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

What a pole line buys, and what it costs

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
What a pole line buys, and what it costs. four pseudocylindrical projections placed by the two numbers the decision moves. Across the bottom, the angular deformation averaged over the whole sphere, where the pole-line projections — Eckert IV and Robinson — are the better maps. Up the side, on a log axis, the factor by which the last parallel is stretched, where they are worse by more than tenfold: 49× at best against 4.6× at worst for a pole drawn as a point. A pole line represents one point of the globe by a line of the map, and that is the price.

four pseudocylindrical projections placed by the two numbers the decision moves. Across the bottom, the angular deformation averaged over the whole sphere, where the pole-line projections — Eckert IV and Robinson — are the better maps. Up the side, on a log axis, the factor by which the last parallel is stretched, where they are worse by more than tenfold: 49× at best against 4.6× at worst for a pole drawn as a point. A pole line represents one point of the globe by a line of the map, and that is the price.

It is one of 17 figures drawn by the same construction, and the drawing above is this one with nothing changed.

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.

6 projections of the same sphere. The same graticule under Robinson, Winkel tripel, Mollweide, Mercator, Gall–Peters, Eckert IV. Every one of them is a faithful drawing of the same object and no two agree, because each has chosen a different thing to preserve. What each projection optimises

Compromise projections

A projection that preserves nothing exactly can distort everything less than one that preserves something exactly. For a general-purpose world map that is the right trade, and it is why the two most widely used ones today have no exact property at all.

 Sinusoidal, cut into 6 lobes. six lobes, cut through the oceans so each continent stays whole. Each lobe is the same projection about its own central meridian, so each point is near a line where the shape distortion vanishes: the mean angular deformation over the mapped world falls from 38.6° uninterrupted to 17.8° here. What is given up is that the map is no longer one surface — the graticule stops at every cut because there is nothing on the other side of it. What each projection optimises

Giving up continuity

Cutting a map into lobes really does reduce the distortion, by a factor that can be measured. What is paid is that the map stops being one surface — and the size of the tear is the number that pictures of interrupted maps never carry.

 What a pole line buys, and what it costs. four pseudocylindrical projections placed by the two numbers the decision moves. Across the bottom, the angular deformation averaged over the whole sphere, where the pole-line projections — Eckert IV and Robinson — are the better maps. Up the side, on a log axis, the factor by which the last parallel is stretched, where they are worse by more than tenfold: 49× at best against 4.6× at worst for a pole drawn as a point. A pole line represents one point of the globe by a line of the map, and that is the price. The families

Where a pseudocylindrical puts its error

Every projection in this family has to decide what to do at the pole, which on the globe is a point where every meridian meets. Drawing it as a point and drawing it as a line are the two answers, and the trade between them is measurable in both directions.

The whole library