Families — the ladder · Cartographic Projection

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.

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.

rung 1 · families

Angular deformation around three standard parallels. Three equal-area cylindrical projections differing only in where they are exact — standard parallels at equator, 30°, 45°. Each has zero angular deformation at its own standard parallel and grows away from it in both directions. Choosing a standard parallel is choosing which latitudes to treat well, and there is no choice that treats them all well.

What a standard parallel buys

A standard parallel is a line where the projection is exact. Choosing one does not reduce the distortion — it decides where the distortion is zero and lets everything grow away from it.

rung 2 · families

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 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.

rung 2 · families

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 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.

rung 3 · families

The equal-area conic, from cylinder to plane. The largest distance between the conic at cone constant n and each of its two limits, over a shared grid, with the free scale and offset removed. Both fall as the FIRST power of the distance from their end — the slope on these axes is one — so the conic is never nearly cylindrical: halving n only halves the difference. At n = 0.999999 the conic is the Lambert azimuthal to 1.3e-6, and at n = 0.000001 it is the Lambert cylindrical to 1.2e-6.

The conic is the whole family

Cylindrical and azimuthal are usually presented as two of three families beside the conic. They are the two ends of it. One parameter runs from the cylinder to the plane, and both limits are exact rather than suggestive — which is measurable, and measured here.

rung 4 · families

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.

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.

rung 4 · families

The azimuthal family, as one function of one variable. Every azimuthal projection is a rule for how far from the centre to draw a point at angular distance ρ, and nothing else. five named projections are plotted as their radial functions — tan ρ, 2 tan(ρ/2), ρ, 2 sin(ρ/2), sin ρ — and the two dashed curves are the solutions of the two conditions, integrated from the centre with no more than "true scale at the centre" to start from. They land on the stereographic and the Lambert azimuthal to 8e-10. The names are the answers to the equations, not descriptions of viewpoints.

The azimuthal family is one function

Five azimuthal projections are taught as five viewpoints — from the centre, from the far pole, from infinity. They are one projection with five choices of how far out to draw a point at angular distance ρ, and each named property is a differential equation in that one function: f′ = f/sin ρ integrates to the stereographic projection and f f′ = sin ρ to Lambert's, from nothing but true scale at the centre.

rung 5 · families

Three solutions of one condition, all exactly equal-area. The pseudocylindrical ansatz is x = λ·C(φ) and y = Y(φ) — two unknown functions — and the equal-area condition is one equation, C·Y′ = cos φ. So Y may be chosen freely and C follows, and these three choices give three maps that are equal-area to 1.8e-11 and look nothing like one another: their pole lines are 10%, 100%, 19% of their own equators. That is why the cylindrical family has one equal-area member and this family has as many as anybody cares to name.

The condition does not always decide the map

Write a family as a shape with an unknown function in it and every classical property becomes a differential equation. In three families the equation has one solution and the named projection is what comes back. In the fourth it has a whole function of solutions, which is why that family has forty members and the others have three.

rung 6 · families

One construction, one number. A ray from a point on the equatorial plane, through the sphere, onto a tangent cylinder. Where the centre sits is the whole of the family: on the axis it gives tan φ, at the far side of the sphere 2 tan(φ/2), and at infinity sin φ. The same expression with angular distance in place of latitude, and a tangent plane in place of a cylinder, gives the gnomonic, the stereographic and the orthographic. The surface decides whether the answer is read as a height or as a radius and nothing else.

The developable surface was never necessary

Eight essays on this ladder start from cylinders, cones and planes, and none of them has asked which named projection is actually a projection onto one. Fitting a one-parameter perspective construction to eleven of them: six come back exact, and the three landmarks are the gnomonic at h = 0, the stereographic at h = 1 and the orthographic at h = ∞.

rung 7 · families

The family is a symmetry, not a shape

Rung seven dissolves the taxonomy: eleven named maps fitted to one perspective formula, six reproduced exactly and five refused, so the developable surface describes how the projections were discovered rather than what they are. What is left is the question it does not ask. If the shapes are not the classification, what is?

rung 8 · families

Three implementations of one projection, and three different distortions. The spread in angular deformation between linear, Catmull–Rom and Aitken interpolations of Robinson's own table, at 60° of longitude. It is exactly zero at every fifth degree, because all three pass through the tabulated rows, and it is not zero anywhere else: 37 of 87 latitudes differ by more than half a degree and the worst is 8.42°. The graticules the three draw differ by 4.2 parts per thousand of the map's own span, which is under the width of a printed line.

A projection defined by a table has an interpolation in it

One member of this library has no formula: Robinson set nineteen pairs of numbers by eye and the table is the definition. Three published interpolations of it draw graticules that differ by four parts in a thousand of the map's span and report angular deformations that differ by 8.4 degrees.

rung 9 · families

Two members, their average, and the family's best answer to it. Two equal-area conics at cone constants 0.25 and 0.85, the average of the two, and the member of the family nearest that average — at 0.540, which is not the parameter midpoint. The average is not a conic at all: its parallels are still arcs but they are arcs of circles about different centres, so no single cone constant reproduces it and the residual is 0.1722.

A family is not closed under averaging

Nine rungs treat a family as a set of maps with a parameter running through it, and this collection's own compromise projections are averages of members. An average of two members is not a member: two conics far apart average to something 31 per cent of their own separation outside the family — and averaging within a family makes the map worse every time, while averaging across two makes it 16 per cent better.

rung 10 · families

Three named members of the family, and one the family has no name for. The equal-area pseudocylindricals are not a list of maps. They are the solutions of one equation — C(φ)·Y′(φ) = cos φ — in two unknown functions, so one function is free and the named members are points in a space of them. Writing Y as six numbers and searching over them finds a map at 25.03° of mean angular deformation against Eckert IV's 28.08, Mollweide's 31.83 and the sinusoidal's 38.86 — 12.2 per cent better than the best map the family has a name for, and every one of the four is equal-area to the same precision.

A family is a function, not a list

The equal-area pseudocylindricals are the solutions of one equation in two unknown functions, so one function is free and the named members are points in a space of them. Writing that function as six numbers and searching over them finds a map at 25.03° of mean angular deformation against Eckert IV's 28.08 — and two numbers are already enough to beat every map the family has a name for.

rung 11 · families

The maps with no family are simply better

Rung eight found seven projections with no continuous symmetry and noticed they are almost exactly the set anybody would choose for a world map, then offered a conjecture with a test attached: their advantage should collapse under a criterion that does not care where anything is. Run, it does the opposite — 1.343 times under a uniform weighting and 1.204 under a concentration. The conjecture is refuted.

rung 12 · families