Identify — the series
-
A map does not say what it is
Every map on this site is one the site drew, from a projection it chose. Every map a reader has ever used is the other kind — a picture whose projection is a sentence in a corner, a legend, or nothing at all. The graticule is enough to recover it: fit every candidate to the crossings and rank what is left over.
-
Two projections that cannot be told apart
Over a small enough region every projection is the same picture, so the question is how small. The answer is not one number: two conformal projections need twelve degrees of extent before their graticules can be separated, and two projections with different anisotropy separate below one.
-
What a careless copy hides
A photocopier that stretches one axis is a nuisance to remove before a projection can be identified. Removing it costs more than it looks: an affine fit absorbs the entire difference between the cylindrical equal-area projections, so Gall-Peters and Behrmann become the same picture at any size, to sixteen decimal places.
-
When the answer is not in the library
Fitting twenty candidates to a map and ranking the residuals always produces a winner, which makes it a ceremony unless it can also produce a refusal. Held out of its own library, a Mercator map is named as a conformal conic, leaving 0.4 per cent of the map's width unexplained — and the quantity that tells the two situations apart is not the residual but the margin, which is 1.6 when the truth is absent and 10¹³ when it is present.
-
A residual has more than one explanation
The method names a projection by fitting every candidate to a set of control points and taking the smallest residual. It has never been asked what else a small residual could be. A map drawn in the right projection from coordinates on the wrong datum leaves a residual of one part in a million — indistinguishable from noise, at every region size, because a similarity fit absorbs a datum shift almost exactly.
-
Where the control points are
Five rungs fit a library to a map and ask how much to trust the winner. None asks whether the parameters are recoverable at all. On control points along one parallel an equirectangular's standard parallel is not merely hard to find — it is invisible, exactly, and five hundred and twelve points on the same parallel are as blind as eight.
-
The datum hides inside the projection's parameters
Six essays recover a projection from control points with the body it was drawn on taken as known. It is not known, and the fit cannot find it: a 99-metre datum shift is absorbed to 99.7 per cent on a two-degree sheet and to 85 per cent on a hemisphere, leaving eleven parts per million of the map behind.
-
A rotation is not absorbed the way a shift is
A datum's rotations were expected to be the part a plane fit could not swallow. They are the part it swallows best — 93 times better than the translations over a hemisphere, and 24 times better per metre moved — and the reason is that the rotation which matters is a change of longitude, which is a symmetry of the map.
-
The answer is a set
Fitting a projection to control points produces a best fit — one projection, ranked first, with a margin. A best fit without a spread is not a measurement, and the spread is free: a control point has a width, and every candidate whose residual is inside that width has not been ruled out. At one per cent noise a four-degree region admits ten of twenty candidates and a forty-degree one admits exactly one.
-
The sheet moved before it was measured
Every method of reading a projection off a map takes its control points from the sheet and assumes the sheet is the one the cartographer drew. Paper shrinks across its grain three times as fast as along it, and on a map whose grain runs along its own axis that shrinkage is EXACTLY a change of standard parallel — one per cent moves the recovered parallel by 0.57 degrees with the residual sitting at the solver's floor.
-
A map with no graticule
Identifying a projection starts from control points, and a great many maps have none. Handed an outline with no labels on it at all, the method still works — and works better: the correspondence between ink and ground is recoverable exactly, because a similarity preserves ratios of arc length, and the margin on clean observations is 1.6 × 10¹⁰ against a graticule's 9.9 × 10⁶. What breaks it is noise, at three parts in a thousand.
-
A compiled map agrees with its graticule except where it was copied
A map compiled from two sheets has no single projection behind it, and its graticule cannot say so. Its coast can — not as a residual, which is a number the size of a projection error, but as a profile: the drawn coast lies exactly on the one its graticule predicts, then departs from a seam, and returns at another. The seams are found to within one point in 720, and the stretch between them names the projection it was copied from with a margin of 3.6 × 10¹¹.
-
A copy eased into place loses its seams before its source
A stretch of coast lifted from another sheet and dropped in rigidly leaves two sharp corners where it joins, and both of them are findable. A compiler does not work that way: they pin the ends and ease the middle until it looks continuous. Easing halves the corner within five per cent of the outline and the seams survive it — until forty per cent, where the located seam jumps from four per cent of the coast out to twenty. The source projection survives twice as far, to seventy-five. The piece goes on naming where it came from after the method has lost track of which piece it is.
-
A residual cannot count the pieces of a map
A compiled map does not say how many sheets went into it, and trying every count and keeping the best fit cannot tell. Seven pieces always fit better than two, because they contain them. A criterion that charges ln N for each number a piece spends recovers the true count in every trial, for one copied stretch and for two, until the digitising error reaches a thousandth of the map. AIC charges two and takes every piece it is offered. And an eased copy defeats the right criterion the other way: it is not a projection, so BIC buys pieces to explain it, three seams, then four, then six.
-
A second tracing tells a drifting hand from a copied stretch
A hand tracing a coast drifts rather than jitters, and a drifting error is a smooth departure no projection explains — so the criterion that counted copied stretches correctly under independent noise counts four or five seams where two were made, and three or four on a coast with no copy at all. Undo the drift before fitting and every count comes back, for no copy, one and two, in every tracing. That needs the drift's correlation length from outside the coast, known to within a factor of three on the short side and much less on the long, and a second tracing of the same coast supplies it: the difference between two tracings holds nothing but the two errors, and read that way the count is right in 22 tracings of 24, and never too high.
-
An easing is a seam with a width, and a drifting hand hides the width
A copy eased into a compiled coast is not a projection, so a count that explains the coast in rigid pieces buys four, five or six seams for one copy. Give each seam a width — the copy blended into the host over that width, the same linear fit at every width, the width charged as one more number — and the count is two seams at every easing up to 17.5 per cent of the coast, and the width it reports is the one drawn, wherever the copy departs from the host by many times the digitising error. Where it departs by seven, the width is a guess. On a tracing made by a drifting hand the easing disappears: whitened for the drift, the rigid count already calls two seams in every tracing, because an easing as long as the drift is a stretch of drift, and its width can no longer be read until it is twice the drift's length.
-
Averaging tracings reads the easing, until the hand repeats itself
One tracing by a drifting hand cannot show how far a copy was eased, because an easing as long as the drift is a stretch of drift. Average several tracings and the easing stays while the drift shrinks: two tracings read the easing's width at the seam where the copy departs strongly, sixteen read it at the seam where it barely departs, and as the drift falls the rigid count starts buying pieces for the easing again while the eased count stays at two. All of that assumes each tracing drifts afresh. A hand that repeats part of its drift in every tracing leaves that part in the mean, where it sets a floor no number of tracings goes below; and a digitiser who learns the hand from the spread between tracings measures only the part that averages away, and charges the mean too little, so that both counts buy every piece they are offered.
-
The spread between hands charges the mean, and an office's habit hides in the sheet
One hand's tracings cannot see the part of its drift it repeats, so a mean of sixteen by one hand is charged for a third of the error it carries. Sixteen tracings by four hands carry half the error of sixteen by one, and the spread between the hands' means, divided by the number of hands, charges that mean correctly to within a fifth on every sheet from three hands on — without ever estimating how much of a hand is habit. The same spread reads a hand's share of habit from two hands of two. What it cannot read is a habit every hand in the office shares: tracings of a sheet with one are tracings of a different sheet without it, and the charge they give falls further short the more hands and tracings are added.
-
A known coast charges an office's habit, and a bending one takes it out
An office whose hands all share a habit leaves it in every tracing of every sheet, where the spread between hands cannot see it. One control sheet — a coast known independently, traced the office's usual way — reads the habit's size and restores the charge, if the habit is a drift. If the habit answers to the coast's own curvature, a size read on a rounder coast charges a thinner one at little more than half, but the same control read differently does better than charge the habit: its departures, set against its curvature, give a slope that is the office's own on every coast, and subtracting it leaves about one per cent of the habit in the mean. The slope also tells the two kinds of office apart. A coast that hardly bends teaches neither, and corrects worse than nothing.