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

How much each projection inflates a cell, by latitude

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

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.

It is drawn by distortion-figure with show: "inflation-chart" — 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.

10 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.

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.

 Every projection in the library, measured against both properties. Maximum angular deformation across the bottom, maximum areal error up the side, both on logarithmic scales and both measured over several hundred sample points rather than taken from the projection's description. Conformal projections lie on the left edge, equal-area ones along the bottom, and the corner where both vanish is empty because a projection there would be an isometry of the sphere onto the plane. All 26 are plotted; the five named here are Mercator, Stereographic, Gall–Peters, Mollweide, Winkel tripel. The impossibility

The trade-off is two lines

Conformal means the two principal scales are equal. Equal-area means their product is one. Both at once forces both to one, which is an isometry, which the curvature forbids. That is the entire argument.

 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.

 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.

 Four ways to build the same equal-area projection. The cylindrical equal-area projection's own areal scale factor, measured from its Jacobian against the metric of the body it is drawn for. On a sphere with the spherical formula it is one everywhere, which is the control. Feed the same formula the geodetic latitude a coordinate actually carries and measure against the ellipsoid it refers to, and it is 1.00674 on the equator and 0.99332 at 88° — a spread of 1.34 per cent, on a projection whose entire purpose is that there is no spread. Rescaling to make the totals agree does not repair it. The authalic northing q/2 does, exactly. What is taught wrongly

Equal-area on the wrong body

The site's headline is that Web Mercator puts geodetic latitudes into a spherical conformal formula and stops being conformal. The same sentence is true with "equal-area" in it and nobody says it: the areal factor is 1.00674 at the equator, 0.99332 at 88°, and averages to almost exactly one — so every check that adds up areas passes while every cell is wrong.

 The half-extent at which each rival stops fitting a Gall–Peters graticule. For each candidate, the size of region at which its best fit to a Gall–Peters map first leaves a residual of a fifth of a per cent of the map's width. Below that size the two are the same picture. The numbers are half-extents in degrees of latitude, at 20° north, with the plane affine transformation removed; a bar at 90° is a rival that never separates at all within the range searched. What is taught wrongly

What a careless copy hides

A photocopier that stretches one axis is a nuisance to remove before a projection can be identified. Removing it costs more than it looks: an affine fit absorbs the entire difference between the cylindrical equal-area projections, so Gall-Peters and Behrmann become the same picture at any size, to sixteen decimal places.

 Every library projection over Europe, on the two axes it can be wrong on. Each dot is one projection, scored over Europe on the two independent failures: how much it turns angles and how much it changes areas. The lower-left corner is the isometry that does not exist. The line joins the five projections nothing beats on both counts — the rest are inside it, and a reader who prefers either failure to the other should still not choose one of them, whatever weighting they hold. What is taught wrongly

The projections that are beaten on both counts

Two rungs of this ladder scored a rule of thumb over thirty regions and then forty-five. The same populations answer a harder question the ladder has never put: which library members are never the right answer at all. Two are beaten outright on both criteria everywhere, one is on no regional front in any population — and it is on the world's.

 Four of the seven on the front can never be first. Every library projection over the whole sphere, with both errors normalised to the table's own range. The seven filled circles are the Pareto front — nothing beats them on both counts. The line through three of them is the lower convex hull, and a weighted sum of the two errors is a straight line in this space, so only a hull vertex can ever come first. Four projections — Web Mercator, Miller cylindrical, Equirectangular, Winkel tripel — sit in the dents, undominated and unchoosable. What is taught wrongly

Which projection a weighting can make best

Rung eight finds the seven world projections nothing beats on both counts and tells a reader with a preference that one of them is their answer. Four of the seven are not: they sit in dents of the front, undominated and unreachable, and no weighting of angle against area can ever put them first. Robinson can be first, on 2.8 per cent of the weight range.

 Three projections that run in a circle. Mercator beats Sinusoidal beats Eckert IV beats Mercator, each on a majority of the same seven criteria over the whole sphere. Every margin is four to three, the narrowest a majority of seven can be, and the criteria that decide each edge are different ones. There is no way to place these three in an order that agrees with all three comparisons, and the obstruction is not a measurement error: every number is exact to the precision the sampler reaches. What is taught wrongly

The ranking is not an order

The previous rung showed that a weighting can make almost any projection best. Remove the weights entirely, let each of the seven criteria vote once, and the answer is worse: over the whole sphere Mercator beats the sinusoidal, the sinusoidal beats Eckert IV, and Eckert IV beats Mercator — four such circles, every margin four to three, with a Condorcet winner sitting above them all.

 One quantity, one region, and the exponent left free. The scale departure of six projections over the world, aggregated as a p-norm, against p on a logarithmic axis. At p = 1 the best is Eckert IV; at p = 64 it is Winkel tripel. Nothing about the maps changed between the two ends of the axis — only how much of the region a bad point is allowed to spoil. Drawn in no projection: the axes are an exponent and a score. What is taught wrongly

The average was a choice of norm

Ten projections, one region, one measured quantity, and the only free decision left is how to turn a field into a number. Over the world's scale departure the ordering at the mean and the ordering at the worst case have a rank correlation of −0.04, all ten maps change position, and the exponent that produced each answer is stated nowhere.

The whole library