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

Mollweide

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
Mollweide. The graticule of the Mollweide projection at 30° of longitude and 15° of latitude. equal-area in an ellipse, at the cost of the corners. It is equal-area.

The graticule of the Mollweide projection at 30° of longitude and 15° of latitude. equal-area in an ellipse, at the cost of the corners. It is equal-area.

It is drawn by projection-figure with show: "projection-map" — one member of a family of 16 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.

18 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.

 Angular deformation against latitude, four projections. The same quantity for mercator, gallPeters, winkelTripel, robinson, 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. What each projection optimises

Every projection minimises something

A projection is the solution to an optimisation problem, and naming the objective explains more than naming the family. Some objectives are exact constraints, some are least-squares fits, and one is a table of numbers a man adjusted until it looked right.

 6 projections of the same sphere. The same graticule under Equirectangular, Mercator, Mollweide, Sinusoidal, Robinson, Winkel tripel. 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

Which projection is best

An incomplete question, and the incompleteness is the answer. Every projection preserves something and destroys something else, so the comparison worth making is between a projection and a purpose, not between two projections.

 A cylinder unrolls exactly; a sphere does not. Both pictures show the same grid. On the left it is wrapped round a cylinder of radius 1, on the right it is laid flat, and every distance in the grid is the same in both — the circumference is 2π and so is the width of the rectangle, checked to 10⁻⁹. This is possible because a cylinder has zero Gaussian curvature. No corresponding picture exists for a sphere. The impossibility

What can be unrolled

A cylinder is obviously curved and is intrinsically flat, so it lays out on a table with nothing stretched. A sphere is not. The distinction is exactly zero Gaussian curvature, and it is why paper tubes exist and paper globes do not.

 The indicatrix at 30°, 40° on Gall–Peters. A circle on the sphere becomes this ellipse on the map. Its semi-axes are the two principal scale factors, a = 1.083 and b = 0.923; their product is the areal factor 1.000; and the maximum angular deformation is 9.16°. h and k are shown too, and depend on the coordinates rather than on the map. Measuring distortion

What survives a change of coordinates

The scale along the meridian is a property of the map and the grid together. The principal scale factors are a property of the map alone. Only the second kind describes the projection, and the two are routinely quoted as though they were the same thing.

 London to Tokyo, seen four ways. The same two routes on four projections. The gnomonic projection renders every great circle as an exactly straight line, which is what it is for; Mercator renders every rhumb line straight instead. Neither path changed — only the map did. The families

The aspect is a free choice

A projection's distortion pattern is fixed relative to its own axis, and where that axis points is entirely up to the cartographer. Rotating it is the cheapest available improvement and it is the one most often left unmade.

 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.

 London to Tokyo, seen four ways. The same two routes on four projections. The gnomonic projection renders every great circle as an exactly straight line, which is what it is for; Mercator renders every rhumb line straight instead. Neither path changed — only the map did. Paths and directions

The gnomonic companion

One projection turns every great circle into a straight line, and it is the only one that does. It shows less than half the sphere, distorts enormously, and was indispensable for three centuries because of that single exact property.

 The cut at 85.0511°, and the alternatives that are not square. Mercator's northing runs to infinity at the pole, so a tiling has to stop somewhere, and the latitude is not a rounding: 85.0511° is where the northing equals half the world's width, which is the only cut that makes the projected world a square. The bars are what other cuts would give — at 89° the world is 1.51 times as tall as it is wide, and a single square root tile cannot cover it. The price is 0.373 per cent of the Earth's surface, 1,901,487 square kilometres in two caps, computed from 2πR²(1 − sin φ) rather than estimated. What a machine does with it

The square costs the poles

The cut at 85.0511287798° is the most-quoted number in web mapping and is almost never derived. It is where Mercator's northing equals half the world's width — the condition for a square — and it drops 1,901,487 square kilometres. A two-tile root would have reached 89.786° and dropped 3,558.

 Transverse Mercator. The graticule of the Transverse Mercator projection at 30° of longitude and 15° of latitude. the only projection on which a constant compass bearing is a straight line. It is conformal. The families

Transverse Mercator and the series that computes it

The projection most of the world's survey data lives in has no closed form. What every national grid actually computes is a truncated power series in the flattening, and how far it can be trusted is an engineering parameter rather than a property of the projection.

 The least distortion possible over a 30° 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) = 1.0718 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. What each projection optimises

Chebyshev's criterion

The only optimality theorem in the subject. Among all conformal projections of a region, the one with least scale variation is the one whose scale factor is constant on the boundary — a criterion with a proof, a unique answer, and a test the site can run.

 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.

 Mercator swung through every tilt, over Chile and the tropics. The regional distortion of one projection as its axis is tilted from the normal aspect at 0° to the transverse at 90°, each curve divided by its own value in the normal aspect so the two regions can share an axis. Chile is best at a tilt of 90°, a factor of 183.5 better than north-up; the tropics is best at a tilt of 0°, which is north-up. Rotating the sphere costs nothing and changes none of the projection's own properties, which makes this the cheapest improvement available and the one most often left unmade. What each projection optimises

Fitting the aspect to the region

Choosing a projection is a choice among a few dozen named things. Choosing its aspect is a choice among a continuum, it costs nothing, it changes none of the projection's own properties, and for a long thin country it is worth a factor of 183.

 American polyconic. The graticule of the American polyconic projection at 30° of longitude and 15° of latitude. a different tangent cone for every parallel — true to scale along all of them, and along the central meridian. It is neither conformal nor equal-area. The families

The projections that gave up being one thing

The polyconic is built from a different cone for every parallel, which means it is built from no cone at all. It preserves nothing the usual tests look for, it has an exact property neither of them measures, and its sheets do not fit together — a defect discovered in the field rather than at the drawing board.

 The same six projections, ranked over Europe and Chile. Each column orders the projections by Kavrayskiy's regional criterion — the root-mean-square departure of the two principal scales from unity, integrated over the region with the area element. The lines cross, which is the point: Lambert conformal conic leads over Europe and comes fifth over Chile. A table of projections ordered by distortion is a table about somebody's region. Measuring distortion

Distortion over a region

An indicatrix describes a point and every practical question is about a country. Going from one to the other means integrating, integrating means choosing a weighting, and the weighting is the step that turns a measurement into somebody's opinion.

 How Equirectangular distorts, by latitude. Angular deformation and areal scale plotted against latitude along the meridian at 0°. On Equirectangular the angular deformation reaches 114.2° and the areal factor reaches 11.5. What is taught wrongly

The plate carrée, the projection nobody chooses

Plotting latitude against longitude on ordinary axes is a projection. It preserves nothing, its angular deformation reaches 108° and its areal error eightfold, and it is probably the most widely produced map in the world because it is what happens when nobody decides anything.

The whole library