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

Objective — where it appears

The quantity a projection was built to minimise or preserve, which has to be named before any projection can be called better than another. Naming it is what turns a preference into a measurement, and every ranking of projections on this site states one before it ranks anything.

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

Exact distances from two places, and from nowhere else. The two-point equidistant projection with London and Cape Town as its centres, 87.0° apart. The light circles are drawn in the map at radii of 30°, 60°, 90°, 120° about each centre; every one of them is a true distance circle on the sphere, to 1.8e-14 relative. Between two points that are not centres the drawn distance is wrong by up to 633 per cent.

A projection written as a condition

Instead of a formula, a sentence: the distance from these two places must be exactly right. The map that satisfies it is found by intersecting two circles, it is exact to five parts in a hundred million million, and it exists over the whole sphere for a reason that belongs to the sphere rather than to the construction.

choosing · Condition 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 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 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.

General-purpose mapCompromise projectionConditionConstraintGreat circleProjection selectionRankingTissot's indicatrixWinkel tripelAggregationArea weightingAudit

All concepts