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

General-purpose map — where it appears

A map with no exact property, made to be bad at nothing rather than perfect at something, for readers who will not measure anything off it. It is what a world map in an atlas is, and it is a legitimate answer to a question about purpose rather than an evasion of one.

Named by 5 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

6 projections of the same sphere. The same graticule under Robinson, Winkel tripel, Mollweide, Mercator, Gall–Peters, Eckert IV. Every one of them is a faithful drawing of the same object and no two agree, because each has chosen a different thing to preserve.

Compromise projections

A projection that preserves nothing exactly can distort everything less than one that preserves something exactly. For a general-purpose world map that is the right trade, and it is why the two most widely used ones today have no exact property at all.

choosing · Choosing Every mixture of Equirectangular at 50.46° and Aitoff. Airy's criterion over the whole sphere, for every weighted average of the Winkel tripel's own pair. Each mixture is normalised to its own best constant scale first, so the comparison is about shape rather than size. The curve has its minimum at w = 0.45, where the criterion is 0.3037 against 0.4114 and 0.4290 at the two ends. That is a projection nobody constructed beating both projections somebody did, by 26 per cent.

The average of two projections

The Winkel tripel is literally the arithmetic mean of two other projections, and this site's implementation of it agrees with that mean to the last bit. Averaging beats both ingredients by 26 per cent — and it preserves conformality exactly, destroys equal-area completely, and can turn eighteen per cent of the world inside out without either distortion measure saying so.

choosing · Choosing Eight world maps ranked by their second derivative. Each projection's root-mean-square flexion and skewness over the whole sphere, combined and ranked. The first-order ranking of the same eight by Kavrayskiy's criterion is given beside each bar; Spearman's rank correlation between the two orderings is 0.69. The two criteria are measuring different derivatives of the same maps and there is no reason for them to agree.

The second derivative has its own ranking

Rank eight world maps by how much they stretch and Mercator comes sixth of eight. Rank the same eight by how much they bend and it comes third. The two halves of the second-order score disagree with each other more sharply than either disagrees with the first-order one — Spearman 0.45 against 0.69.

distortion · Flexion Every library projection over Europe, on the two axes it can be wrong on. Each dot is one projection, scored over Europe on the two independent failures: how much it turns angles and how much it changes areas. The lower-left corner is the isometry that does not exist. The line joins the five projections nothing beats on both counts — the rest are inside it, and a reader who prefers either failure to the other should still not choose one of them, whatever weighting they hold.

The projections that are beaten on both counts

A rule of thumb has been scored over thirty regions and then forty-five. The same populations answer a harder question nobody has put: which library members are never the right answer at all. Two are beaten outright on both criteria everywhere, one is on no regional front in any population — and it is on the world's.

wrong · Audit Five readerships, four winners, one library. The best projection under each stated readership, with the share of the sphere carrying half that readership's weight. The criterion is Kavrayskiy's throughout, every map is in its normal aspect, and the library is the same twenty. Four different projections win. The flat weighting at the top is the one every earlier comparison used, and naming it as a readership rather than as the absence of one is the whole of what this changes: it is the assumption that everybody who will ever read the map is spread evenly over the globe.

The area weighting was a readership all along

Twelve measurements have taken a projection comparison apart and found the comparer's own freedom in every part of it. All twelve rested on one thing none of them examined: that a square kilometre of empty ocean counts exactly as much as a square kilometre of city. That is not the absence of an assumption about the reader — it is the assumption that everybody who will ever look at the map is spread evenly over the globe. Named as one readership among five, it produces a different winner from three of the other four, and against a North Atlantic readership its choice is fifth of twenty and 33 per cent worse.

wrong · Audit

Named alongside it

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

Winkel tripelObjectiveCompromiseCompromise projectionProjection selectionRankingRobinsonVerificationAggregationAiry's criterionAngular deformationArea weighting

All concepts