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

Weighting — where it appears

The relative importance a reader gives to two criteria that cannot both be optimised. It is a number nobody knows about themselves to three decimal places, and over a library of projections it decides the answer inside windows that narrow.

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

The same six projections, ranked over Europe and Chile. Each column orders the projections by Kavrayskiy's regional criterion — the root-mean-square departure of the two principal scales from unity, integrated over the region with the area element. The lines cross, which is the point: Lambert conformal conic leads over Europe and comes fifth over Chile. A table of projections ordered by distortion is a table about somebody's region.

Distortion over a region

An indicatrix describes a point and every practical question is about a country. Going from one to the other means integrating, integrating means choosing a weighting, and the weighting is the step that turns a measurement into somebody's opinion.

distortion · Tissot 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 Two regions, three answers. Britain and New Zealand, 166° apart, with the pole of the best oblique conic under each of three objectives. Pooling the samples and taking an area-weighted score puts the pole in one place; refusing to let either region be worse than the other puts it somewhere else. The regions are drawn on Mollweide so that equal ground areas are equal page areas.

The pooled score abandons a region

Fifteen rungs optimise 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.

choosing · Choosing The test the ladder asked for, and it refutes the conjecture. How much better the best asymmetric projection is than the best symmetric one, under weightings of four different symmetries, with every symmetric map allowed to re-aim its axis at twelve candidate poles. The conjecture rung eight recorded was that the seven earn their place by PLACING distortion where a symmetric map cannot, so their advantage should collapse under a criterion with no place preference. It does the opposite: the advantage is largest at 1.343 under the uniform weighting and smallest at 1.144 under a band, with the fully asymmetric concentration at 1.204 in between. The winner is named on each row and the map it beat is Equirectangular throughout. The seven are simply better maps.

The maps with no family are simply better

Rung eight found seven projections with no continuous symmetry and noticed they are almost exactly the set anybody would choose for a world map, then offered a conjecture with a test attached: their advantage should collapse under a criterion that does not care where anything is. Run, it does the opposite — 1.343 times under a uniform weighting and 1.204 under a concentration. The conjecture is refuted.

families · Families

Named alongside it

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

OptimisationPurposeRankingTrade-offAspectKavrayskiy's criterionPareto frontVerificationAggregationAiry's criterionAngular deformationAreal factor

All concepts