy population distribution of the urban areas near seas, oceans and rivers spell almost certain destruction for many parts of these areas. I am not accusing you of xenophobia, but I think you need to rethink this factor.

I think that rejection of areas near sand deserts might be based on invalid assumptions about sand storms. I lived for some years in the Middle East and experienced sand storms; most of them are not as dangerous or overwhelming as stereotypical images would have you believe. Indeed, I have found the snow storms of North America to be far more violent and destructive.

Finally, I might be wrong but it seems that some of the variables are somewhat self contradictory. For example, you would like to have an area that is accessible by road, rail or airport; yet such an area shoud not be near a major population area. In North America it is precisely the case that forms of transportation lead to population areas. I suppose it depends on how one quantifies "major". You also need quantification of "nearby" in the expression "no war nearby". That expression means so many different things to different people.

You have made a good start, Rob, and I encourage you to review and update your analysis.

Thanks Thanatos, I've updated a number of criteria.

East Central Kentucky.

While traveling through there over the summer, I found this beautiful fertile flatland. It was high enough, and next to a high
altitude mountain range (Blue Ridge). No active volcanos, not too close to a fault line. I think I want to go there and lose
myself in those hills.

Anyone wanna come along?

I'm a native of Montana and that would be my first choise- the west side in the mountains where there is game and protection and water. I know I'm in St Louis right now, but just today I began thinking about moving back to Montana! Strange that this thread would appear.

refuge- idaho 2 problems 1. yellowstone-2. skin heads. the skinheads are a major threat in idaho that is pretty much thier base state.

farmerjoe- i lived up in montana near libby nice country lots of game and i thought of montana too, but yellowstone made me look else were.

CockroachYet- i would like to point out that most good game are found near or in woods, also because trees burn they make a good fuel source for cooking and just keeping warm. a desert might not be as bad as you think nobody is going to go out there foraging/goofing around so you may be safer there than you think.

Wow, what a small world Pixii11! I am origionally from Whitefish and then moved to Eureka Mt. just up the road from Libby and up stream from the dam!!!

im new, so im not sure whether your scientifically based or religion, but i have had many encounters spiritually. i think the best place to stay would be the island in british colombia that victoria is located on. i have my reasons aside from it is good for game water fishigh ect. please if you have had similair experiences or would like to know more message me or reply here im not sure how this whole thing works just yet.

I'm committed to Colorado, Sparsely populated a bit of an industrial base, Mountains, water, plenty of holes in the ground, several places that show survival from past cataclysms. There is plenty of oil, coal, and other resources, 5000 feet in elevation, and plenty of people that want a simpler life style. You can move east, west, north, or south from here. Good climate for the moment. No nuclear power stations, few fault lines, we do have caldera’s and one or two nuclear targets. But I am fairly certain a MASS nuclear exchange is unlikely.

Good thread.
But i don't think people have been taking the gravity of the situation into account. We really cannot afford to underestimate the level of destruction coming.

In relation to a coming catastrophe you need to choose whether you believe the common fairy tale that mankind suddenly and miraculously appeared a few thousand years ago or not. If so you will probably underestimate what's about to happen. If not, you will need to respect the very fact that civilization only goes back a few thousand years though genetics and common sense suggests mankind must've been around far far longer, even hundreds of thousands of years back. So where are those peoples? Gone. Dead. Even traces of them destroyed to the extent that in the end all we see of them are the Sphinx, some pyramids, landing sites in the Andes, the Bible, etc. All this suggests destruction that caught everyone off guard and no one unprepared survived, and probably even most prepared folks.
You need to ask yourself, how stupid do you think they were? Hubris kills. Just because you think you're smarter than the billions who went before us doesn't mean it's true. No one wanted to die, yet here we are all alone with no direct link to previous civilized ages. Something killed those peoples who were possibly more technologically evolved than we are and their lines ended despite what they knew or how prepared they too may have been for the coming catastrophe. Something keeps killing off almost all people on this planet and one little bunker on your part will not change that!

Because of this i like Patrick Geryl's predictions about miles high tsunamis that will ravage the whole planet, even if you're pretty high up or even if you're pretty far from the coast. Remember the movie Deep Impact, and the water coming hundreds of miles inland?
Geryl is working on a survival community to live through 2012 and afterwards. He picked Lesotho, the inland nation in South Africa which is basically a mountain nation with its lowest point at 1000 meters. Two problems with this location: South Africa was covered by ice ages too and where Geryl is at is called Drakenberg, Dragon Mountain, i.e. a former Reptilian base...

Geryl mentions safe zones for the coming catastrophe. Among others, Madagascar [same problem as South Africa], the Ethiopian highlands, and the Atlas Mountains in the west of Africa. As the Berber people and the Ethopians are ancient people, it could well be that these are safe zones where people have come from before after disaster struck.
Geryl also mentions that life in Australia probably stems from New Guinea, when there was still an ice bridge between the two. New Guinea [both sides], therefore, should be considered a possibility, with mountain ranges in the equatorial region higher than 3000m. That means high safety in an area where there will be the most sun during and after the nuclear winter. Though New Guinea is located near major volcanic activity [but no volcanos on the west side at all], it is unique in many ways, being sparcely populated, with high mountains yet not far from the feeding oceans, with plenty of rainfall and sun.
We must also not forget that Indonesia is where they found homonid bones that go back at least a hundred thousand years. It may be mankind's ultimate survival ground, volcanoes or no. When disaster strikes, being able to live off of the sea may be the ultimate way to go and an island nation with endless miles of coastline, would enable many people to survive, even if there is almost no sun and therefore no crops to be harvested.

Therefore, i don't think there will be many safe places and we can make a very short list of possible refuge sites. The United States, for instance, may suffer from nuclear fallout, nuclear winter [too far from the equator], the Yellowstone supervolcano, ice age issues, and if the pole shifts back to over Canada, it'll be even colder than it already is. Forget the whole bloody continent! Military underground facilities or no.

Based on all of the above i'm afraid that in the end we can only consider a very few regions safe, and even fewer promising for future civilization [New Guinea may not have much more to offer than survival, compared to African resources]:
Papua and some Indonesian highlands if volcanoes aren't too near,
Ethiopia and other mountainous east African regions, perhaps including countries like Yemen, and
the Atlas mountains, which will probably be overrun by European refugees.

So in the end, go to Ethiopia!
so much for places near you...
Don't shoot the messenger.

P.S. I posted the above a long time ago but since my initial post is on the first page of this very important and popular subject, let me add my newest insights into this matter.
I am by now on location on an island of all places. You see, a tsunami will roll AROUND an island, especially a small and round one like the one i found. I believe it to be the only feasible option for Europeans.
We are as yet 4 or 5 over here. Our initiative can be found below.

Goz:

My research suggests that you are right in your selection of Colorado as one of the safer places of refuge in the USA when the axis shift takes places. There are just a few points that you should keep in mind. You have already mentioned one of them-the presence of calderas. Most dormant calderas can only be located by a trained geologist, so you will have to make sure that the site of your underground bunker is chosen with the greatest of care.

Secondly, I hope that you realize that when the tectonic plates begin to grind against each other during the shift, all the calderas and volcanoes, dormant and active, are going to explode with incredible force, spewing forth massive amounts of volcanic ash. It has been calculated that when the Yellowstone caldera explodes, it is going to contaminate the air over most of the US. Just think of the fact that there are numerous calderas in North America as well as all over the rest of the world.

What I am trying to point out is that the air over the entire planet is going to be filled with swirling masses of toxic volcanic ash. If you breathe this stuff, it settles in the lungs, combines with the moisture there to form a hard cement-like material that suffocates you. You will have to install a first rate air filtration system in your bunker or else you will die.

I hope you are not one of those people planning to survive by hunting after the shift. Hunting will be almost impossible since the vast majority of animals will have been killed by the effects of the volcanic ash. The recent volcano eruption on the Caribbean island of Montserrat shows very clearly that it is the volcanic ash that kills most people. Islanders who successfully escaped the lava were killed by the ash.

Finally, once it becomes known that Colorado is one of the safer sites in the US, the place is going to be swarming with "refugees" from other parts of North America desperately seeking safety. Before this happens, you are going to have to make sure that your bunker, reinforced with concrete and steel, has been built, that a latrine and air-filtration system have been established, that you have enough food and equipment to last for eighteen months and that you have the necessities to restart life for you and your family.