[MENTION=407423]LoriRose[/MENTION] It's not the distance that matters in terms of evaluating achievement, but rather intensity.

I know people who do long rides but at low effort levels, so theirs is more a triumph of leisure time than fitness.

Personally, I don't care to do long time in the saddle, but I work hard for 2, 3, and 4 hour rides. In combination with my 1hr stationary sessions, it's enough to put my somewhat-overweight, 220lb self into the 90th-something percentile on Strava (according to VeloVeiwer) in my affluent, midsize, cycling friendly, midwest, university town. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of cyclists around, so it's not as though I'm comparing myself to just a dozen guys. It's not SoCal 7k rider segments, but we're north of 1.5k on the popular ones.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I'm pretty fast and strong, but I rarely do long rides. Distance is just not a good indicator of much; effort level is where the action is.

If you're climbing mountains, then your distances will almost certainly be shorter than flatland rides, and effort level on par or greater.

My advice is to get signed up on Strava, put the app on your phone, and see how you compare to others on the routes you ride. You can sort by sex, age, and weight to get a pretty relevant comp set. I also find Strava very motivating, and a fabulous tool for battling discouragement.

In addition to giving some basis of comparison with other riders, Strava lets you track activities, mark progress, set goals, explore new routes, and make friends. It's really an awesome tool for someone engaged with cycling on the level you've expressed here...provided you're not a total introvert.