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

Inverse problem — where it appears

Recovering what produced an observation rather than predicting an observation from what produced it, which is generally the harder direction. Identifying the projection of an undocumented map is one, and it is soluble only where the region is large enough for the candidates to have diverged.

Named by 19 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

OSGB36 to WGS84, one parameter at a time. Each bar is how far the mark at 2.0° west, 54.5° north moves under one of the seven parameters with the other six set to zero. seven of the seven are not zero for OSGB36. The units hide the comparison: one arcsecond of rotation moves this point 30.8 metres and one part per million of scale moves it 6.36 metres, so OSGB36's scale term contributes 130 metres — more than one of its three translations.

The seven parameters, and what each one does

A datum transformation is published as three metres, three arcseconds and one part per million, in three different units — which hides the fact that all seven are the same size of thing. Converted to ground displacement, the scale term beats two of the translations.

datums · Datum Molodensky against the exact route, NAD27. The distance on the ground between where each shortcut puts the transformed point and where the exact Cartesian route puts it, at 0 metres of ellipsoidal height, on a logarithmic scale. The full formulae stay within 0.8 centimetres across every latitude drawn; the abridged form, which replaces two ellipsoid-difference coefficients with one combined term, is worst at 40 centimetres — a factor of 48. The abridged curve dips near 45°, where the combined coefficient happens to equal the pair it replaces.

Molodensky's shortcut

The exact way to shift a datum needs an iteration nobody wanted to run on a 1950s machine, so a direct formula was derived instead. It lands within centimetres — and the abridged version everybody quotes is a different formula, worse by a factor of fifty.

datums · Datum Where the inverse problem stops converging, 3° around the antipode of London. Every target in a 6° square centred on the point diametrically opposite London, shaded by how many iterations Vincenty's inverse formula needed to find the geodesic to it. 3 of 625 — 0% — never converged at all, and the worst success took 113 steps against a handful anywhere else on Earth. The failure is not a defect in the formula: near the antipode the shortest path is nearly ambiguous, and an iteration looking for one answer is being asked which of many.

The route with no shortest path

Between a point and the point diametrically opposite there are infinitely many shortest routes and no shortest route, and the standard formula for the distance between two places stops converging in a neighbourhood of it. The failure is a property of the question rather than a defect in the answer.

paths · Paths Two conventions, and neither of them finds the blunder. A blunder of 350 mm added to leg 3 of a closed traverse, producing a misclosure of 350 mm — one part in 8344, which most specifications would accept. Bowditch's rule shares the misclosure out in proportion to leg length; the Transit rule shares it in proportion to each leg's component along the axis being corrected. Both close the figure exactly, so both are valid; they disagree with each other by up to 14 mm; and neither puts more than 104 mm of correction on the leg that is actually wrong. A rule for distributing a misclosure is a convention for producing consistent numbers, and it is not an instrument for finding errors.

The two ways to spread a misclosure

Bowditch's rule and the Transit rule take the same closed figure and the same misclosure and disagree about which legs were wrong. Both close it exactly, neither puts the correction on the leg that actually carries the blunder, and no measurement can settle which is right.

practice · Reduction The order the corrections go in, and what it costs. Setting out a 51.8 km line on the UTM zone 31N means turning a grid bearing into an azimuth to observe, and there are two corrections: the meridian convergence, 0.8669° here, and the arc-to-chord correction, 6.242″. Each bar carries the lateral offset it produces at the far end of the line, because a bearing error is a number nobody can picture and a sideways miss is the thing that misses. The exact arc-to-chord and the classical formula every manual gives differ by 0.0044″, which is 1.10 mm at the far end — small, real, and the reason the corrections have an order rather than a sum.

Setting out runs the chain backwards

Turning a design coordinate into something to observe on the ground means undoing the reduction chain, and undoing a chain reverses the order as well as the operations. Two of the corrections do not commute, and getting them the wrong way round misses by a millimetre at fifty kilometres.

practice · Reduction Every candidate fitted to one map's graticule, ranked by what is left over. The map is drawn in Conformal conic over a region 40° tall centred at 45° north, and the projection is not told to the fit. Each candidate is evaluated at the same 121 graticule crossings, its own parameters are searched, the best plane similarity between its output and the picture is removed, and what remains is drawn as a proportion of the map's own width on a logarithmic scale. Conformal conic fits to 1.3e-10, which is the arithmetic's floor; the next candidate is 3.7e+7 times worse.

A map does not say what it is

Every map on this site is one the site drew, from a projection it chose. Every map a reader has ever used is the other kind — a picture whose projection is a sentence in a corner, a legend, or nothing at all. The graticule is enough to recover it: fit every candidate to the crossings and rank what is left over.

wrong · Identify A map for pointing, not for locating. Craig's retroazimuthal projection, centred on Mecca. The straight line from any point to the centre makes an angle with the map's vertical equal to the true initial bearing from that place to the centre — checked here at 169 points, worst disagreement 5.7e-14 degrees. The bearings printed beside each line are computed on the sphere with no projection in them.

A map that cannot be read backwards

Craig's projection answers one question exactly — lay a straight edge from any place to the centre and read the compass course, right to 6 × 10⁻¹⁴ of a degree. It pays by folding: 78°S and 48°S on the same meridian are drawn at the same point, so no inverse exists and nothing else can be read off it at all.

choosing · Condition A raster warped to Lambert azimuthal equal-area and back, nearest against bilinear. The left panel is the field the raster carries — a smooth analytic function, so that the error of an interpolation is the interpolation's error and not a photograph's history. The other panels are what is left after warping into Lambert azimuthal equal-area and back to Equirectangular, shown as the difference from the original at six times the contrast. Nothing moved: the coordinates go through the maps exactly. What is lost is that a target pixel's centre does not fall on a source pixel's centre, so a value has to be invented for it. Bilinear is closer to the field — RMS 0.0022 against 0.0212 — and has given up 0.63 per cent of its variance to get there. The panels are drawn at 48 by 32 cells; the measurement is made at the same resolution.

Reprojecting a raster invents values

Moving a picture from one projection to another moves no coordinate — the maps are exact both ways. What is lost is that a target cell's centre does not land on a source cell's centre, so a value has to be made up for it, and the making-up has an order of convergence: 1.00 for nearest, 1.98 for bilinear, 2.93 for a cubic, measured by refining the grid.

applied · Dataset What a solved map is, as a list of numbers. A map with no formula is a list of coefficients, and this is the list. The Chebyshev map of an elongated region, 30° by 10° has its coefficients falling by a factor of 1.5e+13 from the first to the fourteenth, so a table of a dozen numbers carries the whole projection; the conformal cube face's coefficients, marked separately, fall far more slowly because the map has a singularity at each corner. How fast this line falls is exactly how portable the map is — and neither map has a name, an inverse in closed form, or a formula anybody could quote.

A map with no formula

The solved projection has no name, no formula and no closed-form inverse. It is fourteen numbers — and the rate at which those numbers fall away decides whether a map can be shipped at all: geometrically for a smooth region, and like a power for one with corners.

choosing · Condition How badly two arcs determine the flattening. The reciprocal flattening recovered by inverting two measured degree lengths, at 1.5° and 66.33°, against an error introduced into the equatorial one. The exact pair returns 298.26. Ten metres of error — 90 parts per million of a 110-kilometre arc — returns 301.5, and the relative error in the flattening is 118 times the relative error in the arc. At 1000 metres the inversion returns a negative flattening: an Earth longer through the poles than across the equator, which is the answer the Paris Observatory defended for a generation.

The figure of the Earth was measured

Two expeditions went to Lapland and Peru to measure the length of a degree of latitude, and the whole signal separating a flattened Earth from a round one is a kilometre in a hundred and eleven. Inverting two arcs amplifies their error by 118 — and a kilometre of error returns a lemon-shaped planet.

datums · Ellipsoid A published coordinate is a definition being quoted. Re-observing a control point perfectly, with an instrument good to 20 mm, and comparing the answer to what is published for it. The published coordinate was fixed on a datum realisation that has since been superseded, which accounts for 106 m, and the ground it marks has moved 750 mm in 30 years at 25 mm a year. Both numbers are larger than the observation and neither is an error in it: subtracting a published coordinate from an observed one measures the interval between two definitions.

A published coordinate is a result

Re-observe a control mark perfectly, with an instrument good to twenty millimetres, and the answer disagrees with the published value by a hundred metres. Neither number is wrong. The difference measures the interval between two definitions.

practice · Reduction The same ranking, with the right answer removed from the library. A map drawn in Mercator, fitted by every candidate except Mercator. Something still wins: Conformal conic, by a factor of 1.64 over the runner-up, leaving 0.4 per cent of the map's width unexplained. With Mercator in the library the winner's margin is 1.2e+13. The ranking always produces a name; what tells the two situations apart is how far ahead the name is.

When the answer is not in the library

Fitting twenty candidates to a map and ranking the residuals always produces a winner, which makes it a ceremony unless it can also produce a refusal. Held out of its own library, a Mercator map is named as a conformal conic, leaving 0.4 per cent of the map's width unexplained — and the quantity that tells the two situations apart is not the residual but the margin, which is 1.6 when the truth is absent and 10¹³ when it is present.

wrong · Identify The signal, and four instruments' noise. The spherical excess of an equilateral triangle at 45° north against its side, with the standard deviation of a measured excess — σ√3 — ruled for four instrument accuracies. A fifty-kilometre triangle, which is about the largest anybody routinely observed, has an excess of 5.49 seconds of arc. A theodolite reading to one second gives that excess a standard deviation of 1.73 seconds, so the measurement carries about three significant bits. The rest of the argument follows from that ratio.

How big a triangle it takes

Gauss proved that a surface-dweller can read the curvature off a triangle's angles. Doing it is another matter: a fifty-kilometre triangle has 5.49 seconds of excess, a one-second theodolite gives that excess a standard deviation of 1.73, and reading K to one per cent needs a side of 281 kilometres. Not one of the great surveys built a triangle within a factor of three of that.

impossibility · Curvature Which scale fields a map could have, and which are only wishes. Liouville's equation — the Laplacian of log k equals 1/k² on the page — is the whole condition for a conformal map of a unit sphere to have a stated scale factor. The first two rows are the scale fields of real projections and they satisfy it to the differencing step. The rest are requests a designer might write, and every one of them fails — except one, which turns out to be a projection somebody already found. Asking for no distortion anywhere fails by exactly one, which is the curvature of the sphere.

Not every distortion can be asked for

Six essays have written projections as conditions and asked how much freedom a condition leaves. The reverse question has never been put: a cartographer knows what distortion they want, so can they ask for it? For a conformal map the answer is a single equation, it is the Theorema Egregium in disguise, and asking for no distortion anywhere fails it by exactly the curvature of the sphere.

choosing · Condition How many projections the map could be in. The number of candidates whose residual sits below the measurement noise, against the size of the region, at four noise levels. At one per cent of the map's width — a hand-digitised graticule — a four-degree region admits ten of the twenty candidates and a forty-degree one admits exactly one. Every curve falls, none of them crosses another, and all four end at one: identification works, and what it needs is extent rather than precision.

The answer is a set

Fitting a projection to control points produces a best fit — one projection, ranked first, with a margin. A best fit without a spread is not a measurement, and the spread is free: a control point has a width, and every candidate whose residual is inside that width has not been ruled out. At one per cent noise a four-degree region admits ten of twenty candidates and a forty-degree one admits exactly one.

wrong · Identify The mountain's gravity follows the ground and the root's does not. A profile 260 km long across the stated mountain patch. Top: the height of the ground. Bottom: the gravity at the ground from the terrain's own rock, a sheet at 2,670 kg/m³ (solid), and from a root at 30 km carrying the same mass with the opposite sign (dashed). Over the whole patch the rock's gravity correlates with the height at 0.99, so of its 54.0 mGal rms only 7.8 is not a function of the height under it. The root's, smoothed over thirty kilometres, correlates at −0.85, and of its 10.0 mGal 5.3 is free of the local height. A levelling loop misses by exactly that free part, which crosses the ground's contours.

A levelling loop weighs the root, and a triangle weighs the mountain

A mountain range is carried partly by a root of light crust beneath it, and a survey that knows the ground can ask how much. Put a root thirty kilometres down under a stated range and it moves a levelling loop's misclosure by 85 per cent as much as the mountains' own rock does, and a triangle's excess by 16 per cent: the root's gravity is a smoothed copy of the ground, and a smoothed copy crosses the contours. Read against their noise, pinning the root's share to a tenth takes about 2,700 fifty-kilometre loops, a million triangles or 550 astronomic stations — and if the rock's density is unknown too, a triangle cannot tell a compensated mountain from a lighter one.

impossibility · Curvature

A loop reads a root's depth from its own pattern, and a triangle reads none of it

A levelling loop and a geodetic triangle respond to a buried root in proportions that change with its depth, so their ratio looked like a gauge of how deep a range is compensated. It is not, because a triangle's response to a root at 30 km is a hundredth of its own noise. The depth is there in the loops alone: a root changes the pattern of misclosures from loop to loop as it deepens, and 1,600 loops of 50 km place a 10 km root within a factor of 1.5 three times in four and a 30 km root about half the time. A 60 km root is not placed even by 6,400, and when the depth is fitted rather than stated, such a root is read as a light shallow one carrying 25 per cent of the mass where it carries 60.

impossibility · Curvature

Gravity is worth four loops a station, and the background still hides a deep root

Levelling loops alone place a range's compensating root at ten kilometres three times in four from 1,600 loops, and do not place one at sixty from 6,400. Gravity measured on the ground reads the root's attraction directly, and a station is worth about four loops for a shallow root and two for one at thirty kilometres. It does not place the deep root either: 1,600 stations put a sixty-kilometre root within a factor of 1.5 of its depth in fewer than one survey in five. With the background field taken away, a hundred stations place it every time. What hides the deep root is not the reading but the geoid's own mass that the range does not explain, and either half of its spectrum is enough to do it. Fitted for depth, gravity reads the deep root as too heavy, where the loops read it as too light.

impossibility · Curvature

A cartogram keeps the shapes it inflates

Seven rungs build cartograms and none reads one back. Reading means recognising a region and dividing its drawn area by its base area, and the construction is against the reader twice: the correlation between how much a region grows and how much of its shape it keeps is −0.996, and the base area a reader has to divide by is the map the cartogram replaced.

distortion · Cartogram

Named alongside it

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

VerificationToleranceLeast-squaresEllipsoidIdentifiabilityMisclosureRealisationConventionEstimatorNumerical integrationAssertionDatum

All concepts