What is taught wrongly
Web Mercator is not conformal
It carries almost every map on the internet, it is named after the projection whose entire purpose is preserving angles, and it does not preserve angles. The test that found it was not looking for it.
Mercator against Peters
The most-argued question in cartography, conducted almost entirely without anyone measuring anything. Both projections are exactly what they claim, each destroys what the other keeps, and the numbers are computable in either direction.
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.
The Earth is a sphere, and when it is not
Every essay before this one treated the Earth as a ball, and said so. The flattening is one part in three hundred, which is nothing for a distance, everything for a latitude, and exactly enough to make the most-used projection in the world fail the property in its own name.
Geodetic against geocentric latitude
Two angles, both called latitude, differing by eleven and a half arcminutes at their worst. One is what every coordinate means and the other is what every spherical formula assumes, and the gap between them is twenty-one kilometres on the ground.
Datum shifts dwarf projection errors
The projection argument is conducted in parts per million and the datum question is answered in hundreds of metres. A coordinate whose datum is unstated is out by more than any projection choice could ever put it, and almost nobody checks.
The plate carrée, the projection nobody chooses
Plotting latitude against longitude on ordinary axes is a projection. It preserves nothing, its angular deformation reaches 108° and its areal error eightfold, and it is probably the most widely produced map in the world because it is what happens when nobody decides anything.
Conformal does not mean the angles are right
A conformal projection preserves angles between curves at a point. Draw a triangle on one with a ruler and its angles are wrong by degrees — and the total error is fixed before the projection is chosen, because a plane triangle sums to 180° and the real one does not.
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.
The normal section is not the geodesic
A theodolite at A sighted on B swings in one plane and the instrument at B sighted back swings in another, so the two observations trace different curves on the ground — 79 metres apart over 3,026 kilometres — and the shortest path is neither of them. The lengths differ by 2.4 millimetres, so the wrong curve measures the right distance along the wrong ground.
The rule of thumb, scored
Cylindrical near the equator, conic in the middle latitudes, azimuthal at the poles. It is the most repeated piece of practical advice in cartography and it has never been run against a population of regions. Run against thirty, it is right nineteen times, and every one of its failures has the same shape.
A map does not say what it is
Every map on this site is one the site drew, from a projection it chose. Every map a reader has ever used is the other kind — a picture whose projection is a sentence in a corner, a legend, or nothing at all. The graticule is enough to recover it: fit every candidate to the crossings and rank what is left over.
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.
What a careless copy hides
A photocopier that stretches one axis is a nuisance to remove before a projection can be identified. Removing it costs more than it looks: an affine fit absorbs the entire difference between the cylindrical equal-area projections, so Gall-Peters and Behrmann become the same picture at any size, to sixteen decimal places.
The rule scored out of sample
A replacement rule was read off thirty regions and scored on the same thirty, and this collection recorded that as not being evidence about any other thirty. It is: on forty-five different regions the rule scores 91 per cent against the 83 it managed at home. What it cannot do is the seven regions the collection actually uses, where both it and the rule it replaced name the winner twice out of seven and cost a mean factor of 14.6.
When the answer is not in the library
Fitting twenty candidates to a map and ranking the residuals always produces a winner, which makes it a ceremony unless it can also produce a refusal. Held out of its own library, a Mercator map is named as a conformal conic, leaving 0.4 per cent of the map's width unexplained — and the quantity that tells the two situations apart is not the residual but the margin, which is 1.6 when the truth is absent and 10¹³ when it is present.
A residual has more than one explanation
The method names a projection by fitting every candidate to a set of control points and taking the smallest residual. It has never been asked what else a small residual could be. A map drawn in the right projection from coordinates on the wrong datum leaves a residual of one part in a million — indistinguishable from noise, at every region size, because a similarity fit absorbs a datum shift almost exactly.
The projections that are beaten on both counts
A rule of thumb has been scored over thirty regions and then forty-five. The same populations answer a harder question nobody has 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.
The equator is not a circle either
Eleven rungs price what pretending the Earth is a sphere costs, and every one of them replaces the sphere with a surface of revolution — a body whose equator is a circle. It is not. The two equatorial radii differ by seventy metres, the two surfaces part by thirty-five, and the auxiliary latitudes every ellipsoidal formula is written in stop existing.
Where the control points are
Five rungs fit a library to a map and ask how much to trust the winner. None asks whether the parameters are recoverable at all. On control points along one parallel an equirectangular's standard parallel is not merely hard to find — it is invisible, exactly, and five hundred and twelve points on the same parallel are as blind as eight.
The tolerance that decides the verdict
Eight rungs of this ladder hand out verdicts, and every one rests on a tolerance chosen once, in the site's second phase, at sixty times a measured noise floor. Swept, it decides nothing: the population is bimodal, the tolerance sits in a gap 238,000 times wide for conformality and 646 million times wide for equal area, and the verdict with the least room is a passing one whose margin is the arithmetic's rather than the map's.
The datum hides inside the projection's parameters
Six essays recover a projection from control points with the body it was drawn on taken as known. It is not known, and the fit cannot find it: a 99-metre datum shift is absorbed to 99.7 per cent on a two-degree sheet and to 85 per cent on a hemisphere, leaving eleven parts per million of the map behind.
A rotation is not absorbed the way a shift is
A datum's rotations were expected to be the part a plane fit could not swallow. They are the part it swallows best — 93 times better than the translations over a hemisphere, and 24 times better per metre moved — and the reason is that the rotation which matters is a change of longitude, which is a symmetry of the map.
Which projection a weighting can make best
The seven world projections nothing beats on both counts tell 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.
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.
The ranking is not an order
A weighting can be made to put almost any projection first. Remove the weights entirely, let each of the seven criteria vote once, and the answer is worse: over the whole sphere Mercator beats the sinusoidal, the sinusoidal beats Eckert IV, and Eckert IV beats Mercator — four such circles, every margin four to three, with a Condorcet winner sitting above them all.
The answer is a set
Fitting a projection to control points produces a best fit — one projection, ranked first, with a margin. A best fit without a spread is not a measurement, and the spread is free: a control point has a width, and every candidate whose residual is inside that width has not been ruled out. At one per cent noise a four-degree region admits ten of twenty candidates and a forty-degree one admits exactly one.
The average was a choice of norm
Ten projections, one region, one measured quantity, and the only free decision left is how to turn a field into a number. Over the world's scale departure the ordering at the mean and the ordering at the worst case have a rank correlation of −0.04, all ten maps change position, and the exponent that produced each answer is stated nowhere.
The sheet moved before it was measured
Every method of reading a projection off a map takes its control points from the sheet and assumes the sheet is the one the cartographer drew. Paper shrinks across its grain three times as fast as along it, and on a map whose grain runs along its own axis that shrinkage is EXACTLY a change of standard parallel — one per cent moves the recovered parallel by 0.57 degrees with the residual sitting at the solver's floor.
A map with no graticule
Identifying a projection starts from control points, and a great many maps have none. Handed an outline with no labels on it at all, the method still works — and works better: the correspondence between ink and ground is recoverable exactly, because a similarity preserves ratios of arc length, and the margin on clean observations is 1.6 × 10¹⁰ against a graticule's 9.9 × 10⁶. What breaks it is noise, at three parts in a thousand.
A compiled map agrees with its graticule except where it was copied
A map compiled from two sheets has no single projection behind it, and its graticule cannot say so. Its coast can — not as a residual, which is a number the size of a projection error, but as a profile: the drawn coast lies exactly on the one its graticule predicts, then departs from a seam, and returns at another. The seams are found to within one point in 720, and the stretch between them names the projection it was copied from with a margin of 3.6 × 10¹¹.
An ellipsoid computed to a nanometre is known to a decimetre
The meridian series is exact to seventy-six nanometres on WGS84, and WGS84 is exact by definition: its axis and flattening are conventions with no uncertainty at all. The ellipsoid that actually fits the Earth is a measurement, known to sixteen centimetres from equator to pole, and WGS84 puts the pole sixty-seven centimetres away from it. From its second term, the series is more accurate than anything it is used to compute.
A bearing on a sphere is decided by its latitude, not its radius
A sphere that stands in for the ellipsoid cannot be wrong about a direction by being the wrong size, because enlarging a sphere moves no angle. What it can be wrong by is the latitude put on it. Geodetic latitude turns every bearing at 45° by up to 347 arcseconds before anything has moved; the conformal latitude starts exact and drifts 54 arcseconds in a thousand kilometres; and only Bessel's sphere, which changes the longitude too, is exact at every distance.
An angle is a difference, and the difference doubles the error
Substituting a sphere for the ellipsoid turns every direction at a point, and a surveyor measures angles rather than directions — so the obvious hope is that a turn common to both directions cancels in their difference. It does not cancel, because the turn is not common: it runs as the sine of twice the azimuth, and the largest angle error is exactly twice the largest direction error at a well-shaped corner. A first-order triangulation computed on the geodetic-latitude sphere carries angles nearly nine minutes of arc wrong, and its closure check passes perfectly.
The correction is the smaller of the two corrections
Legendre's theorem subtracts a third of the spherical excess from each angle of a triangle and solves the rest as a plane figure. It is the correction every nineteenth-century computer applied and the one every textbook explains. Beside the error the choice of substituted sphere leaves in the same triangle it is small: on the thirty-kilometre triangle a first-order chain is made of, omitting it costs 166 millimetres in a computed side and using the geodetic-latitude sphere costs 43 metres. The two terms scale differently, so each sphere has a size at which the correction overtakes it — and for the two spheres a careful computer would have chosen, that size falls inside a real chain.
The area weighting was a readership all along
Twelve measurements have taken a projection comparison apart and found the comparer's own freedom in every part of it. All twelve rested on one thing none of them examined: that a square kilometre of empty ocean counts exactly as much as a square kilometre of city. That is not the absence of an assumption about the reader — it is the assumption that everybody who will ever look at the map is spread evenly over the globe. Named as one readership among five, it produces a different winner from three of the other four, and against a North Atlantic readership its choice is fifth of twenty and 33 per cent worse.
A copy eased into place loses its seams before its source
A stretch of coast lifted from another sheet and dropped in rigidly leaves two sharp corners where it joins, and both of them are findable. A compiler does not work that way: they pin the ends and ease the middle until it looks continuous. Easing halves the corner within five per cent of the outline and the seams survive it — until forty per cent, where the located seam jumps from four per cent of the coast out to twenty. The source projection survives twice as far, to seventy-five. The piece goes on naming where it came from after the method has lost track of which piece it is.
37 essays in this field, the first 16 of them shown with their opening figure.