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

Composition — where it appears

One map applied after another, whose derivative is the product of the two — so areas multiply and shapes do not. It is why a chain of transformations does not close: each link is exact and the composition inherits the order the links were applied in.

Named by 5 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The circle a reprojection is about to turn into an ellipse. A circle drawn on the Mollweide plane, and its image under the map that carries that plane to Mercator — normalised so each pair has the same area, because the whole map can be rescaled and the shape is what is being shown. The dashed circle is what an undistorted reprojection would leave. This is Tissot's construction with a plane in place of the sphere, and it is the right picture for a reprojection because both ends are pictures. Worst angular deformation over the sampled points: 81.2°. Drawn on the source plane, in Mollweide.

A projection between two projections

Every distortion measured on this site so far compares a map with the sphere. The operation a machine actually performs compares a map with another map — and that map has its own two principal scales, its own areal factor and its own angular deformation, none of which is the difference of the two it was built from.

distortion · Tissot An equal-area map nobody would publish. Mollweide, with a row-dependent horizontal displacement applied to the page afterwards. That plane map has Jacobian determinant 1 everywhere, so every areal scale factor is untouched: the worst departure from 1 anywhere sampled here is 6.0e-12, which is the arithmetic's own floor. It satisfies the equal-area condition exactly and completely, and it is a ruin. The angular deformation at 30°E 20°N has gone from 11.0° to 60.5°.

Every equal-area map is every other one

Take Mollweide and slide every row of the page sideways by an amount that depends on the row. The result satisfies the equal-area condition to 6 × 10⁻¹², exactly as well as Mollweide does, and it is a ruin — the angular deformation at one ordinary point has gone from 11° to 60°. Equal-area is one equation, and one equation leaves a whole function free.

choosing · Condition OSGB36 then DHDN, done four ways. How far each route lands from the truth — applying the two transformations one after the other — at 54.5° north, 2.0° west. Composing them into one affine map is exact, because two affine maps compose into an affine map and nothing is dropped. Describing that composition with seven parameters again leaves 0.19 millimetres, because two linearised rotations compose into something with a symmetric part that seven numbers cannot hold. Adding the fourteen published numbers in pairs — which is what a chain is usually done with — leaves 7.4 millimetres. Logarithmic from a micrometre.

A chain of transformations does not close

Two datum transformations applied one after the other are not the sum of their fourteen published numbers. The gap is seven millimetres in Britain, doing the two in the other order moves the answer twenty, and the rotation matrix everybody prints is not a rotation.

datums · Datum How far the two routes end up apart. The distance between a line simplified directly at the final tolerance and the same line simplified through two intermediate products, as a multiple of the final tolerance, with a stated extra step applied to each intermediate. With nothing in between the two are the same line to the last bit, because Douglas–Peucker's outputs are nested. Rounding the intermediate to half the tolerance, smoothing it for legibility, or running it through a moving average each break that, and the last of them puts the final product 0.142 away from where a direct route would have put it — nine times the tolerance the product is published under.

Two routes to one scale

A national series is cascaded — the million is derived from the quarter-million, which was derived from the fifty — and the folklore is that the errors accumulate. They do not: Douglas–Peucker and Visvalingam both cascade to the same line the direct route produces, bit for bit, because both output a sublevel set of a per-vertex number. What breaks it is anything else in the chain, and a moving average puts the product nine tolerances away.

applied · Generalise What a reprojection does, drawn where it does it. The angular deformation of the map that takes Sinusoidal's page to Gall–Peters's — which is what a reprojection is — shaded over the sphere and drawn on Mollweide so that equal ground areas are equal page areas. Both parents are equal-area, so the composite preserves area exactly; its mean angular deformation is 55.5° against 38.9° and 32.2° for the two maps separately. Composing two maps did not average their shape errors; it made a larger one.

Two indicatrices do not make a third

Reprojecting is composing, and the composite's indicatrix is not a function of its parents'. Mollweide followed by Hammer is gentler than either map over eighty per cent of the sphere; the sinusoidal followed by Gall–Peters is worse than both everywhere. What separates them is one angle, and it is the number rung ten showed the ellipse does not carry.

distortion · Tissot

Named alongside it

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

Angular deformationAreal factorClosed formConformalityReprojectionEqual-areaJacobianTissot's indicatrixVerificationAffineAnisotropyCondition

All concepts