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

One 20° × 10° cell at 60°, under four projections

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls 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 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.

It is drawn by indicatrix-figure with show: "cell-shapes" — one member of a family of 8 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.

4 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.

The indicatrix at 45°, 55° on Mercator. A circle on the sphere becomes this ellipse on the map. Its semi-axes are the two principal scale factors, a = 1.743 and b = 1.743; their product is the areal factor 3.040; and the maximum angular deformation is 0.00°. h and k are shown too, and depend on the coordinates rather than on the map. 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.

 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. What is taught wrongly

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.

 Angular deformation against latitude, four projections. The same quantity for mercator, gallPeters, mollweide, winkelTripel, 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. Measuring distortion

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.

 Hilbert order on one face, as a curve. The order in which Hilbert numbering visits the 64 cells of one cube face at level 3. The line never leaves a cell without entering one that shares an edge with it — that is what makes it a space-filling curve, and it is why two cells with nearby identifiers are usually near each other on the ground. What a machine does with it

The address is a curve through the sphere

A database does not fetch a set of cells, it reads ranges of identifiers — so the cost of a query is how many runs its cells form, not how many cells it needs. Hilbert order wins that measurement and loses the one usually quoted for it: its neighbouring cells are further apart in identifier than row-major's, on average and at worst.

The whole library