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

The least distortion possible over a 30° region

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
The least distortion possible over a 30° region. Scale factor along a radius of the cap, each projection normalised to unit scale at the centre. Chebyshev's criterion names the projection whose scale is constant on the boundary as the conformal map of least scale variation, and for a cap that is the stereographic projection centred on it — reaching exactly sec²(ρ/2) = 1.0718 at the rim, marked. Every other conformal projection drawn here rises past that line before it gets there. This is the only figure on the site showing an optimum rather than a comparison.

Scale factor along a radius of the cap, each projection normalised to unit scale at the centre. Chebyshev's criterion names the projection whose scale is constant on the boundary as the conformal map of least scale variation, and for a cap that is the stereographic projection centred on it — reaching exactly sec²(ρ/2) = 1.0718 at the rim, marked. Every other conformal projection drawn here rises past that line before it gets there. This is the only figure on the site showing an optimum rather than a comparison.

It is drawn by region-figure with show: "chebyshev-cap" — one member of a family of 7 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.

12 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 least distortion possible over a 30° region. Scale factor along a radius of the cap, each projection normalised to unit scale at the centre. Chebyshev's criterion names the projection whose scale is constant on the boundary as the conformal map of least scale variation, and for a cap that is the stereographic projection centred on it — reaching exactly sec²(ρ/2) = 1.0718 at the rim, marked. Every other conformal projection drawn here rises past that line before it gets there. This is the only figure on the site showing an optimum rather than a comparison. The impossibility

Total curvature and the scale rule

The impossibility has a size. A region covering a fraction of the sphere carries a fixed amount of curvature that any flat map must absorb, and for a circular region the least distortion any conformal projection can achieve is a closed form nobody can beat.

 The least distortion possible over a 30° region. Scale factor along a radius of the cap, each projection normalised to unit scale at the centre. Chebyshev's criterion names the projection whose scale is constant on the boundary as the conformal map of least scale variation, and for a cap that is the stereographic projection centred on it — reaching exactly sec²(ρ/2) = 1.0718 at the rim, marked. Every other conformal projection drawn here rises past that line before it gets there. This is the only figure on the site showing an optimum rather than a comparison. What each projection optimises

Chebyshev's criterion

The only optimality theorem in the subject. Among all conformal projections of a region, the one with least scale variation is the one whose scale factor is constant on the boundary — a criterion with a proof, a unique answer, and a test the site can run.

 The angles of a triangle, and the curvature inside it. A triangle on the sphere with sides that are great-circle arcs. Its three angles sum to 212.26°, overshooting the flat 180° by 32.26°. Integrating the curvature over the interior gives 0.56306 against an excess of 0.56306 — the same number by two routes that share no arithmetic. That is Gauss–Bonnet, and it is how a flatlander measures the curvature of a world it cannot step outside. The impossibility

Measuring curvature from inside

A flatlander with a ruler can find out that its world is round, by drawing a triangle and adding the angles. Gauss–Bonnet turns that into an exact statement, and the total curvature of a closed surface turns out to be a number obtained by counting.

 The least distortion possible over a 20° region. Scale factor along a radius of the cap, each projection normalised to unit scale at the centre. Chebyshev's criterion names the projection whose scale is constant on the boundary as the conformal map of least scale variation, and for a cap that is the stereographic projection centred on it — reaching exactly sec²(ρ/2) = 1.0311 at the rim, marked. Every other conformal projection drawn here rises past that line before it gets there. This is the only figure on the site showing an optimum rather than a comparison. Measuring distortion

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.

 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. Measuring distortion

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.

 How large a patch can be treated as flat, at 10 parts per million. The smallest scale distortion any map of a circular patch can have, against the radius of the patch, on logarithmic axes. The line is straight with a slope of 2.00: the error grows as the SQUARE of the size, so a patch ten times wider is a hundred times worse. A tolerance of 10 ppm is reached at a radius of 40.3 km — 81 km across — and that is the number behind the boundary between plane surveying and geodesy. The impossibility

How small is flat enough

A builder works in plane coordinates and a national mapping agency does not, and the line between them is not a convention. The unavoidable error of treating a patch of the Earth as flat grows as the square of its size, and the size at any stated tolerance is a number.

 The scale factor across Europe, from the middle outwards. Each band is the range the larger principal scale factor takes on the ring at that distance from the centre of Europe: 0 is the middle, 1 the frontier. two of the three projections drawn are conformal, and every one of those reaches its maximum at the right-hand edge, because the logarithm of a conformal map's scale factor is subharmonic. None of them reaches a maximum inside the region. Measuring distortion

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.

 Sheets for a tolerance, from Chebyshev's bound and a covering. For each stated tolerance on the scale error, the cap radius at which the best possible conformal projection just meets it — sec²(ρ/2) − 1 = tolerance, which is Chebyshev's bound and has no fitting in it — and then the number of such caps needed to cover the sphere at the packing density a real arrangement achieves. One part in a thousand costs 1210 sheets of 403 kilometres radius. The slope is -0.989: a factor of ten in what the job will accept is a factor of ten in the atlas. What each projection optimises

How many sheets an atlas needs

A tolerance on the scale error inverts, through Chebyshev's bound, into a sheet radius — and a covering problem turns the radius into a count. One part in a thousand costs 1,210 sheets of 403 kilometres radius, the count goes as the reciprocal of the tolerance exactly, and the projection multiplies it by anything from one to fifty-six.

 The minimum-distortion conformal map of an elongated region, 30° by 10°. The conformal projection of an elongated region, 30° by 10° whose scale is constant on the boundary, which is Chebyshev's criterion, obtained by fitting eight terms of a series rather than by choosing a named projection. The scale factor runs from 0.98640 to 1.00000, a spread of 1.01379; on the boundary itself the largest departure from constancy is 2.13e-7 in the log, which is what the fit achieved and not what it was told. Each dot is an interior sample shaded by its own departure from the boundary's scale. What each projection optimises

Solving for the map instead of choosing it

Chebyshev's criterion has sat on this site since its second phase with one case it could be applied to: the spherical cap, whose answer is the stereographic projection. For any other region the site stated the criterion and stopped. It is a linear least-squares fit, and the fitted map beats every named projection over the region it was fitted to.

 How thinly a sphere can be covered by a few equal caps. The covering density of the best arrangement of n equal caps found for each n — the total area of the caps divided by the sphere's, so a value of one would be a perfect tiling with no overlap. The horizontal line is 2π/√27 = 1.2092, the thinnest covering density of the PLANE by equal discs, which this site has used for the sphere since its first atlas essay. It is wrong in both directions: at 2 caps the sphere is covered more thinly than any plane can be, because a cap may be a hemisphere, and at every count from 3 upwards more thickly — 1.5092 at 3, and 1.3377 at 14. The ringed points are the four counts whose optimum is proved: 2 at 90.00°, 4 at 70.53°, 6 at 54.74°, 12 at 37.38°. Everything else is an upper bound from a search, drawn as one, and the bound loosens as the count rises — the search reaches the proved optimum to 3.4 per cent at these counts and has no such check anywhere else. What each projection optimises

The sphere is not the plane at small counts

The site's atlas arithmetic multiplies an ideal sheet count by 2π/√27, the thinnest covering density of the plane. At the four counts whose optimal covering of the sphere is a theorem the plane's number is 21 per cent high at two caps and 9, 5 and 2 per cent low at four, six and twelve — wrong in both directions, and the direction changes with the count.

 The scale spread of every grid Britain could have adopted. A grid is conformal by requirement, so its angular deformation is zero everywhere and the whole design problem is the spread of its one remaining number: the largest scale factor over the region divided by the smallest, in parts per million. The grid's own scale factor does not enter — multiplying every scale by a constant leaves the ratio alone, which is why it is chosen last. The bottom bar is Chebyshev's optimum, the conformal map of this region whose scale is constant on its boundary, which no map of any family can beat; the adopted grid sits 1.98 times above it. Measured over a stated box rather than a coastline, because a coastline would put the vendor's generalisation into the answer. Grids, and what a survey does

The best grid a country could have had

A national grid is a conformal map chosen for one region, so its whole design problem is one number: the spread of its scale factor. That number has a theoretical floor, this site can now compute it, and the adopted grid turns out to be either exactly optimal or half as good again — depending entirely on which box the country is declared to be.

 The bound was spherical, and the country is not. Three numbers per region, all in parts per million of scale spread. The first is the Chebyshev bound computed on the sphere. The second is that same optimal map used on the ellipsoid, which is what adopting it would actually deliver. The third is the bound with the ellipsoid-to-sphere factor put into the boundary condition, which is the real optimum. The penalty for using the spherical answer reaches 1.22 times — while a named candidate barely moves, because an optimal map has cancelled its own variation and has nothing left to hide a new one in. Grids, and what a survey does

The bound on the body the country is on

The best conformal grid a country could have had was computed against a bound solved on a sphere, with a note saying the flattening was second order and unquantified. It is second order for a named projection — every family's best candidate moves by under 0.7 per cent — and it is 22 per cent for the bound, because an optimal map has already cancelled its own variation and has nothing left to hide a new one in.

The whole library