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

Taylor expansion — where it appears

The representation of a function near a point by its derivatives there, which is what every local approximation on this site is. Its convergence order is recovered only where the function has the derivatives the expansion assumes, which an edge in a raster does not.

Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

How large a map has to be before a wrong projection stops fitting it. Three rivals fitted to a Mercator graticule centred at 45° north, over regions from 1° to 70° of half-extent. The residual is the shape difference alone, with the best scale, rotation and offset removed, and both axes are logarithmic. The horizontal rule is a fifth of a per cent of the map's width — about the width of a drawn line on a printed sheet — and where a curve is below it, no measurement of that map can tell the two projections apart, however carefully it is made.

Two projections that cannot be told apart

Over a small enough region every projection is the same picture, so the question is how small. The answer is not one number: two conformal projections need twelve degrees of extent before their graticules can be separated, and two projections with different anisotropy separate below one.

wrong · Identify 10,000 observations of one place, averaged 120 times. Left: 400 single observations of the same place, with a 60-kilometre standard deviation east and north, drawn across ±400 km. They are scattered about the truth and their average is unbiased on the ground. Right: 120 independent averages of 10,000 such observations each, computed on the page and taken back to the ground, drawn across ±1.8 km. The cloud is tight, as averaging ten thousand things should make it, and it is not centred on the cross: it sits 489 m away, against 403 m predicted by the projection's second derivative alone.

The average of noisy positions moves

Average sixty thousand scattered observations of one place on a Mercator map and the answer is 404 metres too far north — at every sample size, because it is a bias and not noise. The same average on the Lambert cylindrical equal-area is 404 metres too far south, the two being ½ (σ²/R) tan φ and its exact negative, and on the plate carrée it is not displaced at all.

distortion · Precision A geodesic circle on Mollweide, and the two models of where it goes. A circle of geodesic radius ρ about 20°E 45°N, projected. The dashed outline is where the indicatrix says it goes — the ellipse a Tissot figure draws — and the thin solid one adds the quadratic term, which is the flexion and skewness this ladder measures. At 16° the indicatrix is out by 13.5 per cent of the figure's own size and the second-order model by 2.20 — a factor of 6.16, which is what one more derivative buys.

The size at which the second derivative arrives

Six essays have measured a projection's second derivative at points, over regions and under transformations, and none of them says at what size it stops being a curiosity. The answer needs a figure with an extent rather than a point, and it is smaller than anybody drawing a national map would guess: the indicatrix alone places a shape to one part in a thousand out to thirteen kilometres.

distortion · Flexion Two expansions of one integral. The worst error along the whole meridian, against the number of sine terms kept, for the series in the third flattening and the classical series in e². Both are checked against a Simpson's rule on the defining integral, which shares no algebra with either. At one and two terms they are the same number to four digits and the e² series is fractionally ahead; from the third term the n series pulls away, and at four it is 1175 times more accurate — 7.6e-8 metres against 9.0e-5.

Which small quantity the series is in

Every ellipsoidal formula in this collection is a truncated series in the third flattening, inherited from Krüger in 1912 and justified nowhere. Measured against the classical expansion in e², at four sine terms it is 1,175 times more accurate — and at one and two terms it is fractionally worse, which is not what the folklore implies.

wrong · Ellipsoid A 900 km circular accuracy at 55° north, projected. Six thousand ground positions drawn from a circular error of 900 kilometres about one place, each projected in Mercator and plotted as a displacement from the projected place. The curve is the nominal 95 per cent ellipse, computed the standard way — the ground covariance sandwiched between the projection's own derivatives. It holds 93.83 per cent of the points, the cloud is measurably longer than it along its own long axis by 5.52 per cent, and it is not symmetric: the third moment along the page's second axis is 0.727 rather than zero.

The error ellipse is not an ellipse

Rung two pushed a covariance through a projection with the same matrix sandwich that draws an indicatrix. That is a first-order operation on a map with a second derivative, so the propagated distribution is not the ellipse the sandwich draws — and a nominal 95 per cent ellipse holds 93.06 per cent on one projection and 95.63 on another, in opposite directions, from the same input.

distortion · Precision

Named alongside it

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

Second-orderCovarianceFlexionIndicatrixNumerical differentiationPrecisionSkewnessToleranceAnisotropyBiasCentroidConformality

All concepts