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

Two parameter sets 100 metres apart, over the region they were fitted to

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
Two parameter sets 100 metres apart, over the region they were fitted to. Each marker is drawn at a size proportional to how far the two transformations put it apart. The second set differs from the first by 100 metres of translation along the direction this network can least see, with the rotations and the scale re-fitted to absorb it — which is what a second agency's adjustment does when it chooses a different constraint. The worst disagreement anywhere in the region is 5.64 metres and the mean is 3.61. Applied at south-eastern Australia the same two sets differ by 193 metres, because the rotation that absorbed the translation here is a rotation of the whole Earth.

Each marker is drawn at a size proportional to how far the two transformations put it apart. The second set differs from the first by 100 metres of translation along the direction this network can least see, with the rotations and the scale re-fitted to absorb it — which is what a second agency's adjustment does when it chooses a different constraint. The worst disagreement anywhere in the region is 5.64 metres and the mean is 3.61. Applied at south-eastern Australia the same two sets differ by 193 metres, because the rotation that absorbed the translation here is a rotation of the whole Earth.

It is drawn by datum-figure with show: "parameter-freedom" — one member of a family of 11 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.

3 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.

Two parameter sets 100 metres apart, over the region they were fitted to. Each marker is drawn at a size proportional to how far the two transformations put it apart. The second set differs from the first by 100 metres of translation along the direction this network can least see, with the rotations and the scale re-fitted to absorb it — which is what a second agency's adjustment does when it chooses a different constraint. The worst disagreement anywhere in the region is 5.64 metres and the mean is 3.61. Applied at south-eastern Australia the same two sets differ by 193 metres, because the rotation that absorbed the translation here is a rotation of the whole Earth. What the numbers refer to

Two parameter sets, one transformation

Agencies publish seven-parameter datum transformations that differ by hundreds of metres in translation, and the usual reading is that one of them is better. Over the region either was fitted to they are the same transformation: a hundred metres of translation, re-absorbed by the rotations and the scale, moves a British coordinate by 5.6 metres and an Australian one by 193.

 A transformation is more certain in some places than others. The horizontal position uncertainty a Helmert transformation carries, from the stated widths of its own seven parameters, along three meridians. It runs from 40 mm to 68 mm — a factor of 1.71 — and it falls towards the poles, because the rotation terms act on the distance from the Earth's axis. A single figure quoted for "the accuracy of the transformation" is the value at some latitude nobody wrote down. What the numbers refer to

The seven parameters have their own uncertainty

Nine essays on this ladder print a datum transformation as seven exact numbers. Every published set is the output of a least-squares fit and arrives with standard errors as much a part of the result as the parameters — and pushing those widths through to the ground gives an ellipse, not a number, that is 68 mm across at the equator and 43 mm at 70°.

 What a seven-parameter fit's residual is made of. A published transformation accuracy is the root-mean-square residual at the common points, and here it is 1.51 metres. Almost all of it — 1.51 — is the network's own distortion, which a rigid motion and a scale cannot follow and which is present at every point of the country whether it was used in the fit or not. The transformation's own error, measured as the disagreement between the fitted parameters and the true ones over a clean grid, is 0.091 metres: 6 per cent of the quoted figure. The last bar is the control — the same fit with the distortion switched off, at 2.9e-4 metres. What the numbers refer to

What another common point buys

Rung three finds that a seven-parameter datum fit leaves a pattern rather than noise. Six per cent of the residual it reports is the transformation's own error and the other ninety-four is distortion no seven parameters can follow — so adding common points improves a term that was already small and cannot touch the one that is quoted.

The whole library