Region — where it appears
Named by 24 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
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.
Three conditions are one too many
Two distances fix a point in a plane and a third has no freedom left to be satisfied with. Chamberlin's trimetric construction averages the three positions that satisfy two conditions each, and the spread between them — never zero anywhere, 22 km over North America, growing as the cube of the region — is the price of the extra clause.
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.
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.
The rule scored out of sample
A replacement rule was read off thirty regions and scored on the same thirty, and this collection recorded that as not being evidence about any other thirty. It is: on forty-five different regions the rule scores 91 per cent against the 83 it managed at home. What it cannot do is the seven regions the collection actually uses, where both it and the rule it replaced name the winner twice out of seven and cost a mean factor of 14.6.
The third parameter, run
An aspect has three numbers and this site has been searching two of them, with a note admitting it. Searching all three is worth up to 2.1 times — and the obvious way to do it, starting from the two-parameter answer and letting the third move, finds a fraction of that or nothing at all.
The best grid a country could have had
A national grid is a conformal map chosen for one region, so its whole design problem is one number: the spread of its scale factor. That number has a theoretical floor, this site can now compute it, and the adopted grid turns out to be either exactly optimal or half as good again — depending entirely on which box the country is declared to be.
Where the valley breaks in two
A near-optimal set is one connected sheet at a loose threshold and thirteen basins at a tight one, and the transition was explained without being tested. The explanation is a prediction about region size and projection sharpness: swept over both, the threshold falls from 2.10 to 0.27 as a region grows from 6° to 30°, three projections lie on nearly one curve, and a fourth declines to join for a reason worth having.
The shortest route between two coasts
A shortest path is usually asked for between two points. Between two regions the answer is attained at a pair of boundary points, and which pair is not the pair any page makes look nearest — a cylindrical map picks a pair 2,135 kilometres from the right one across the Atlantic, and 1,716 kilometres wrong between Chile and New Zealand, where its route is 22.5 per cent long.
A place with a size can be drawn to scale
Points on a sphere have distances no flat picture holds. Places are not points: give every place a radius and the distance between two of them becomes a range, and some flat picture is right about every range once the radius passes a threshold — 38 kilometres for London, New York, Tokyo and Sydney, six metres for five towns in Britain, growing as the cube of the set.
The pooled score abandons a region
Every criterion in this subject optimises for one region. An atlas is several, and pooling their samples into one area-weighted score is what everybody does — which on Britain and New Zealand serves Britain 1.2 times worse than it could be served alone and New Zealand 125 times worse. The worst-case objective makes them equal at 33 and 59, and the cost of sharing rises with separation from 1.4 to 59.
The map that keeps the most ground inside a tolerance
A surveyor does not want the smallest worst case or the smallest mean square. They want as much of the territory as possible within a stated tolerance of true scale and are indifferent to how far outside the rest goes. That is a third criterion, it is answered by a third map, and on a 25° square at half a per cent it keeps 64.1 per cent of the area where the mean-square map keeps 45.4 and Chebyshev's 37.0 — bought by sending a tail out to 5.6 per cent where Chebyshev's worst is 1.5.
A criterion worth using is one whose answer is not unique
Forty-two starts on one region and one tolerance give forty-two different maps, keeping from 36.98 per cent of the area to 67.50. The two starts anybody would actually use — Chebyshev's map and the mean-square map — end 27.1 points apart, which is more than the criterion buys over either of them. And the spread is widest at exactly the tolerance where the criterion is worth using at all, because both facts are the same fact: an objective with a flat top and a sharp edge has somewhere to hide answers.
The pass that fails first is not the one that was measured
Three attempts to explain why the near-optimal aspect set comes apart when it does have fitted the height of the pass between the two deepest basins. That is not the pass that fails first. At every region size the set is held together by the last near-rival to join the best placement's own basin — a basin between 2 and 19 per cent worse than the best — over ground 1.02 to 2.09 times higher than the deep pair's pass. The two passes fall at nearly one rate, −1.42 and −1.31 powers of the region's span, so what separates them is a factor, not a law.
The pass's depth belongs to the projection, and it is not a constant
Separating the fracture threshold into a pass depth and the best score a region admits raised the question of what the pass depth is. Across three projections and four latitudes it runs over a factor of 4.4, and most of that is the projection: Robinson's stays between 0.018 and 0.021 at every latitude, Mollweide's between 0.040 and 0.079. It is not a constant of anything — it falls as the region grows in ten cases of twelve — and it does not follow how much of the projection the region sees. The denominator, over the same cases, moves by half again.
Six projections have two curves, and the refusal has company
Three projections at four latitudes gave three pass-depth exponents, and the question was what sets them. Six at nine latitudes say that most of them have none to set: the Hammer's pass depth rises with what the region sees at R-squared 0.95 and Mollweide's at 0.81, Eckert IV's half-follows, and Robinson's, the Winkel tripel's and the sinusoidal's do not follow it at all. Neither candidate explanation predicts a left-out projection's exponent better than guessing the average — and the sinusoidal, once the lone refusal, is one of three.
A second clause decides the half that was already decided
A specification written as a band admits forty-two maps keeping between 37.0 and 67.5 per cent of a region. Adding a tie-break — among those, take the one whose worst departure is least — is a linear programme, and it works: it makes each of the forty-two definite. It also merges three neighbours at the bottom into one, leaves 29.1 of the 30.5 points of spread in area kept, and names a single map only at the tolerance where every map keeps everything and the first clause has stopped asking for anything at all.
One exponent names one map, and at tight bands a better one than the band usually finds
A specification written as a band keeps a count of area and throws the rest of the scale field away, which is why it had forty-two answers and why a tie-break could not name one. Written instead as the mean of |ln k| raised to a stated power, it is convex for every power from one up, and has one answer. At a band of a tenth of a per cent that single answer keeps more of the region than forty-one of the band's forty-two, and at half a per cent fewer than nine of them: the band's best answer leads it by 14.7 points there, and the band's own search started from it reaches within two points of that best. Only as the band approaches the least worst case does a large power take over.
Whether the ellipses point the same way
Alignment was found to decide whether the average of a region's deformations is above or below the deformation of its average, and stated it at ten projections over one region. Swept over a hundred and eight pairs, the answer is that alignment belongs to the projection 28 per cent, to the region 38, and to neither 33 — and two rows of the table turn out not to be measurements at all.
The region was a rectangle in a projection
Every verdict this collection hands out is a verdict about a region, and almost every region it has been given is a latitude–longitude box. A box discards a territory's shape, which costs a few per cent, and it records the territory's width in degrees of longitude, which costs up to a factor of 1.72 and changes which family wins on four of forty stated territories. Convert that width to arc and the box gives the right answer every time — so the comparison had a projection in it before it began.
The band names the exponent for a compact region, and not for a thin one
A tolerance band is best served by the mean departure when it is tight and by the least worst case when it is wide. Read as a fraction of the region's own least worst departure, the band decides which, and the region's size drops out: a square, a triangle or a hexagon at 10°, 25° or 40° switches from one to the other at nine tenths, and a surveyor told only that loses at most two points of area on every compact region but the degenerate cap. A thin ellipse does not switch. From six tenths upward it is served best by exponents in between, and any rule with two exponents in it gives up five to seven points there, wherever its switch is put.
Two maps and the line between them do the work of every exponent
A conformal map's log scale is linear in its coefficients, so every blend of the map that minimises the mean departure and the least worst map is itself a conformal map, available the moment the two are solved. Searched along that one line for each band, the blend keeps within 0.17 points of the best of twelve exponents on every compact region and beats all twelve by up to 1.35 on the square; it trails by 1.5 at most on the thinnest ellipse and 0.74 on four regions with a bay, where the rule of switching between the two ends gave up as much as 7.1. The family's middle members lie up to two thirds of their own departure off the line. The line does not reproduce them; it does their work.
Three maps make a plane, and the band's best map lies outside their triangle
Every conformal map whose ln k is a fixed blend of three solved maps — the p = 1 map, the least worst map and the mean-square map — is itself a conformal map, so three solved maps are a plane of them. Inside their triangle the third map recovers most of what the line between the first two gave up on thin regions: 0.63 points short of the best exponent on the thinnest ellipse, where the line was 1.48 short. But the band's best map in the plane is not between the three. On 172 of 182 regions and bands it lies outside the triangle, and it keeps up to twenty points more than any exponent; started from it, a search over all twenty-five coefficients adds about a point on four regions of five and seven on a hexagon. Its price is a worst departure up to nearly five times the least worst.
A cap on the worst departure keeps the thin regions' gain and gives back the square's
The conformal map that keeps the most of a region inside a band can sit far out in the plane of three solved maps and let its edges go to nearly five times the least worst departure. Capped at twice the least worst, the plane still matches or beats the best exponent on 69 region-and-band pairs of 91: on the thin ellipses it keeps the whole of its gain, because that gain sits in a small pocket just past the exponents' own worst departure and arrives all at once; on the square and the bays it gives most of it back, because there the gain is a ramp that runs out to four times the least worst. Under any one cap the plane still beats the exponents that cap admits, by up to eighteen points — and it can name maps that no weighting of area against worst departure would ever choose.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
OptimisationVerificationObjective functionPurposeToleranceScale factorAspectOptimal conformalMinimaxRankingKavrayskiy's criterionReproducibility