Choosing — the series
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 anyone can run.
-
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.
-
The average of two projections
The Winkel tripel is literally the arithmetic mean of two other projections, and this site's implementation of it agrees with that mean to the last bit. Averaging beats both ingredients by 26 per cent — and it preserves conformality exactly, destroys equal-area completely, and can turn eighteen per cent of the world inside out without either distortion measure saying so.
-
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.
-
Choosing for a line, not a region
Every criterion in this subject integrates over an area. A pipeline, a railway or a coastal survey is a curve, and the projection an area criterion picks for it is not the one it should have — measurably, by a factor of five thousand.
-
How many sheets an atlas needs
A tolerance on the scale error inverts, through Chebyshev's bound, into a sheet radius — and a covering problem turns the radius into a count. One part in a thousand costs 1,210 sheets of 403 kilometres radius, the count goes as the reciprocal of the tolerance exactly, and the projection multiplies it by anything from one to fifty-six.
-
The aspect has three numbers, not one
The site's aspect search has swung the projection's axis through one plane for a long time, and recorded that a region whose long axis runs diagonally has its optimum somewhere that plane never reaches. Searching the whole sphere of pole positions finds 2.6 times more improvement over Japan and 3.4 over the conterminous United States.
-
The sphere is not the plane at small counts
The site's atlas arithmetic multiplies an ideal sheet count by 2π/√27, the thinnest covering density of the plane. At the four counts whose optimal covering of the sphere is a theorem the plane's number is 21 per cent high at two caps and 9, 5 and 2 per cent low at four, six and twelve — wrong in both directions, and the direction changes with the count.
-
The third parameter, run
An aspect has three numbers and this site has been searching two of them, with a note admitting it. Searching all three is worth up to 2.1 times — and the obvious way to do it, starting from the two-parameter answer and letting the third move, finds a fraction of that or nothing at all.
-
The landscape the search walks on
The three-parameter aspect search was run and its answer recorded with a note admitting nothing proved it global. Mapping the objective finds 26 to 34 local minima for every projection and region tried, a downhill walk from a random start reaching the best of them 6 to 35 per cent of the time — and one seed from the coarse grid the search already uses reaching it in all four cases. The score is reproducible to two per cent across a sevenfold refinement; the pole it names moves 60 degrees.
-
Report the map, not the parameters
The aspect search was found returning the same score to 2.3 per cent from poles sixty degrees of latitude apart, which left the answer looking irreproducible. That reading assumed the disagreeing triples make disagreeing maps. They do not — the three answers agree on the distortion field to a quarter of the deformation the map already has.
-
The shape of the valley
An aspect search returns three numbers, two searches return triples that differ by a hemisphere, and the maps they produce agree. One cause is an exact degeneracy and the rest was called a valley and left unmeasured. Sampled densely, it is neither a valley nor a basin: a connected sheet spanning 170° of pole that splits in two at twice the best score and into thirteen pieces by 1.7 times it.
-
Where the valley breaks in two
A near-optimal set is one connected sheet at a loose threshold and thirteen basins at a tight one, and the transition was explained without being tested. The explanation is a prediction about region size and projection sharpness: swept over both, the threshold falls from 2.10 to 0.27 as a region grows from 6° to 30°, three projections lie on nearly one curve, and a fourth declines to join for a reason worth having.
-
The height of the pass between two basins
One thing was left owed: the fracture threshold falls faster than the argument predicts, and the difference was supposed to be the level set's blindness to the height of the pass. Measured directly, the pass between the two deepest basins falls as the −1.34 power at R-squared 0.986 — nearer the predicted −1 than the level set's −1.57 on the same projection, and not onto it. It is not the pass that breaks the set first, and at five of six sizes the second basin is the first one's mirror twin.
-
The basins have widths as well as depths
Measuring the height of the pass left one thing owed: shape means widths too. Measured, the basin has three of them — 32°, 16° and 7° at Japan — it gets wider rather than narrower as the region grows, and the exponent it predicts overshoots the measured one by half again.
-
The threshold is not a percolation
The near-optimal aspect set was found breaking into twelve pieces rather than two, the transition was called a percolation, and the exponent went unmeasured. Swept finely, the piece count rises from one to thirteen and falls back to one — and refining the grid by a factor of fifteen moves the peak from ten to nineteen, at the rate the surface's own minima grow, while an uncorrelated field on the same lattice grows by a factor of twelve.
-
The first break is mostly its denominator
Three earlier measurements have fitted the near-optimal set's fracture threshold against region size and read the answer as a statement about the landscape. It is a ratio, and separating it takes one multiplication: the best score the region admits at all rises with exponent 0.92 and carries 65 to 70 per cent of the threshold's movement on three projections, while the pass's own depth falls slowly and steadily, with exponent −0.42 to −0.49.
-
The pooled score abandons a region
Every criterion in this subject optimises for one region. An atlas is several, and pooling their samples into one area-weighted score is what everybody does — which on Britain and New Zealand serves Britain 1.2 times worse than it could be served alone and New Zealand 125 times worse. The worst-case objective makes them equal at 33 and 59, and the cost of sharing rises with separation from 1.4 to 59.
-
The pass that fails first is not the one that was measured
Three attempts to explain why the near-optimal aspect set comes apart when it does have fitted the height of the pass between the two deepest basins. That is not the pass that fails first. At every region size the set is held together by the last near-rival to join the best placement's own basin — a basin between 2 and 19 per cent worse than the best — over ground 1.02 to 2.09 times higher than the deep pair's pass. The two passes fall at nearly one rate, −1.42 and −1.31 powers of the region's span, so what separates them is a factor, not a law.
-
The pass's depth belongs to the projection, and it is not a constant
Separating the fracture threshold into a pass depth and the best score a region admits raised the question of what the pass depth is. Across three projections and four latitudes it runs over a factor of 4.4, and most of that is the projection: Robinson's stays between 0.018 and 0.021 at every latitude, Mollweide's between 0.040 and 0.079. It is not a constant of anything — it falls as the region grows in ten cases of twelve — and it does not follow how much of the projection the region sees. The denominator, over the same cases, moves by half again.
-
Six projections have two curves, and the refusal has company
Three projections at four latitudes gave three pass-depth exponents, and the question was what sets them. Six at nine latitudes say that most of them have none to set: the Hammer's pass depth rises with what the region sees at R-squared 0.95 and Mollweide's at 0.81, Eckert IV's half-follows, and Robinson's, the Winkel tripel's and the sinusoidal's do not follow it at all. Neither candidate explanation predicts a left-out projection's exponent better than guessing the average — and the sinusoidal, once the lone refusal, is one of three.
-
The sinusoidal is the edge of its family, not outside it
The sinusoidal is the last member of a family of equal-area maps that begins at Lambert's cylindrical, and it was thought to be the one projection whose pass depth has no curve. Along the family the curve comes and goes: present at m = 0 and 0.8, absent at 0.6 and 0.9. What does move smoothly is the pass depth's level. It is flat from m = 0.2 to 0.9, then rises at every step over the last twentieth, 3.2-fold, to the sinusoid — whose high ridges are the end of that rise, not an exception to the family — while the cylinder at m = 0 stands eight times above its neighbour.
-
The pass was a map meeting itself
Four measurements fitted a power law to the depth of the pass that splits a near-optimal set of aspects, and found it tight — R-squared of 0.98 for Robinson, 0.996 along most of a family of maps. On the grid those aspects were searched over, a pole row holds every normal-aspect map twelve times at cells that are not neighbours, and in 28 of Robinson's 36 regions the published pass was two copies of one map meeting through the map one step round the axis. Joined as the one map they are, Robinson's curve falls to R-squared 0.008, and the sinusoidal's famous refusal turns out to be the one measurement the copies never reached.