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

Exact distances from two places, and from nowhere else

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
Exact distances from two places, and from nowhere else. The two-point equidistant projection with London and Cape Town as its centres, 87.0° apart. The light circles are drawn in the map at radii of 30°, 60°, 90°, 120° about each centre; every one of them is a true distance circle on the sphere, to 1.8e-14 relative. Between two points that are not centres the drawn distance is wrong by up to 633 per cent.

The two-point equidistant projection with London and Cape Town as its centres, 87.0° apart. The light circles are drawn in the map at radii of 30°, 60°, 90°, 120° about each centre; every one of them is a true distance circle on the sphere, to 1.8e-14 relative. Between two points that are not centres the drawn distance is wrong by up to 633 per cent.

It is drawn by condition-figure with show: "condition-map" — one member of a family of 3 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.

7 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.

Exact distances from two places, and from nowhere else. The two-point equidistant projection with London and Cape Town as its centres, 87.0° apart. The light circles are drawn in the map at radii of 30°, 60°, 90°, 120° about each centre; every one of them is a true distance circle on the sphere, to 1.8e-14 relative. Between two points that are not centres the drawn distance is wrong by up to 633 per cent. What each projection optimises

A projection written as a condition

Instead of a formula, a sentence: the distance from these two places must be exactly right. The map that satisfies it is found by intersecting two circles, it is exact to five parts in a hundred million million, and it exists over the whole sphere for a reason that belongs to the sphere rather than to the construction.

 Three distances, two degrees of freedom. The Chamberlin trimetric construction with its three centres marked. A point is placed by intersecting circles of its true distance from each centre — but three circles in a plane do not meet in a point, and the three candidate positions obtained by taking the conditions two at a time are 17.0 km apart at the sample point. They are drawn here magnified 120 times about their own centroid, which is where Chamberlin's rule puts the point. The residual is not an error in the arithmetic; it is the amount by which the sphere refuses to be a plane, and it grows as the cube of the size of the region. What each projection optimises

Three conditions are one too many

Two distances fix a point in a plane and a third has no freedom left to be satisfied with. Chamberlin's trimetric construction averages the three positions that satisfy two conditions each, and the spread between them — never zero anywhere, 22 km over North America, growing as the cube of the region — is the price of the extra clause.

 A map for pointing, not for locating. Craig's retroazimuthal projection, centred on Mecca. The straight line from any point to the centre makes an angle with the map's vertical equal to the true initial bearing from that place to the centre — checked here at 169 points, worst disagreement 5.7e-14 degrees. The bearings printed beside each line are computed on the sphere with no projection in them. What each projection optimises

A map that cannot be read backwards

Craig's projection answers one question exactly — lay a straight edge from any place to the centre and read the compass course, right to 6 × 10⁻¹⁴ of a degree. It pays by folding: 78°S and 48°S on the same meridian are drawn at the same point, so no inverse exists and nothing else can be read off it at all.

 What a solved map is, as a list of numbers. A map with no formula is a list of coefficients, and this is the list. The Chebyshev map of an elongated region, 30° by 10° has its coefficients falling by a factor of 1.5e+13 from the first to the fourteenth, so a table of a dozen numbers carries the whole projection; the conformal cube face's coefficients, marked separately, fall far more slowly because the map has a singularity at each corner. How fast this line falls is exactly how portable the map is — and neither map has a name, an inverse in closed form, or a formula anybody could quote. What each projection optimises

A map with no formula

The solved projection has no name, no formula and no closed-form inverse. It is fourteen numbers — and the rate at which those numbers fall away decides whether a map can be shipped at all: geometrically for a smooth region, and like a power for one with corners.

 An equal-area map nobody would publish. Mollweide, with a row-dependent horizontal displacement applied to the page afterwards. That plane map has Jacobian determinant 1 everywhere, so every areal scale factor is untouched: the worst departure from 1 anywhere sampled here is 6.0e-12, which is the arithmetic's own floor. It satisfies the equal-area condition exactly and completely, and it is a ruin. The angular deformation at 30°E 20°N has gone from 11.0° to 60.5°. What each projection optimises

Every equal-area map is every other one

Take Mollweide and slide every row of the page sideways by an amount that depends on the row. The result satisfies the equal-area condition to 6 × 10⁻¹², exactly as well as Mollweide does, and it is a ruin — the angular deformation at one ordinary point has gone from 11° to 60°. Equal-area is one equation, and one equation leaves a whole function free.

 Which scale fields a map could have, and which are only wishes. Liouville's equation — the Laplacian of log k equals 1/k² on the page — is the whole condition for a conformal map of a unit sphere to have a stated scale factor. The first two rows are the scale fields of real projections and they satisfy it to the differencing step. The rest are requests a designer might write, and every one of them fails — except one, which turns out to be a projection somebody already found. Asking for no distortion anywhere fails by exactly one, which is the curvature of the sphere. What each projection optimises

Not every distortion can be asked for

Six essays have written projections as conditions and asked how much freedom a condition leaves. The reverse question has never been put: a cartographer knows what distortion they want, so can they ask for it? For a conformal map the answer is a single equation, it is the Theorema Egregium in disguise, and asking for no distortion anywhere fails it by exactly the curvature of the sphere.

 The same four requests, put to the two conditions. Each request is a stated field over a square region, and the bar is what is left over after the nearest map satisfying the condition has been found. The conformal condition refuses: its achievable set is decided by boundary values, and the residual is the part of the request no conformal map of any kind can supply. The equal-area condition never refuses — every one of these is met to 3.0e-5, which is the quadrature's own noise — because a positive areal request is granted by a construction with no iteration in it and no boundary data. What each projection optimises

The nearest equal-area map to an impossible request

Every number in the previous rung is inside the conformal achievable set, because Liouville's is the conformal condition. The equal-area set is one equation on two functions and never refuses: the same four requests are met to nine parts in a billion, and charged for in angle instead.

The whole library