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

Reproducibility — where it appears

Whether a stated procedure, run again, returns the same answer. It has to be asked of the quantity a reader consumes rather than of the one that is easy to print: an aspect search's parameters are not reproducible and the map they produce is.

Named by 9 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 One slice of the aspect objective, at the best γ. The Kavrayskiy score for Robinson over Japan, as the pole is moved over the whole sphere with the third rotation held at the value the search settled on. Dark is good. The marks are local minima of the full three-dimensional grid that happen to lie in this slice: there are 6 of them here and 58 in the cube, and a search that walks downhill from a random start reaches the best of them 7 per cent of the time.

The landscape the search walks on

The three-parameter aspect search was run and its answer recorded with a note admitting nothing proved it global. Mapping the objective finds 26 to 34 local minima for every projection and region tried, a downhill walk from a random start reaching the best of them 6 to 35 per cent of the time — and one seed from the coarse grid the search already uses reaching it in all four cases. The score is reproducible to two per cent across a sevenfold refinement; the pole it names moves 60 degrees.

choosing · Choosing The parameters are not reproducible and the map is. The three-parameter aspect search run at three grid resolutions and compared with the finest, twice over. Compared on the numbers it returns, the answers are 65° of pole apart. Compared on what they do to the region — the root-mean-square difference in angular deformation at every sample — they are 0.29° apart, against a map whose own deformation over that region averages about a degree. The disagreement recorded as a shortfall is a disagreement about coordinates for one map.

Report the map, not the parameters

The previous rung found the aspect search returning the same score to 2.3 per cent from poles sixty degrees of latitude apart, and recorded that as a shortfall: the answer was not reproducible. The shortfall assumed the disagreeing triples make disagreeing maps. They do not — the three answers agree on the distortion field to a quarter of the deformation the map already has.

choosing · Choosing The set of aspects within a stated distance of the best, for Robinson over Japan. Each row takes every point of a 36 × 19 × 24 grid in the three aspect parameters that scores within (1 + t) of the best, joins neighbouring points, and identifies the pieces the exact degeneracy relates. At t = 3 it is one connected piece spanning 170° of pole; by t = 1 it has broken into 14 pieces; and by t = 0.3 the largest of them spans 11°. So it is not one valley and it is not one basin — it is a sheet that fractures.

The shape of the valley

An aspect search returns three numbers, two searches return triples that differ by a hemisphere, and the maps they produce agree. One cause is an exact degeneracy and the rest was called a valley and left unmeasured. Sampled densely, it is neither a valley nor a basin: a connected sheet spanning 170° of pole that fractures into fourteen pieces once the threshold tightens.

choosing · Choosing Where Robinson's valley breaks, against how large the region is. The threshold at which the set of near-optimal aspects stops being one connected piece, for square regions of growing size at 38° north. It falls from 2.13 at 6° to 0.27 at 30°, a factor of 8.0. The previous rung measured this at one region and quoted "about twice the optimum"; that value belongs to a small region, and the prediction that it should fall as the region grows is what this tests.

Where the valley breaks in two

The previous rung found a near-optimal set that is one connected sheet at a loose threshold and fourteen basins at a tight one, and explained the transition without testing it. The explanation is a prediction about region size and projection sharpness: swept over both, the threshold falls from 2.13 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.

choosing · Choosing Three implementations of one projection, and three different distortions. The spread in angular deformation between linear, Catmull–Rom and Aitken interpolations of Robinson's own table, at 60° of longitude. It is exactly zero at every fifth degree, because all three pass through the tabulated rows, and it is not zero anywhere else: 37 of 87 latitudes differ by more than half a degree and the worst is 8.42°. The graticules the three draw differ by 4.2 parts per thousand of the map's own span, which is under the width of a printed line.

A projection defined by a table has an interpolation in it

One member of this library has no formula: Robinson set nineteen pairs of numbers by eye and the table is the definition. Three published interpolations of it draw graticules that differ by four parts in a thousand of the map's span and report angular deformations that differ by 8.4 degrees.

families · Families The pass between the basins, measured rather than bracketed. The height of the lowest path from one near-optimal basin to the other, for regions of growing size. It is found by sorting the score surface and joining cells in order, so it is the minimax path's own height rather than the level at which a bisection stops finding two pieces. The fitted exponent is -1.60 at a coefficient of determination of 0.913. The previous rung's level-set measurement gave −1.33 and the argument predicts −1, so measuring the height directly moves the answer FURTHER from the prediction rather than towards it.

The height of the pass between two basins

The previous rung recorded a shortfall: the fracture threshold falls as the −1.33 power where the argument predicts −1, and the difference was supposed to be the height of the pass. It is not. Measuring the pass directly gives −1.60, which is further from the prediction, and the two basins turn out to be exact symmetric copies with nothing to decompose.

choosing · Choosing Four layouts, the same five stations, the same ten distances. Every panel has five stations, all ten distances between them, the same instrument precision and the same three degrees of freedom. The ellipses are the error ellipses of the adjusted coordinates, drawn at one common exaggeration, and they are computed from the geometry and the weights alone — no observation value enters any of them. The worst semi-axis runs from 11.1 millimetres to 232, a factor of 20.9, and the difference is entirely where the marks were put.

The network's answer is decided before it is measured

Nine rungs measure what an adjustment does with observations. Every quantity a specification is written about — the error ellipses, the redundancy numbers, the smallest detectable blunder — is a function of the geometry and the weights alone, and does not contain an observed value anywhere. Four layouts of five stations with the same ten distances differ by a factor of 20.9 in their worst coordinate.

practice · Reduction How far the two routes end up apart. The distance between a line simplified directly at the final tolerance and the same line simplified through two intermediate products, as a multiple of the final tolerance, with a stated extra step applied to each intermediate. With nothing in between the two are the same line to the last bit, because Douglas–Peucker's outputs are nested. Rounding the intermediate to half the tolerance, smoothing it for legibility, or running it through a moving average each break that, and the last of them puts the final product 0.142 away from where a direct route would have put it — nine times the tolerance the product is published under.

Two routes to one scale

A national series is cascaded — the million is derived from the quarter-million, which was derived from the fifty — and the folklore is that the errors accumulate. They do not: Douglas–Peucker and Visvalingam both cascade to the same line the direct route produces, bit for bit, because both output a sublevel set of a per-vertex number. What breaks it is anything else in the chain, and a moving average puts the product nine tolerances away.

applied · Generalise

Named alongside it

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

AspectObjective functionOptimisationSearchDegeneracyIdentifiabilityLevel setLocal minimumParameter searchSymmetryAngular deformationClosed form

All concepts