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

Lower bound — where it appears

A proof that no answer can be better than a stated value, as distinct from an example achieving one. This collection makes upper-bound arguments and not lower-bound ones, so every covering number quoted here is what a heuristic found rather than what is optimal.

Named by 9 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The least distortion possible over a 30° 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) = 1.0718 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.

Total curvature and the scale rule

The impossibility has a size. A region covering a fraction of the sphere carries a fixed amount of curvature that any flat map must absorb, and for a circular region the least distortion any conformal projection can achieve is a closed form nobody can beat.

impossibility · Curvature How large a patch can be treated as flat, at 10 parts per million. The smallest scale distortion any map of a circular patch can have, against the radius of the patch, on logarithmic axes. The line is straight with a slope of 2.00: the error grows as the SQUARE of the size, so a patch ten times wider is a hundred times worse. A tolerance of 10 ppm is reached at a radius of 40.3 km — 81 km across — and that is the number behind the boundary between plane surveying and geodesy.

How small is flat enough

A builder works in plane coordinates and a national mapping agency does not, and the line between them is not a convention. The unavoidable error of treating a patch of the Earth as flat grows as the square of its size, and the size at any stated tolerance is a number.

impossibility · Curvature The radius of equal curvature, from equator to pole. The radius of the sphere that has the same Gaussian curvature as the ellipsoid does, at each latitude. On WGS84 it runs from 6357 km at the equator to 6400 km at the pole — the polar region is the flattened part of a squashed ball and is therefore the LEAST curved — so K itself varies by 1.35%. A surface whose curvature varies cannot be laid on one whose curvature does not, so no map from the sphere to the ellipsoid is faithful either, and the least a conformal one can vary in scale is 6739 parts per million.

The curvature of the Earth is not one number

An ellipsoid's Gaussian curvature varies by 1.35% from equator to pole, so the sphere is not developable onto the ellipsoid any more than the plane is onto the sphere. The spherical approximation is a projection with an irreducible cost, and the cost is 6,739 parts per million.

impossibility · Curvature Sheets for a tolerance, from Chebyshev's bound and a covering. For each stated tolerance on the scale error, the cap radius at which the best possible conformal projection just meets it — sec²(ρ/2) − 1 = tolerance, which is Chebyshev's bound and has no fitting in it — and then the number of such caps needed to cover the sphere at the packing density a real arrangement achieves. One part in a thousand costs 1210 sheets of 403 kilometres radius. The slope is -0.989: a factor of ten in what the job will accept is a factor of ten in the atlas.

How many sheets an atlas needs

A tolerance on the scale error inverts, through Chebyshev's bound, into a sheet radius — and a covering problem turns the radius into a count. One part in a thousand costs 1,210 sheets of 403 kilometres radius, the count goes as the reciprocal of the tolerance exactly, and the projection multiplies it by anything from one to fifty-six.

choosing · Choosing How thinly a sphere can be covered by a few equal caps. The covering density of the best arrangement of n equal caps found for each n — the total area of the caps divided by the sphere's, so a value of one would be a perfect tiling with no overlap. The horizontal line is 2π/√27 = 1.2092, the thinnest covering density of the PLANE by equal discs, which this site has used for the sphere since its first atlas essay. It is wrong in both directions: at 2 caps the sphere is covered more thinly than any plane can be, because a cap may be a hemisphere, and at every count from 3 upwards more thickly — 1.5092 at 3, and 1.3377 at 14. The ringed points are the four counts whose optimum is proved: 2 at 90.00°, 4 at 70.53°, 6 at 54.74°, 12 at 37.38°. Everything else is an upper bound from a search, drawn as one, and the bound loosens as the count rises — the search reaches the proved optimum to 3.4 per cent at these counts and has no such check anywhere else.

The sphere is not the plane at small counts

The site's atlas arithmetic multiplies an ideal sheet count by 2π/√27, the thinnest covering density of the plane. At the four counts whose optimal covering of the sphere is a theorem the plane's number is 21 per cent high at two caps and 9, 5 and 2 per cent low at four, six and twelve — wrong in both directions, and the direction changes with the count.

choosing · Choosing Every one of the cube's 384 nets, scored. All 384 spanning trees of the cube's face graph, unfolded and scored on the total separation their cuts leave: how far apart, in edge lengths, the two copies of each cut edge end up on the page. Every one of them is a valid net — no Platonic unfolding overlaps — and they range from 11.30 to 17.97, a factor of 1.59. The heuristic of unfolding outwards from a chosen face lands on the first of them, exactly.

What the net heuristic cannot find

Rung seven chose a net by unfolding outwards from a face and showed the choice beats guessing, and recorded that its own limit was unknown. Enumerated in full, the heuristic turns out to be exactly optimal on every solid small enough to check — rank one of 384 — and above that ceiling no sample can tell whether it still is, because eight hundred random nets never reach it.

families · Polyhedral A 6° query against a cube scheme, and the cells it fetches. The cells of a tangent-warped cube scheme at level 5, with the 29 cells a query of 6° radius touches shaded. The disc's own area is 16.84 cells; the count is 29, because every cell the disc's boundary crosses is fetched as well as every cell inside it. In Hilbert order those cells form six contiguous ranges of identifiers, which is six range scans, and the span from the lowest to the highest covers 91 cells against the 29 wanted. Drawn in Mollweide, with the mesh shown only near the query.

A query is a disc, and a disc is not a cell

Everything a cell system does is an address lookup except the one question anybody actually asks it: find everything within five kilometres of here. That is a disc, and the number of cells it fetches is not its area divided by a cell's — at the radii a query is really made at, it is three to seventeen times that.

applied · Cells Four cartograms of one density. The same stated density — four cities — met four different ways, drawn on the same cells. Every panel is a correct cartogram of the same numbers: a region's page area is proportional to its mass in all four. They do not look alike, because the areal scale factor fixes one number per point and a map has four derivatives, so three degrees of freedom per point are left over and each construction spends them differently.

Every density can be met and none is free

Four maps of the same data, all of them correct, charging between 57.6° and 104.4° of angular deformation for it. There is no such thing as the cartogram of a density — there is an infinite family, and somebody picked a member of it without saying so.

distortion · Cartogram Two maps of one density: one costs nothing and one costs forty-four degrees. Both drawings meet the same areal request — an exponential ramp of contrast 79.8 to one, whose logarithm is harmonic — to arithmetic noise. The first is a conformal map written down in closed form, the conformal map that meets an exponential ramp, log-harmonic, whose angular deformation is 2.4e-8 degrees. The second is the triangular construction the previous rungs use, at 43.8° on the same request. A grid of squares is drawn through each: the first keeps every angle and the second does not.

The cheapest map that meets its areas

An earlier essay bracketed a cartogram's least cost between a construction charging eighty degrees and a bound valid only for symmetric densities, and recorded the gap as a shortfall. One request settles it: a density of contrast eighty whose least cost is exactly zero, met by a map written down in closed form, while the standard construction charges 43.8° for it.

distortion · Cartogram

Named alongside it

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

Spherical capChebyshev's boundToleranceOptimisationAngular deformationAreal factorBoundaryCartogramClosed formCoveringDensityGaussian curvature

All concepts