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

Mercator swung through every tilt, over Chile and the tropics

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
Mercator swung through every tilt, over Chile and the tropics. The regional distortion of one projection as its axis is tilted from the normal aspect at 0° to the transverse at 90°, each curve divided by its own value in the normal aspect so the two regions can share an axis. Chile is best at a tilt of 90°, a factor of 183.5 better than north-up; the tropics is best at a tilt of 0°, which is north-up. Rotating the sphere costs nothing and changes none of the projection's own properties, which makes this the cheapest improvement available and the one most often left unmade.

The regional distortion of one projection as its axis is tilted from the normal aspect at 0° to the transverse at 90°, each curve divided by its own value in the normal aspect so the two regions can share an axis. Chile is best at a tilt of 90°, a factor of 183.5 better than north-up; the tropics is best at a tilt of 0°, which is north-up. Rotating the sphere costs nothing and changes none of the projection's own properties, which makes this the cheapest improvement available and the one most often left unmade.

It is drawn by projection-figure with show: "aspect-sweep" — one member of a family of 16 figures that share a generator, so the drawing above is what that generator returns when it is asked for this one and given nothing else.

9 essays call it. Every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this changes every one of these figures.

Angular deformation against latitude, four projections. The same quantity for mercator, gallPeters, winkelTripel, robinson, from the equator to 80°. A conformal projection sits flat on zero in the first of these plots and runs away in the second; an equal-area projection does the reverse. Nothing is flat in both. What each projection optimises

Every projection minimises something

A projection is the solution to an optimisation problem, and naming the objective explains more than naming the family. Some objectives are exact constraints, some are least-squares fits, and one is a table of numbers a man adjusted until it looked right.

 6 projections of the same sphere. The same graticule under Equirectangular, Mercator, Mollweide, Sinusoidal, Robinson, Winkel tripel. Every one of them is a faithful drawing of the same object and no two agree, because each has chosen a different thing to preserve. What each projection optimises

Which projection is best

An incomplete question, and the incompleteness is the answer. Every projection preserves something and destroys something else, so the comparison worth making is between a projection and a purpose, not between two projections.

 London to Tokyo, seen four ways. The same two routes on four projections. The gnomonic projection renders every great circle as an exactly straight line, which is what it is for; Mercator renders every rhumb line straight instead. Neither path changed — only the map did. The families

The aspect is a free choice

A projection's distortion pattern is fixed relative to its own axis, and where that axis points is entirely up to the cartographer. Rotating it is the cheapest available improvement and it is the one most often left unmade.

 Mercator swung through every tilt, over Chile and the tropics. The regional distortion of one projection as its axis is tilted from the normal aspect at 0° to the transverse at 90°, each curve divided by its own value in the normal aspect so the two regions can share an axis. Chile is best at a tilt of 90°, a factor of 183.5 better than north-up; the tropics is best at a tilt of 0°, which is north-up. Rotating the sphere costs nothing and changes none of the projection's own properties, which makes this the cheapest improvement available and the one most often left unmade. What each projection optimises

Fitting the aspect to the region

Choosing a projection is a choice among a few dozen named things. Choosing its aspect is a choice among a continuum, it costs nothing, it changes none of the projection's own properties, and for a long thin country it is worth a factor of 183.

 The taught rule against the measurement, on 30 regions. Each cell is a region built to order — a box of the stated height and width-to-height ratio, centred at the stated latitude — with the family that actually scores best over it, and whether that is what the rule says. Every family is given its own parameters for the region: the conic its cone constant, the cylindrical its standard parallel and the choice of a normal or transverse axis, the azimuthal its centre. The rule is right on 19 of 30, and where it is wrong it is wrong in one direction: it keys on latitude, and what decides the answer is shape. What is taught wrongly

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.

 Every aspect of Mercator over Japan, and the line the old sweep searched. The regional distortion of Mercator over Japan for every position of the projection's pole — darker is better — with the meridian the site's one-dimensional sweep searches drawn on it. The sweep's best is a gain of 24.4× over the normal aspect; the two-parameter search finds 61.4×, which is 2.51 times better again, at a pole 45° of longitude away from anything the sweep could reach. The shortfall recorded when the sweep was written said this would happen for a region whose long axis runs diagonally, and this is the measurement of it. What each projection optimises

The aspect has three numbers, not one

The site's aspect search has swung the projection's axis through one plane for a long time, and recorded that a region whose long axis runs diagonally has its optimum somewhere that plane never reaches. Searching the whole sphere of pole positions finds 2.6 times more improvement over Japan and 3.4 over the conterminous United States.

 Where the projection's pole should go, and the answer the third rotation moves it to. Every dot is a pole position the search tried, sized by the best score it can reach there when the third rotation is also free — the score is the distortion of Robinson over Europe by Kavrayskiy's criterion, so smaller is better and the large green dots are the good regions. The circled mark is the two-parameter optimum and the square is the three-parameter one: they are 74 pixels apart on this map, which is a different aspect rather than a refinement of the same one. The search costs 8 times the evaluations of the two-parameter one. Drawn in Mollweide. What each projection optimises

The third parameter, run

An aspect has three numbers and this site has been searching two of them, with a note admitting it. Searching all three is worth up to 2.1 times — and the obvious way to do it, starting from the two-parameter answer and letting the third move, finds a fraction of that or nothing at all.

 One slice of the aspect objective, at the best γ. The Kavrayskiy score for Robinson over Japan, as the pole is moved over the whole sphere with the third rotation held at the value the search settled on. Dark is good. The marks are local minima of the full three-dimensional grid that happen to lie in this slice: there are 6 of them here and 58 in the cube, and a search that walks downhill from a random start reaches the best of them 7 per cent of the time. What each projection optimises

The landscape the search walks on

The three-parameter aspect search was run and its answer recorded with a note admitting nothing proved it global. Mapping the objective finds 26 to 34 local minima for every projection and region tried, a downhill walk from a random start reaching the best of them 6 to 35 per cent of the time — and one seed from the coarse grid the search already uses reaching it in all four cases. The score is reproducible to two per cent across a sevenfold refinement; the pole it names moves 60 degrees.

 The parameters are not reproducible and the map is. The three-parameter aspect search run at three grid resolutions and compared with the finest, twice over. Compared on the numbers it returns, the answers are 65° of pole apart. Compared on what they do to the region — the root-mean-square difference in angular deformation at every sample — they are 0.29° apart, against a map whose own deformation over that region averages about a degree. The disagreement recorded as a shortfall is a disagreement about coordinates for one map. What each projection optimises

Report the map, not the parameters

The previous rung found the aspect search returning the same score to 2.3 per cent from poles sixty degrees of latitude apart, and recorded that as a shortfall: the answer was not reproducible. The shortfall assumed the disagreeing triples make disagreeing maps. They do not — the three answers agree on the distortion field to a quarter of the deformation the map already has.

The whole library