Cylindrical — where it appears
Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
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.
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.
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.
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 = ∞.
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?
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
AzimuthalConicDevelopable surfaceAspectConeTaxonomyCone constantCylinderStandard parallelClassificationConventionDistortion criterion