Figure

Flexion and skewness against direction on Mercator

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

At 20°E 40°N on Mercator, the rate at which the image of a geodesic turns (solid) and the rate at which the scale changes along it (light), both per radian of arc, drawn against the direction of travel about a zero circle. The largest flexion is 0.839 and the largest skewness 0.839, 90° apart. Neither is visible to Tissot's indicatrix, which describes only the first derivative.

It is drawn by secondorder-figure with show: "flexion-rose" — one member of a family of 4 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.

6 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.

A great circle and the ruled line, on Mercator. The shorter of the two routes is the curved one. The great circle between the two marked points is drawn against the straight line a ruler would give between them on Mercator; over 70° of arc the curve departs from the ruled line by 11.9 per cent of the chord. The flexion at the midpoint, which is the rate the image turns per radian of arc, is 0.788; the angular deformation there is 0.00°.

Measuring distortion

Tissot stops at the first derivative

Every quantity this site has measured is read off one derivative of the projection. A map can be conformal at a point — the indicatrix a circle, the angular deformation zero to eleven figures — and still bend every geodesic through it, at a rate of 0.839 radians of turning per radian of arc.

Six projections, at 40° north. Flexion (solid) and skewness (light) against direction of travel, drawn about a zero circle at one point of each projection. The three conformal ones have curves of exactly equal size, offset by exactly 90°, because on a conformal map both quantities are components of one vector — the gradient of the log of the scale. The others have neither property: ratios run from 0.72 to 2.72.

Measuring distortion

Bending and stretching are one failure

The ladder was written expecting flexion and skewness to be two independent ways for a map to be wrong. On a conformal projection they are not independent at all: the two extremes are the same size to four figures and sit exactly ninety degrees apart, because both are components of a single vector.

Eight world maps ranked by their second derivative. Each projection's root-mean-square flexion and skewness over the whole sphere, combined and ranked. The first-order ranking of the same eight by Kavrayskiy's criterion is given beside each bar; Spearman's rank correlation between the two orderings is 0.69. The two criteria are measuring different derivatives of the same maps and there is no reason for them to agree.

Measuring distortion

The second derivative has its own ranking

Rank eight world maps by how much they stretch and Mercator comes sixth of eight. Rank the same eight by how much they bend and it comes third. The two halves of the second-order score disagree with each other more sharply than either disagrees with the first-order one — Spearman 0.45 against 0.69.

Which projection wins, by the first derivative and by the second. Each column is a region, with the projections listed in the order Kavrayskiy's first-order criterion puts them in and the figure at the right of each row giving that projection's rank under the second-order criterion — flexion and skewness aggregated the same way. The rank correlations are Europe 0.83, the conterminous United States 0.81, the tropics 0.90, a cap of 30° radius 0.88, so the two orders agree broadly and disagree in detail. Where it matters is the winner: over a cap of 30° radius the choice moves from Albers equal-area conic to Lambert azimuthal equal-area, while Europe and the conterminous United States and the tropics keep theirs. A criterion that changed every answer would be suspect and one that changed none would be decoration.

Measuring distortion

The second derivative over a region

Flexion has been measured at points and over the whole sphere, and never over a region — which is the only unit anybody chooses a projection for. Doing it finds that the second-order criterion moves the winner in one region of four, and that one projection in the library has no second derivative at all.

The same map on four differently prepared pages. Mollweide at 30°E 20°N, then the same projection with a rotation and a magnification applied to the page, then with one axis stretched by 1.6, then with a shear of 0.5. The similarity changes nothing: flexion, skewness, ω and the anisotropy are identical to every printed figure, and only the last column — the same turning measured per unit of page arc rather than per unit of ground arc — moves, by exactly the magnification. The stretch and the shear change all of them, and flexion by 35 per cent.

Measuring distortion

The second derivative is not an invariant

The first-order ladder established which quantities survive a change of coordinates and which are artefacts of the parameterisation. Asked of the second order, the answer is that flexion survives a rotation and a magnification of the page exactly, and survives nothing else: a stretch of 1.6 in one axis moves it by eleven per cent, a shear of 0.5 by thirty-five, and a shear of 3 leaves a ranking of eight world maps with a rank correlation of −0.07 to the one it started with.

A geodesic circle on Mollweide, and the two models of where it goes. A circle of geodesic radius ρ about 20°E 45°N, projected. The dashed outline is where the indicatrix says it goes — the ellipse a Tissot figure draws — and the thin solid one adds the quadratic term, which is the flexion and skewness this ladder measures. At 16° the indicatrix is out by 13.5 per cent of the figure's own size and the second-order model by 2.20 — a factor of 6.16, which is what one more derivative buys.

Measuring distortion

The size at which the second derivative arrives

Six essays have measured a projection's second derivative at points, over regions and under transformations, and none of them says at what size it stops being a curiosity. The answer needs a figure with an extent rather than a point, and it is smaller than anybody drawing a national map would guess: the indicatrix alone places a shape to one part in a thousand out to thirteen kilometres.

The whole library