Concept

Thematic mapping — where it appears

Shading a map by a quantity rather than drawing what is there, which makes the projection's areal factor part of the number shown. A choropleth drawn on a projection that is not equal-area shades a quantity the reader integrates by eye against an area the map has already distorted.

Named by 16 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

One 20° × 10° cell at 60°, under four projections. The same patch of the sphere, drawn by four projections and scaled to fit. The shapes differ and so do the areas: the figure under each panel is the areal inflation relative to the same cell at the equator, so 1.00 means the projection treats the two fairly.

The projection that shows true size

There is no such thing, and the phrase hides a real question. Equal-area projections preserve area and destroy shape; nothing preserves size in the sense the phrase implies; and the tools that make the point best are not maps at all.

wrong · Audit
Four ways to build the same equal-area projection. The cylindrical equal-area projection's own areal scale factor, measured from its Jacobian against the metric of the body it is drawn for. On a sphere with the spherical formula it is one everywhere, which is the control. Feed the same formula the geodetic latitude a coordinate actually carries and measure against the ellipsoid it refers to, and it is 1.00674 on the equator and 0.99332 at 88° — a spread of 1.34 per cent, on a projection whose entire purpose is that there is no spread. Rescaling to make the totals agree does not repair it. The authalic northing q/2 does, exactly.

Equal-area on the wrong body

The site's headline is that Web Mercator puts geodetic latitudes into a spherical conformal formula and stops being conformal. The same sentence is true with "equal-area" in it and nobody says it: the areal factor is 1.00674 at the equator, 0.99332 at 88°, and averages to almost exactly one — so every check that adds up areas passes while every cell is wrong.

wrong · Audit
Where the middle of a 20° × 20° region is, in five planes. The region is drawn in longitude and latitude — which is itself a projection, and one of the ones being compared. Each filled mark is the shoelace centroid computed in one projected plane and inverted back to the ground; the hollow mark is the centre of area on the sphere, by integration. They spread over 273 kilometres. The equal-area member is 66 kilometres out, because a centroid is a first moment and preserving area says nothing about where the area sits.

A centroid belongs to a plane

Every renderer labels a region at its centroid, and every centroid is a shoelace over coordinates as stored — which is a statement about the plane they are in. Six planes put the middle of one 20° × 20° region up to 273 kilometres apart, the equal-area member is 66 kilometres out, and the disagreement falls as the square of the region's size.

applied · Dataset
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
Tissot's ellipse and the one that governs gradients, at 20°E 48°N. The solid ellipse is the image of a small circle — Tissot's indicatrix, semi-axes a and b. The dashed one is the image of a unit gradient, whose semi-axes are 1/b and 1/a because a gradient transforms by the inverse transpose of the Jacobian rather than by the Jacobian. Its long axis therefore lies where the indicatrix's short one does. On Mercator both are circles, so a gradient's direction survives; on Lambert cylindrical the two ellipses are the same shape turned through a right angle, so the worst direction for a gradient is the best direction for a shape.

A slope is not a shape

Every map in this collection has carried geometry. An applied map far more often carries a field — elevation, pressure, a density — and the first thing anybody does with one is differentiate it. A gradient is a covector, it transforms by the inverse transpose of the Jacobian, and the ellipse that governs it is the indicatrix turned inside out.

distortion · Gradient
The same six contours on Mercator and Lambert cylindrical. The value of a harmonic sum with a summit and a basin in the northern mid-latitudes travels with the point, so the set of points at a stated level is the same set on every map and each contour is exactly right on both panels. Everything a reader measures from them is not: the spacing between neighbouring contours, their lengths, and the area between two of them all change from one panel to the other, and the two panels are the same field.

The contour is right and the reading is wrong

There is exactly one thing about a field that no projection can get wrong: which points share a value. The contour lines on any two maps of the same field are the same set of points. Every quantity a reader takes off them — the spacing, the length, the area between two of them, the hypsometric curve — is not, and the two kinds of map get different ones wrong.

distortion · Gradient
Steepest descent on Lambert cylindrical, computed on the ground and on the page. Fifteen routes, each started at the same place twice. The solid line follows the true direction of steepest descent on the sphere; the dashed line follows the direction read off the page at every step, which is what an analysis of a projected grid does. Both take the same length of step on the ground, so the only difference between them is the direction. They part by up to 1517.8 kilometres, against a bearing error of 45.6°. The faint lines are contours of the field, which is seven caps at stated centres and widths.

Water runs downhill on the ground, not on the page

A drainage network is the set of steepest-descent trajectories of a field, so it is built entirely out of directions. A conformal map preserves those directions exactly and therefore preserves the whole network; an equal-area map does not, and sends a route up to 892 kilometres away from where the water actually goes.

distortion · Gradient
The same kernels, across an edge. Each kernel measured over the same five rasters as the smooth measurement, on a field that carries a step across a tilted line instead of a smooth function. The solid lines are the edge and the faint ones the smooth field. The orders on the smooth field are nearest 1.00, bilinear 1.98, cubic 2.93; across the edge they are nearest 0.78, bilinear 0.58, cubic 0.60 — within a factor of 1.33 of one another, and the fastest of them belongs to nearest-neighbour, which does no interpolating at all. The ranking a smooth field establishes does not survive a discontinuity, and a real raster is mostly edges.

An edge has no order of convergence

On a smooth field the three resampling kernels converge at orders 1, 2 and 3 and the choice is obvious. Across a discontinuity they converge at 0.78, 0.58 and 0.60 — within a factor of 1.4 of each other, in an order that puts nearest-neighbour first, and a real raster is mostly edges.

applied · Dataset
One field, one round trip between two cell schemes. Left: a stated field binned into an equal-angle grid of 36 by 18 cells. Right: the same field after being rebinned into an equal-area grid of 30 by 15 offset by six degrees of longitude, and rebinned back. Every step is exact area-weighted averaging, the total is preserved to 2 × 10⁻¹⁶, and the root-mean-square difference between the two pictures is 0.144 on a field whose own standard deviation is 0.370.

The same data on two grids

Five essays have addressed, queried and ordered cells within one scheme and nobody has moved a number between two. Doing it exactly — area-weighted, both directions — preserves the total to 2 × 10⁻¹⁶ and loses 39 per cent of the field's own standard deviation in a single round trip; six round trips leave 23 per cent of its variance. The quantity that would reveal the damage is the one that never moves.

applied · Cells
What simplifying a boundary does to the number stored beside it. One region, simplified at five tolerances, with the error in the two quantities a consumer computes from the pair. If the density was stored, the total it implies moves by exactly the area's error — -1.55 per cent at the loosest tolerance. If the total was stored, the density it implies moves the other way by the same amount. Nothing in the file says which of the two was measured and which is being derived, and the simplification is normally done by a tool that never opens the attribute table.

The attribute is a claim about the geometry

Fourteen essays price what a stored coordinate means and not one asks what the number stored beside it means. A rate is a quantity divided by an area, the area belongs to the geometry, and no format records which area — so a simplification that moves the outline by nothing visible moves the implied total by 1.55 per cent, an unweighted average of densities is 4.09 per cent out, and a choropleth gives a polar square kilometre fifteen times the ink of an equatorial one.

applied · Dataset
The same field, the same statistic, two pages. A single northern concentration — v = 10 + 90 exp(−d²/(25°)²), d the distance from 20°E 55°N — drawn twice, with the shading rule and the data identical. The ground's own area-weighted mean is 14.009. A reader weighting by the area actually on the page takes 17.490 off Mercator, which is +24.85%, and 14.009 off Gall–Peters, which is +0.00%. Neither map has misdrawn a single cell.

A choropleth is read by area

Every cartography course states the rule — use an equal-area projection for a thematic map — and states it as advice. It is a theorem, and it has a residual: the error a page puts into a reading is exactly the covariance of the value with the areal factor, which is 24.85 per cent for a northern concentration read off Mercator and 0.00 per cent for the same field read off a map that spreads area by 7.7 to one.

distortion · Thematic
The same totals, drawn as symbols, on two pages. A band field, largest in the mid latitudes carried by each region and drawn as a circle whose area is proportional to the total. Every symbol is right: a total is a total wherever it is drawn, and the two maps carry identical numbers. What differs is the ground under each symbol. On Mercator the symbol at 60° sits on a region drawn 4.0 times larger than it would be on an equal-area sheet, so the density a reader forms — symbol against region — is out by that factor.

A symbol has a size on the page and an area on the ground

A proportional symbol is right as a total wherever it is drawn — a count is a count. Read against the region beneath it, which is how a reader forms a density, it is wrong by exactly the reciprocal of the areal factor: 0.083 at 73° north on Mercator, a factor of twelve, with the correction available as one multiplication that no atlas makes.

distortion · Thematic
The same count, scattered two ways. 22 dots in every cell of a 30-cell covering, drawn on Mercator. The upper panel places them uniformly on the GROUND — uniform in longitude and in the sine of latitude, which is what uniform on a sphere means — and the lower places them uniformly on the PAGE, which is what a drawing routine handed a polygon does. Both panels carry exactly the same number of dots in exactly the same regions, so both are honest as totals. They are different pictures, and a reader reads a dot map by density.

A dot map's density is partly the projection's

A dot map carries the right number of dots in every region whichever way it is drawn, so it is honest as a total under both placements. It cannot be honest as a density under both: ground on a uniform field reads 0.099 of its equatorial density at 72° north on Mercator, and scattering inside the polygon on the page moves 64.3 per cent of a cell's dots into its northern half without one of them leaving the cell.

distortion · Thematic
One field, one classifier, two sets of breaks. A field that varies with latitude put into 5 classes by area-weighted quantiles, on Mercator. The upper panel weights each region by its ground area and the lower by the area it occupies on this page, which is what a classifier handed projected geometry does. 60 of 150 regions land in a different class, marked in the lower panel. The data has not changed and neither has the number of classes.

The class breaks were computed on the page

The three rungs below price what a reader does with a finished map. A classifier is software, it runs on the geometry it has, and the geometry it has is projected: a five-class quantile classification of one stated field puts half of the three hundred and eighty-four regions in a different colour on Mercator, and 87.5 per cent of them at nine classes.

distortion · Thematic
Six regions, before and after. Six circular regions of unequal size on the equal-area rectangle, and the same six after the cartogram of four cities has been solved. Each drawn area is exactly its base area times the density it was asked for. The four that grow stay recognisably round; the two that shrink are drawn out into shapes that no longer resemble what they were, and nothing in the construction chose to treat them differently.

A cartogram keeps the shapes it inflates

Seven rungs build cartograms and none reads one back. Reading means recognising a region and dividing its drawn area by its base area, and the construction is against the reader twice: the correlation between how much a region grows and how much of its shape it keeps is −0.996, and the base area a reader has to divide by is the map the cartogram replaced.

distortion · Cartogram
One current, two maps, and only one of them conserves it. A flow that has no sources or sinks anywhere on the sphere — it is the perpendicular of a stream function's gradient, so its divergence is zero by construction — drawn on two projections. The arrows on the right are the images of the same ground velocities as the ones on the left. On the equal-area map the drawn field is still divergence-free; on the other it is not, and the arrows drawn in the warning colour are where a reader measuring the picture would find a source or a sink that is not there.

A current drawn on a page has sources

Seven rungs project a scalar field and ask what the page does to its gradient. A wind or a current is the other half of what gets mapped, and the operator that matters for it is the divergence — which is preserved by an equal-area map exactly, by no other map at all, and by a conformal map least of anybody's expectation.

distortion · Gradient

Named alongside it

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

Equal-areaAreal factorMercatorArea weightingBiasConformalityDensityGradientTest fieldVerificationAggregationAnisotropy

All concepts