Cartographic Projection
every map is wrong, and by exactly how much
Concept

Azimuthal — where it appears

A projection whose distances and directions from one central point are drawn as radii and angles about a point on the page. The whole family is one radial function of angular distance, and three of its members are perspective projections from a point on the axis.

Named by 16 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Construction against property. Every projection in the library, sorted by the shape it was notionally rolled from and by what it actually preserves. The families do not line up with the properties: cylindrical and pseudocylindrical and pseudoazimuthal and azimuthal and conic each contain projections of more than one kind, which is why the cylindrical–conic–azimuthal taxonomy answers a question nobody has. Three entries are picked out: Mercator, Albers equal-area conic, Orthographic.

Cylinders, cones and planes

The standard taxonomy sorts projections by the shape of paper they were notionally rolled from. It is memorable, it is how everyone is taught, and it says almost nothing about the properties anyone actually chooses on.

families · Families London to Tokyo, seen four ways. The same two routes on four projections. The gnomonic projection renders every great circle as an exactly straight line, which is what it is for; Mercator renders every rhumb line straight instead. Neither path changed — only the map did.

The aspect is a free choice

A projection's distortion pattern is fixed relative to its own axis, and where that axis points is entirely up to the cartographer. Rotating it is the cheapest available improvement and it is the one most often left unmade.

families · Families London to Tokyo, seen four ways. The same two routes on four projections. The gnomonic projection renders every great circle as an exactly straight line, which is what it is for; Mercator renders every rhumb line straight instead. Neither path changed — only the map did.

The gnomonic companion

One projection turns every great circle into a straight line, and it is the only one that does. It shows less than half the sphere, distorts enormously, and was indispensable for three centuries because of that single exact property.

paths · Paths The least distortion possible over a 20° region. Scale factor along a radius of the cap, each projection normalised to unit scale at the centre. Chebyshev's criterion names the projection whose scale is constant on the boundary as the conformal map of least scale variation, and for a cap that is the stereographic projection centred on it — reaching exactly sec²(ρ/2) = 1.0311 at the rim, marked. Every other conformal projection drawn here rises past that line before it gets there. This is the only figure on the site showing an optimum rather than a comparison.

Scale distortion is the third failure

A map's stated scale is its scale at one place. Everywhere else it differs, by a factor that no conformal projection can avoid and that neither of the two usual distortion measures reports. It is the failure everybody uses and nobody counts.

distortion · Tissot The equal-area conic, from cylinder to plane. The largest distance between the conic at cone constant n and each of its two limits, over a shared grid, with the free scale and offset removed. Both fall as the FIRST power of the distance from their end — the slope on these axes is one — so the conic is never nearly cylindrical: halving n only halves the difference. At n = 0.999999 the conic is the Lambert azimuthal to 1.3e-6, and at n = 0.000001 it is the Lambert cylindrical to 1.2e-6.

The conic is the whole family

Cylindrical and azimuthal are usually presented as two of three families beside the conic. They are the two ends of it. One parameter runs from the cylinder to the plane, and both limits are exact rather than suggestive — which is measurable, and measured here.

families · Families The azimuthal family, as one function of one variable. Every azimuthal projection is a rule for how far from the centre to draw a point at angular distance ρ, and nothing else. five named projections are plotted as their radial functions — tan ρ, 2 tan(ρ/2), ρ, 2 sin(ρ/2), sin ρ — and the two dashed curves are the solutions of the two conditions, integrated from the centre with no more than "true scale at the centre" to start from. They land on the stereographic and the Lambert azimuthal to 8e-10. The names are the answers to the equations, not descriptions of viewpoints.

The azimuthal family is one function

Five azimuthal projections are taught as five viewpoints — from the centre, from the far pole, from infinity. They are one projection with five choices of how far out to draw a point at angular distance ρ, and each named property is a differential equation in that one function: f′ = f/sin ρ integrates to the stereographic projection and f f′ = sin ρ to Lambert's, from nothing but true scale at the centre.

families · Families The taught rule against the measurement, on 30 regions. Each cell is a region built to order — a box of the stated height and width-to-height ratio, centred at the stated latitude — with the family that actually scores best over it, and whether that is what the rule says. Every family is given its own parameters for the region: the conic its cone constant, the cylindrical its standard parallel and the choice of a normal or transverse axis, the azimuthal its centre. The rule is right on 19 of 30, and where it is wrong it is wrong in one direction: it keys on latitude, and what decides the answer is shape.

The rule of thumb, scored

Cylindrical near the equator, conic in the middle latitudes, azimuthal at the poles. It is the most repeated piece of practical advice in cartography and it has never been run against a population of regions. Run against thirty, it is right nineteen times, and every one of its failures has the same shape.

wrong · Audit Six projections, at 40° north. Flexion (solid) and skewness (light) against direction of travel, drawn about a zero circle at one point of each projection. The three conformal ones have curves of exactly equal size, offset by exactly 90°, because on a conformal map both quantities are components of one vector — the gradient of the log of the scale. The others have neither property: ratios run from 0.72 to 2.72.

Bending and stretching are one failure

The ladder was written expecting flexion and skewness to be two independent ways for a map to be wrong. On a conformal projection they are not independent at all: the two extremes are the same size to four figures and sit exactly ninety degrees apart, because both are components of a single vector.

distortion · Flexion Everywhere within 3,000 km of London, drawn in Lambert cylindrical. The set of places exactly 3,000 kilometres from London by the shortest route, projected point by point. On the ground it is a circle — every point of it is the same distance from the centre, in every direction. On this page the longest radius from the drawn centre is 4.17 times the shortest, so a reader with a ruler measures two different distances for one ground distance depending on which way the ruler points. The two extreme radii are drawn.

A circle of a distance is not a circle

Eleven essays in this field have followed a route across a map. A range ring is not a route — it is the edge of a set — and drawing one exposes a failure the route essays cannot: the same ground distance comes out 4.17 times longer in one direction than another on a common projection, and 13.03 times at 70° north.

paths · Reach Two rules, three populations. The taught rule keys on latitude; the replacement keys on shape. On the thirty regions the replacement was read from it scores 83 per cent against the taught rule's 63. On forty-five different regions built the same way it scores 91 — higher, not lower, so the generalisation the shortfall doubted is real. On the seven named regions this collection actually uses, both rules score 29 per cent, and following either costs a mean factor of 14.6. The third bar of each group puts the taught rule's polar clause back into the shape rule, which is what the out-of-sample failures ask for: it repairs four of them, breaks two that were right, and reaches 43 of 45.

The rule scored out of sample

A replacement rule was read off thirty regions and scored on the same thirty, and this collection recorded that as not being evidence about any other thirty. It is: on forty-five different regions the rule scores 91 per cent against the 83 it managed at home. What it cannot do is the seven regions the collection actually uses, where both it and the rule it replaced name the winner twice out of seven and cost a mean factor of 14.6.

wrong · Audit What the drawn line costs, projection by projection. The ground length of the page-straight route from London to Tokyo, as a percentage above the shortest route. Two of these have names. On the gnomonic, centred on the route, the drawn line IS the shortest route, at -0.0000 per cent. On Mercator it is the rhumb, matching the rhumb's own length to 1 parts per million — which is why that projection exists. On the other eight it is a curve with no name and a cost between 0.0 and 19.6 per cent.

The line drawn straight on the page is a route

Eleven essays draw the route on the map. Nobody has drawn the map's own proposal: the ground curve somebody follows by laying a ruler on the page. It has a name on exactly two projections and is 18.2 per cent long on the one where it is famous.

paths · Paths One construction, one number. A ray from a point on the equatorial plane, through the sphere, onto a tangent cylinder. Where the centre sits is the whole of the family: on the axis it gives tan φ, at the far side of the sphere 2 tan(φ/2), and at infinity sin φ. The same expression with angular distance in place of latitude, and a tangent plane in place of a cylinder, gives the gnomonic, the stereographic and the orthographic. The surface decides whether the answer is read as a height or as a radius and nothing else.

The developable surface was never necessary

Eight essays on this ladder start from cylinders, cones and planes, and none of them has asked which named projection is actually a projection onto one. Fitting a one-parameter perspective construction to eleven of them: six come back exact, and the three landmarks are the gnomonic at h = 0, the stereographic at h = 1 and the orthographic at h = ∞.

families · Families What is left after the best rigid motion of the page. Every projection in the library, rotated about its own symmetry axis by five degrees, with the best rigid motion of the page fitted and the leftover measured against the picture's own size — on a logarithmic scale, because the answers span four orders of magnitude. Fourteen sit at 2e-6 or below, which is the axis search's own floor. Seven sit between 9e-3 and 3e-2. There is nothing in between, so the split is a fact rather than a threshold — and the fourteen are exactly the cylinders, the cones and the planes.

The family is a symmetry, not a shape

Rung seven dissolves the taxonomy: eleven named maps fitted to one perspective formula, six reproduced exactly and five refused, so the developable surface describes how the projections were discovered rather than what they are. What is left is the question it does not ask. If the shapes are not the classification, what is?

families · Families The shortest route between two regions, and the pair it runs between. Europe and the conterminous United States, with the shortest route between them: 3,581 km, attained at one point on each boundary. The pair is not a corner, not a centre and not anything a reader could name — it is wherever two edges happen to come closest, which depends on the whole shape of both. The dashed route is the pair Gall–Peters makes look nearest: 4,085 km, which is 505 kilometres long, and its two ends sit 2135 kilometres from the true pair between them.

The shortest route between two coasts

Ten rungs find the shortest path between two points. Between two regions the answer is attained at a pair of boundary points, and which pair is not the pair any page makes look nearest — a cylindrical map picks a pair 2,135 kilometres from the right one across the Atlantic, and 1,716 kilometres wrong between Chile and New Zealand, where its route is 22.5 per cent long.

paths · Paths Every projection against a picture that is not a map. The worst relative distance error over London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney, for each projection in the library and for the best flat arrangement of the same distances. Each azimuthal member is centred on the set's own centroid, which is the fair comparison. The free picture reaches 0.63% and the best projection, Azimuthal equidistant, reaches 8.28% — a ratio of 13.17. The free picture cannot lose, because every projection's own layout was handed to the search as a starting point; what the figure measures is how much the freedom is worth, and it is worth different amounts at different sizes.

The best flat picture is not a map

A set of dots whose separations are as nearly right as separations can be made beats every projection in this collection — by a factor of thirteen on four world cities, and by eight per cent on sixteen. The collapse between those two numbers is not about cartography. It is that a picture of n places has 2n − 3 free numbers and n(n − 1)/2 distances to spend them on.

impossibility · Embedding The share of its distances a flat picture can hold. A picture of n places on a plane has 2n coordinates and is unchanged by two translations and a rotation, so 2n − 3 numbers in it are genuinely free; each distance held exactly is one equation. So at most 2n − 3 of the n(n−1)/2 distances can be right, whatever the places are and however hard the map maker tries. The share falls as 4/n: five of six for four places, thirteen of twenty-eight for eight, and 197 of 4,950 — 4.0% — for a hundred. The dashed curve is 4/n, which the count approaches from below and never crosses.

Five distances of six, and never more

A flat picture of n places has 2n − 3 free numbers and n(n−1)/2 distances, so it can be exactly right about 2n − 3 of them and no more — five of six for four places, twenty-nine of a hundred and twenty for sixteen, and 3.98 per cent for a hundred. The bound is reached by a construction with no fitting in it, and an azimuthal equidistant map spends only n − 1.

impossibility · Embedding

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

PurposeConicCylindricalEquidistanceMercatorOptimisationAspectDevelopable surfaceGnomonicGreat circleTaxonomyClosed form

All concepts