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

Ranking — where it appears

An ordering of projections by a stated criterion, which changes when the criterion, the region or the derivative measured changes. Two criteria applied to the same projections over the same region give different orderings, which is the reason a ranking is quoted with its criterion here.

Named by 14 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The same six projections, ranked over Europe and Chile. Each column orders the projections by Kavrayskiy's regional criterion — the root-mean-square departure of the two principal scales from unity, integrated over the region with the area element. The lines cross, which is the point: Lambert conformal conic leads over Europe and comes fifth over Chile. A table of projections ordered by distortion is a table about somebody's region.

Distortion over a region

An indicatrix describes a point and every practical question is about a country. Going from one to the other means integrating, integrating means choosing a weighting, and the weighting is the step that turns a measurement into somebody's opinion.

distortion · Tissot The taught rule against the measurement, on 30 regions. Each cell is a region built to order — a box of the stated height and width-to-height ratio, centred at the stated latitude — with the family that actually scores best over it, and whether that is what the rule says. Every family is given its own parameters for the region: the conic its cone constant, the cylindrical its standard parallel and the choice of a normal or transverse axis, the azimuthal its centre. The rule is right on 19 of 30, and where it is wrong it is wrong in one direction: it keys on latitude, and what decides the answer is shape.

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.

wrong · Audit 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 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 Which projection wins, by the first derivative and by the second. Each column is a region, with the projections listed in the order Kavrayskiy's first-order criterion puts them in and the figure at the right of each row giving that projection's rank under the second-order criterion — flexion and skewness aggregated the same way. The rank correlations are Europe 0.83, the conterminous United States 0.81, the tropics 0.90, a cap of 30° radius 0.88, so the two orders agree broadly and disagree in detail. Where it matters is the winner: over a cap of 30° radius the choice moves from Albers equal-area conic to Lambert azimuthal equal-area, while Europe and the conterminous United States and the tropics keep theirs. A criterion that changed every answer would be suspect and one that changed none would be decoration.

The second derivative over a region

Flexion has been measured at points and over the whole sphere, and never over a region — which is the only unit anybody chooses a projection for. Doing it finds that the second-order criterion moves the winner in one region of four, and that one projection in the library has no second derivative at all.

distortion · Flexion Which of eight places is nearest, decided on the ground and decided on the page. Every cell of the window shaded by which of eight places across Europe is nearest on the ground, with the cells the page's own answer would hand to a different site drawn in the failure colour. Plate carrée misassigns 13.67 per cent of the window's ground area — 3,058 thousand square kilometres. The misassigned cells are not scattered: they lie in bands along the boundaries, which is what a systematic error looks like and what a sampled test of a few query points is least likely to find.

Nearest of many is a partition

One reach question with one source is a disc. With several sources it is a division of the whole surface, every place belonging to whichever source is nearest — and computing that division in the plane the data is stored in hands away between 0.75 and 22.16 per cent of the ground, in unbroken strips up to 1,591 kilometres across.

paths · Reach The same map on four differently prepared pages. Mollweide at 30°E 20°N, then the same projection with a rotation and a magnification applied to the page, then with one axis stretched by 1.6, then with a shear of 0.5. The similarity changes nothing: flexion, skewness, ω and the anisotropy are identical to every printed figure, and only the last column — the same turning measured per unit of page arc rather than per unit of ground arc — moves, by exactly the magnification. The stretch and the shear change all of them, and flexion by 35 per cent.

The second derivative is not an invariant

The first-order ladder established which quantities survive a change of coordinates and which are artefacts of the parameterisation. Asked of the second order, the answer is that flexion survives a rotation and a magnification of the page exactly, and survives nothing else: a stretch of 1.6 in one axis moves it by eleven per cent, a shear of 0.5 by thirty-five, and a shear of 3 leaves a ranking of eight world maps with a rank correlation of −0.07 to the one it started with.

distortion · Flexion Two nets of the same solid, cut to the same length. Every net of a Platonic solid severs exactly the same number of edges, all of the same length, so the total length of the cut is a constant and cannot choose between them. Each line joins the two places a severed edge ends up. Left: the net that keeps them closest, 11.30 edge lengths in total. Right: the net that puts them furthest apart, 17.97 — a factor of 1.59 for the same amount of cutting.

The net that loses the fewest neighbours

Every one of the cube's 384 nets cuts exactly seven edges of exactly the same length, so the quantity this collection has been pricing cutting by is a constant that cannot choose between them. Measured on the reader's side — how far apart a net puts two places that touch on the globe — the best net scores 11.30 and the worst 17.97, for identical cutting.

families · Polyhedral Every projection against a picture that is not a map. The worst relative distance error over London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney, for each projection in the library and for the best flat arrangement of the same distances. Each azimuthal member is centred on the set's own centroid, which is the fair comparison. The free picture reaches 0.63% and the best projection, Azimuthal equidistant, reaches 8.28% — a ratio of 13.17. The free picture cannot lose, because every projection's own layout was handed to the search as a starting point; what the figure measures is how much the freedom is worth, and it is worth different amounts at different sizes.

The best flat picture is not a map

A set of dots whose separations are as nearly right as separations can be made beats every projection in this collection — by a factor of thirteen on four world cities, and by eight per cent on sixteen. The collapse between those two numbers is not about cartography. It is that a picture of n places has 2n − 3 free numbers and n(n − 1)/2 distances to spend them on.

impossibility · Embedding Four of the seven on the front can never be first. Every library projection over the whole sphere, with both errors normalised to the table's own range. The seven filled circles are the Pareto front — nothing beats them on both counts. The line through three of them is the lower convex hull, and a weighted sum of the two errors is a straight line in this space, so only a hull vertex can ever come first. Four projections — Web Mercator, Miller cylindrical, Equirectangular, Winkel tripel — sit in the dents, undominated and unchoosable.

Which projection a weighting can make best

Rung eight finds the seven world projections nothing beats on both counts and tells a reader with a preference that one of them is their answer. Four of the seven are not: they sit in dents of the front, undominated and unreachable, and no weighting of angle against area can ever put them first. Robinson can be first, on 2.8 per cent of the weight range.

wrong · Audit Three projections that run in a circle. Mercator beats Sinusoidal beats Eckert IV beats Mercator, each on a majority of the same seven criteria over the whole sphere. Every margin is four to three, the narrowest a majority of seven can be, and the criteria that decide each edge are different ones. There is no way to place these three in an order that agrees with all three comparisons, and the obstruction is not a measurement error: every number is exact to the precision the sampler reaches.

The ranking is not an order

The previous rung showed that a weighting can make almost any projection best. Remove the weights entirely, let each of the seven criteria vote once, and the answer is worse: over the whole sphere Mercator beats the sinusoidal, the sinusoidal beats Eckert IV, and Eckert IV beats Mercator — four such circles, every margin four to three, with a Condorcet winner sitting above them all.

wrong · Audit One quantity, one region, and the exponent left free. The scale departure of six projections over the world, aggregated as a p-norm, against p on a logarithmic axis. At p = 1 the best is Eckert IV; at p = 64 it is Winkel tripel. Nothing about the maps changed between the two ends of the axis — only how much of the region a bad point is allowed to spoil. Drawn in no projection: the axes are an exponent and a score.

The average was a choice of norm

Ten projections, one region, one measured quantity, and the only free decision left is how to turn a field into a number. Over the world's scale departure the ordering at the mean and the ordering at the worst case have a rank correlation of −0.04, all ten maps change position, and the exponent that produced each answer is stated nowhere.

wrong · Audit The test the ladder asked for, and it refutes the conjecture. How much better the best asymmetric projection is than the best symmetric one, under weightings of four different symmetries, with every symmetric map allowed to re-aim its axis at twelve candidate poles. The conjecture rung eight recorded was that the seven earn their place by PLACING distortion where a symmetric map cannot, so their advantage should collapse under a criterion with no place preference. It does the opposite: the advantage is largest at 1.343 under the uniform weighting and smallest at 1.144 under a band, with the fully asymmetric concentration at 1.204 in between. The winner is named on each row and the map it beat is Equirectangular throughout. The seven are simply better maps.

The maps with no family are simply better

Rung eight found seven projections with no continuous symmetry and noticed they are almost exactly the set anybody would choose for a world map, then offered a conjecture with a test attached: their advantage should collapse under a criterion that does not care where anything is. Run, it does the opposite — 1.343 times under a uniform weighting and 1.204 under a concentration. The conjecture is refuted.

families · Families Which of this collection's numbers are the sampler's. How much each of two published quantities moves when the sampler behind it goes from twenty samples a side to sixty, for eight projections over the whole sphere. The Kavrayskiy numbers — the summary means the rankings are built from — move by at most 1.15 per cent. The worst-point angular deformations move by up to 19.0 per cent, all in the same direction, because they are maxima over a sample and a maximum over a sample is a lower bound. The split is clean, and it says which numbers here need refining and which do not.

Which of these numbers are the sampler's

Four rungs have shown that a sampled maximum understates, a sampled mean can be a report on the sampler, no arrangement of points is neutral, and refining until the answer settles proves nothing. So the collection re-measured itself. The means move by at most 1.1 per cent, the worst points by up to 19, and the rankings — which is what the essays actually argue with — do not move at all.

distortion · Sampling

Named alongside it

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

Kavrayskiy's criterionPurposeOptimisationRegional distortionTrade-offDistortion criterionVerificationAngular deformationAreal factorEstimatorFlexionRegion

All concepts