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

Construction against property

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
Construction against property. Every projection in the library, sorted by the shape it was notionally rolled from and by what it actually preserves. The families do not line up with the properties: cylindrical and pseudocylindrical and pseudoazimuthal and azimuthal and conic each contain projections of more than one kind, which is why the cylindrical–conic–azimuthal taxonomy answers a question nobody has.

Every projection in the library, sorted by the shape it was notionally rolled from and by what it actually preserves. The families do not line up with the properties: cylindrical and pseudocylindrical and pseudoazimuthal and azimuthal and conic each contain projections of more than one kind, which is why the cylindrical–conic–azimuthal taxonomy answers a question nobody has.

It is drawn by distortion-figure with show: "family-table" — 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.

5 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.

Construction against property. Every projection in the library, sorted by the shape it was notionally rolled from and by what it actually preserves. The families do not line up with the properties: cylindrical and pseudocylindrical and pseudoazimuthal and azimuthal and conic each contain projections of more than one kind, which is why the cylindrical–conic–azimuthal taxonomy answers a question nobody has. Three entries are picked out: Mercator, Albers equal-area conic, Orthographic. The families

Cylinders, cones and planes

The standard taxonomy sorts projections by the shape of paper they were notionally rolled from. It is memorable, it is how everyone is taught, and it says almost nothing about the properties anyone actually chooses on.

 How much each projection inflates a cell, by latitude. Five patches of the sphere, each 20° by 10°, and the factor by which each projection enlarges them relative to the equatorial one. An equal-area projection sits flat on 1. Mercator reaches 15.4× at 70°, which is the mechanism behind every complaint about the size of Greenland. What is taught wrongly

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.

 One construction, one number. A ray from a point on the equatorial plane, through the sphere, onto a tangent cylinder. Where the centre sits is the whole of the family: on the axis it gives tan φ, at the far side of the sphere 2 tan(φ/2), and at infinity sin φ. The same expression with angular distance in place of latitude, and a tangent plane in place of a cylinder, gives the gnomonic, the stereographic and the orthographic. The surface decides whether the answer is read as a height or as a radius and nothing else. The families

The developable surface was never necessary

Eight essays on this ladder start from cylinders, cones and planes, and none of them has asked which named projection is actually a projection onto one. Fitting a one-parameter perspective construction to eleven of them: six come back exact, and the three landmarks are the gnomonic at h = 0, the stereographic at h = 1 and the orthographic at h = ∞.

 What is left after the best rigid motion of the page. Every projection in the library, rotated about its own symmetry axis by five degrees, with the best rigid motion of the page fitted and the leftover measured against the picture's own size — on a logarithmic scale, because the answers span four orders of magnitude. Fourteen sit at 2e-6 or below, which is the axis search's own floor. Seven sit between 9e-3 and 3e-2. There is nothing in between, so the split is a fact rather than a threshold — and the fourteen are exactly the cylinders, the cones and the planes. The families

The family is a symmetry, not a shape

Rung seven dissolves the taxonomy: eleven named maps fitted to one perspective formula, six reproduced exactly and five refused, so the developable surface describes how the projections were discovered rather than what they are. What is left is the question it does not ask. If the shapes are not the classification, what is?

 Three implementations of one projection, and three different distortions. The spread in angular deformation between linear, Catmull–Rom and Aitken interpolations of Robinson's own table, at 60° of longitude. It is exactly zero at every fifth degree, because all three pass through the tabulated rows, and it is not zero anywhere else: 37 of 87 latitudes differ by more than half a degree and the worst is 8.42°. The graticules the three draw differ by 4.2 parts per thousand of the map's own span, which is under the width of a printed line. The families

A projection defined by a table has an interpolation in it

One member of this library has no formula: Robinson set nineteen pairs of numbers by eye and the table is the definition. Three published interpolations of it draw graticules that differ by four parts in a thousand of the map's span and report angular deformations that differ by 8.4 degrees.

The whole library