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

Robinson — where it appears

A compromise pseudocylindrical projection defined by a table of values rather than by a formula, adopted by several atlases in the late twentieth century. It has no exact property, which was the design intention, and its shape between table entries is an interpolation somebody chose.

Named by 10 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Angular deformation against latitude, four projections. The same quantity for mercator, gallPeters, winkelTripel, robinson, from the equator to 80°. A conformal projection sits flat on zero in the first of these plots and runs away in the second; an equal-area projection does the reverse. Nothing is flat in both.

Every projection minimises something

A projection is the solution to an optimisation problem, and naming the objective explains more than naming the family. Some objectives are exact constraints, some are least-squares fits, and one is a table of numbers a man adjusted until it looked right.

choosing · Choosing 6 projections of the same sphere. The same graticule under Equirectangular, Mercator, Mollweide, Sinusoidal, Robinson, Winkel tripel. Every one of them is a faithful drawing of the same object and no two agree, because each has chosen a different thing to preserve.

Which projection is best

An incomplete question, and the incompleteness is the answer. Every projection preserves something and destroys something else, so the comparison worth making is between a projection and a purpose, not between two projections.

choosing · Choosing 6 projections of the same sphere. The same graticule under Robinson, Winkel tripel, Mollweide, Mercator, Gall–Peters, Eckert IV. Every one of them is a faithful drawing of the same object and no two agree, because each has chosen a different thing to preserve.

Compromise projections

A projection that preserves nothing exactly can distort everything less than one that preserves something exactly. For a general-purpose world map that is the right trade, and it is why the two most widely used ones today have no exact property at all.

choosing · Choosing What a pole line buys, and what it costs. four pseudocylindrical projections placed by the two numbers the decision moves. Across the bottom, the angular deformation averaged over the whole sphere, where the pole-line projections — Eckert IV and Robinson — are the better maps. Up the side, on a log axis, the factor by which the last parallel is stretched, where they are worse by more than tenfold: 49× at best against 4.6× at worst for a pole drawn as a point. A pole line represents one point of the globe by a line of the map, and that is the price.

Where a pseudocylindrical puts its error

Every projection in this family has to decide what to do at the pole, which on the globe is a point where every meridian meets. Drawing it as a point and drawing it as a line are the two answers, and the trade between them is measurable in both directions.

families · Families The image of a circle on Mercator, against its own indicatrix. A circle of three radii on the ground at 30°, 40°, projected exactly — the solid curve — against the ellipse the indicatrix predicts for it, dashed. The filled dot is the image of the circle's centre and the hollow one is the centre of area of what was actually drawn, which is not the same point. The departure runs from 3.14 per cent at 4° to 15.80 per cent at 16°, so it grows in proportion to the radius rather than to its square: halving the circle halves the relative error and does not quarter it.

The indicatrix is a limit

Tissot's ellipse describes an infinitesimal circle, and every published one is drawn finite. The error of the description falls as the radius rather than as its square — halving the circle halves the lie — and on the Robinson projection at a table entry it does not fall at all: sixty metres and six kilometres are both 1.17 per cent wrong.

distortion · Tissot 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 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

Two rungs of this ladder scored a rule of thumb over thirty regions and then forty-five. The same populations answer a harder question the ladder has never 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 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 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 The doubling ladder is the one sequence that cannot see it. The largest departure of a small circle from its own indicatrix that a grid of n latitudes over 10° to 70° north finds on the Robinson projection. The filled marks are 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128 — the doubling ladder every convergence study runs — and they rise smoothly to about 4.66e-4 with the increments halving, which is what a convergent first-order sequence looks like. The open marks are grids whose samples land on the projection's five-degree table entries. They report 1.28e-2, twenty-seven times higher, and whether a grid does that is decided by whether n is a multiple of four.

A refinement that stops moving

Doubling the sample and watching the answer settle is how every quadrature in every field is checked. On the Robinson projection the doubling ladder — 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 — converges beautifully, with its increments halving at every step, on a limit that is wrong by a factor of twenty-seven. Whether a grid finds the answer is decided by whether n is a multiple of four.

distortion · Sampling

Named alongside it

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

Angular deformationCompromiseInterpolationMercatorTrade-offWinkel tripelCompromise projectionGeneral-purpose mapOptimisationPareto frontProjection selectionPseudocylindrical

All concepts