Measuring distortion
Tissot's indicatrix
A tiny circle on the sphere becomes an ellipse on the map, and the ellipse's two axes are the whole story. Almost every published indicatrix is drawn without them, which discards the content and keeps the decoration.
What survives a change of coordinates
The scale along the meridian is a property of the map and the grid together. The principal scale factors are a property of the map alone. Only the second kind describes the projection, and the two are routinely quoted as though they were the same thing.
The two ways a map is wrong
Angles and areas fail independently. A projection can be perfect about one and catastrophic about the other, and a single number summarising "how distorted" a map is has already thrown away the distinction that matters.
Measuring instead of naming
A projection is called conformal because that is its name. Running the definition as a computation over several hundred points takes about twenty lines, catches a projection the whole internet uses, and is almost never done.
Scale distortion is the third failure
A map's stated scale is its scale at one place. Everywhere else it differs, by a factor that no conformal projection can avoid and that neither of the two usual distortion measures reports. It is the failure everybody uses and nobody counts.
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.
Where the worst point is
The largest scale error on a conformal map of a country is always on the frontier, never inside it, whatever the country's shape and whichever conformal projection was chosen. It is a theorem rather than a tendency, and it is the reason Chebyshev's criterion works.
Distortion has a direction
Tissot's indicatrix is an ellipse, an ellipse has an orientation, and the orientation is never reported. On most projections it is not along the meridian, on a conformal one it does not exist at all, and both facts are computable from the same four derivatives as everything else.
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.
Tissot stops at the first derivative
Every quantity this site has measured is read off one derivative of the projection. A map can be conformal at a point — the indicatrix a circle, the angular deformation zero to eleven figures — and still bend every geodesic through it, at a rate of 0.839 radians of turning per radian of arc.
Bending and stretching are one failure
The ladder was written expecting flexion and skewness to be two independent ways for a map to be wrong. On a conformal projection they are not independent at all: the two extremes are the same size to four figures and sit exactly ninety degrees apart, because both are components of a single vector.
The second derivative has its own ranking
Rank eight world maps by how much they stretch and Mercator comes sixth of eight. Rank the same eight by how much they bend and it comes third. The two halves of the second-order score disagree with each other more sharply than either disagrees with the first-order one — Spearman 0.45 against 0.69.
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.
A local model has an order
Every georeferencing tool fits a polynomial between two coordinate systems and the choice of degree is usually made by counting control points. What it buys is an order of convergence — 2, 3 and 4, measured — and the first term an affine model cannot hold is the second derivative this ladder has spent five essays on.
A projection between two projections
Every distortion measured on this site so far compares a map with the sphere. The operation a machine actually performs compares a map with another map — and that map has its own two principal scales, its own areal factor and its own angular deformation, none of which is the difference of the two it was built from.
The second derivative is not an invariant
The first-order ladder established which quantities survive a change of coordinates and which are artefacts of the parameterisation. Asked of the second order, the answer is that flexion survives a rotation and a magnification of the page exactly, and survives nothing else: a stretch of 1.6 in one axis moves it by eleven per cent, a shear of 0.5 by thirty-five, and a shear of 3 leaves a ranking of eight world maps with a rank correlation of −0.07 to the one it started with.
A coordinate is a number with a width
Every number on this site so far has been exact. A written coordinate is not: five decimal places of a degree is 1.112 metres of latitude everywhere and 1.112 metres of longitude only on the equator, falling to 0.097 at 85°. The same written precision carves the ground into a cell that is square in one place and eleven times longer than it is wide in another.
An error ellipse is an indicatrix
A positional covariance pushed through a projection is the same matrix sandwich that produces Tissot's indicatrix, so the error ellipse drawn on a map and the distortion ellipse drawn beside it are the same ellipse. A five-metre circular accuracy is drawn at an axis ratio of 3.04 on one common projection — and the same projection draws a genuinely lopsided 304 by 100 metre error as a perfect circle.
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.
The indicatrix at a point that has none
Ten essays on this ladder take the derivative for granted. Rung three proved the indicatrix is a limit and every figure since has assumed the limit exists. There are points on the maps this collection draws where it does not, and they are not exotic: the horizon of a gnomonic map, and every corner of every polyhedral net.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The difference of two coordinates
Three essays give a single coordinate a width. Every practical use of one is a difference of two — a distance, a bearing, a movement, an area — and the width of a difference is not the two widths combined, because the errors are not independent. Far from its datum a one-leg baseline is six times more certain than the positions it joins.
An average of ellipses is not an ellipse
Rung three integrates distortion over a region and finds the weighting is somebody's opinion. It never asked what was being averaged. An indicatrix is a positive-definite matrix, matrices form a cone rather than a vector space, and the arithmetic average of an equal-area map's indicatrices comes back inflating area by up to 11 per cent.
The slope of a field that was measured
Three rungs differentiate a formula, which is what makes the projection the only thing under test. A real field is a grid of numbers with an error on each of them, and differencing such a thing divides the noise by the spacing — so a finer grid gives a worse slope, there is a best spacing, and it is the cube root of the noise.
The second derivative cannot classify
Seven essays have used a second derivative to measure a size. The one thing a second derivative is classically used to do is say what KIND of thing is at a point, and on a sphere that use fails: the determinant test totals six where the truth is two, its failure is confined to exactly the field it is asked about, and the count that gets it right never differentiates twice.
The error ellipse is not an ellipse
A positional covariance pushed through a projection is 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.
Whether the ellipses point the same way
Alignment was found to decide whether the average of a region's deformations is above or below the deformation of its average, and stated it at ten projections over one region. Swept over a hundred and eight pairs, the answer is that alignment belongs to the projection 28 per cent, to the region 38, and to neither 33 — and two rows of the table turn out not to be measurements at all.
A map drawn to a density it was handed
Two hundred and twenty-six essays measure distortion after the fact. This one specifies it: a density is handed to a map as a boundary condition, the areal scale factor comes out equal to it to five parts in a million, and every other invariant the site owns becomes the price.
Every density can be met and none is free
Four maps of the same data, all of them correct, charging between 57.6° and 104.4° of angular deformation for it. There is no such thing as the cartogram of a density — there is an infinite family, and somebody picked a member of it without saying so.
A map that meets its target can fold
The flow a diffusion cartogram integrates is a diffeomorphism at every instant and cannot fold. Every discretisation of it can, and the point at which one does is a root of a quadratic — written down rather than searched for.
Everything else on the page pays for the areas
A cartogram gets one quantity exactly right and every other reading a page supports is collateral. A ruler on it is out by 35 per cent after the most generous calibration available, and ten of sixty triples of places change which one is in the middle.
The light comes from a page direction
A hillshade's illumination azimuth is declared from the top of the sheet, and the top of the sheet is grid north. On a conic the light therefore swings 52.6° across eighty degrees of longitude, and 72.8 per cent of the sheet is shaded differently from what the legend claims.
The curvature of a field is not the curvature of its picture
Whether a place is a spur or a hollow is the sign of a second derivative, and every automatic terrain classification is built on it. Read off an equal-area grid, that sign is wrong on 13.25 per cent of a sheet — and conformality reduces it to 0.30 per cent without removing it.
The cheapest map that meets its areas
An earlier essay bracketed a cartogram's least cost between a construction charging eighty degrees and a bound valid only for symmetric densities, and recorded the gap as a shortfall. One request settles it: a density of contrast eighty whose least cost is exactly zero, met by a map written down in closed form, while the standard construction charges 43.8° for it.
A density that asks for no room at all
Five rungs assume the density is positive everywhere, because the construction divides by it. Every cartogram anybody draws has an ocean, and an ocean is not sparsely populated but empty — 83.7 per cent of the sphere, exactly zero, and the construction returns nothing at all for a third of the probes.
The ellipses are a sample, drawn at a size somebody chose
Thirteen essays measure with the indicatrix and none audits it as an instrument. A published field has a gauge nobody states and a placement nobody states: on Mercator the standard convention draws twenty-five identical circles while the areal factor runs over a factor of 14.9, and the average a reader takes off any of these fields is between 22 and 64 per cent too high.
The error that does not average down
Five rungs give a coordinate a width, and all five assume the observations it was averaged from are independent. They are not. Under the noise spectrum every published analysis of a position time series reports, the standard error falls as the eleventh root rather than the square root — so a factor of ten costs a hundred observations if the noise is white and a thousand million if it is not.
A length measured from noisy points is too long
A distance is a square root, a square root is concave, and the average of the distances is not the distance between the averages. The gap is a bias with one sign: 37 microns on a ten-metre baseline with twenty-millimetre marks, following σ² over the length across two decades, and it adds rather than cancelling — so the same boundary is 1.5 parts per million longer when it is measured in more pieces.
The best compromise for angle is not the best for bending
Every compromise projection in the library is an average of two others, and averaging is a first-order operation — so the second derivative was never part of the bargain. Swept along five ordinary blend paths, the weight that minimises angular deformation and the weight that minimises flexion are between a quarter and a half of the axis apart, and how much a compromise buys at one order predicts nothing about the other.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What the page cannot move
Six rungs measure what a page does to a field's readings and every one of them moves. The critical points do not: found on the sphere and found again in a projection's own page coordinates with nothing shared between the searches, they agree to 10⁻⁷ degrees and in type at every point, on every projection. What the page does move is their shape, by a factor bounded exactly by the indicatrix's axis ratio squared.
The worst point is not on the grid
Every maximum distortion this collection has printed is a maximum over a sample, and a maximum over a sample is a lower bound. On Mercator over a sixty-degree band a twelve-by-twelve grid reports 3.464 where the answer is exactly 4, and the shortfall does not go away with refinement so much as decay at a rate that says where the extreme is hiding.
A mean that does not exist can still be printed
Mercator's area-weighted mean areal factor is artanh(sin Φ)/sin Φ, and it has no limit. A sampler asked for it returns the logarithm of its own sample count plus 1.512 — measured slope 1.001 against ln n — so the number is a property of the person who computed it. The Kavrayskiy number for the same map over the same sphere settles at 0.52124 and is a number.
There is no equal-area lattice on a sphere
Every number in this collection is an average over a point set, and the three point sets available all fail to be equal-area in different ways. The equal-area ring sampler this site has used since its early essays is the one whose outermost ring sits half a step inside the rim — which is how a measured scale spread once came in 3.42 parts in a thousand below a proved bound.
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.
Which of these numbers are the sampler's
Four rungs have shown that a sampled maximum understates, a sampled mean can be a report on the sampler, no arrangement of points is neutral, and refining until the answer settles proves nothing. So the collection re-measured itself. The means move by at most 1.1 per cent, the worst points by up to 19, and the rankings — which is what the essays actually argue with — do not move at all.
One number changed and the whole map moved
Raise one bump's weight in a density specification, leave every other number identical, and solve again. London's own value is what changed; London moves 0.054 and Delhi moves 0.226 — four times as far, with its own number untouched. The largest displacement anywhere is thirty degrees from the change, and the antipodal band still moves a fifth of the peak.
The lines where the bending vanishes
Every projection has a line printed in its margin — the standard parallel, where the scale is exactly one. It has a second special line nobody prints: the one along which a geodesic is drawn straight to second order. On Gall–Peters they are forty-five degrees apart, and the rule turns out to be tangency — a tangent construction puts both lines at its point of contact and a secant one moves only the first.
The area is unbiased and the perimeter is not
A boundary measured from noisy vertices comes out long, always, by σ²/d on every leg. The area enclosed by the same vertices comes out exactly right, because a shoelace is bilinear and the cross terms vanish. So densifying a boundary makes its area five times more precise and its perimeter three thousand times more wrong, and every compactness score computed from it falls short.
The fourth number the ellipse does not carry
A Jacobian has four independent entries and an indicatrix reports three. The missing one is the rigid rotation in the polar decomposition A = R·S, the indicatrix is exactly S, and R is what turns north into grid north: for the transverse Mercator it agrees with the survey formula for convergence to 5 × 10⁻¹⁰ degrees, from a different library and a different derivative.
The sample was drawn on the page
Every mean in this collection integrates over the sphere, because that is where the ground is. A raster, a pixel loop and any figure that walks its own canvas integrate over the page instead, and the difference is exactly the covariance between the quantity being measured and the map's own area distortion — 7.2° of mean angular deformation on Miller becoming 18.0°.
Two indicatrices do not make a third
Reprojecting is composing, and the composite's indicatrix is not a function of its parents'. Mollweide followed by Hammer is gentler than either map over eighty per cent of the sphere; the sinusoidal followed by Gall–Peters is worse than both everywhere. What separates them is one angle, and it is the number rung ten showed the ellipse does not carry.
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.
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.
Rounding is not noise
Eight rungs treat a coordinate's error as noise that averages down. A published coordinate has a second error that does not: it is deterministic, it is shared between every point in the same cell, and at five centimetres apart ninety-three per cent of pairs come out as the same place — which no amount of independent noise can produce.
61 essays in this field, the first 16 of them shown with their opening figure.