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

The thread: Computed, not quoted — page 10

Scale factors, areal ratios, angular deformations, geodesic distances and the areas of countries are all computed while the figure is drawn. None is a number recalled from a table. Essays 217 to 240 of 299.
Three projections that run in a circle. Mercator beats Sinusoidal beats Eckert IV beats Mercator, each on a majority of the same seven criteria over the whole sphere. Every margin is four to three, the narrowest a majority of seven can be, and the criteria that decide each edge are different ones. There is no way to place these three in an order that agrees with all three comparisons, and the obstruction is not a measurement error: every number is exact to the precision the sampler reaches. What is taught wrongly

The ranking is not an order

The previous rung showed that a weighting can make almost any projection best. Remove the weights entirely, let each of the seven criteria vote once, and the answer is worse: over the whole sphere Mercator beats the sinusoidal, the sinusoidal beats Eckert IV, and Eckert IV beats Mercator — four such circles, every margin four to three, with a Condorcet winner sitting above them all.

 The line a commission can actually run. A boundary described as a parallel of latitude and marked by monuments 220 kilometres apart, with the offset exaggerated 700 times so that it can be seen at all. A commission cannot run a parallel: it can set a monument, sight a straight line to the next and clear the trees between, and a straight line between two points of equal latitude is a geodesic, which passes POLEWARD of the parallel everywhere between them. So the marked line lies north of the described one, by 1176.5 metres at the middle of each of its 9 chords, and encloses 1611.2 square kilometres that the words put on the other side. At the 20-kilometre spacing this ladder measures at, the same offset is 9.03 metres. Grids, and what a survey does

The line a commission can actually run

A boundary commission cannot run a parallel of latitude. It can sight a straight line between monuments, and a straight line between two points of equal latitude passes poleward of the parallel — by s² tan φ / 8R, which at a mile of spacing is fifty-eight millimetres and at a hundred kilometres is two hundred and twenty-six metres. The described line and the marked line are different curves, and the marked one governs.

 Three face maps on a cube, over a shrinking span. The corner a feature gets crossing the seam of a cube, measured by reading the tangent over an arc and then shrinking the arc by a factor of sixteen. A chord differs from a tangent in proportion to the arc, so a perfectly smooth join reports a corner that HALVES when the span halves — a slope of one on these axes. None of the three lines has a slope of one. The fitted slopes are 0.000, 0.000, -0.018, which is a flat line in each case, and a flat line is a real corner. The three differ in size and not in kind: 20.1513°, 7.2772°, 0.7687°. The families

The span ladder, run on all five

A recorded shortfall said the exact map's span ladder was one loop away from settling the seam on the five Platonic solids. The loop was run and the answer is the other one: the series conformal face map has a corner that does not shrink with the measurement span on any of them — 4.10° on the tetrahedron, 0.77 on the cube, 0.004 on the icosahedron — and it belongs to the truncation rather than to conformality.

 How many projections the map could be in. The number of candidates whose residual sits below the measurement noise, against the size of the region, at four noise levels. At one per cent of the map's width — a hand-digitised graticule — a four-degree region admits ten of the twenty candidates and a forty-degree one admits exactly one. Every curve falls, none of them crosses another, and all four end at one: identification works, and what it needs is extent rather than precision. What is taught wrongly

The answer is a set

Eight rungs have produced 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 threshold, and the two things it is a ratio of. The near-optimal set's fracture threshold on Robinson, against the size of the region, with the two quantities it is a ratio of drawn beside it. The threshold falls with fitted slope -1.293. The best score a region admits at all rises with slope 0.923 — a bigger region is harder to map — and the absolute score of the pass falls with slope -0.370. The first is the sum of the other two by construction, and the arithmetic says which of them is doing the work: the denominator carries 71 per cent of it. What each projection optimises

The first break is mostly its denominator

Three rungs 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 pass's own depth is constant to 12 per cent below twenty degrees of span, and the whole of the threshold's movement there is the denominator — the best score the region admits at all — rising with exponent 0.92.

 The drift is a straight line in the deflection. The horizontal distance between where a plumb line hangs at the top of a column of rock and where it hangs at the bottom, against the deflection of the vertical the mass produces at the surface. Four heights of column. Every line is straight through the origin: 12.54 mm of drift per arcsecond of deflection over a 4,000 m line, to two parts in ten thousand across a fortyfold range of deflection. Which is what makes the number transferable — the 47 mm the ladder started from was a statement about one buried sphere, and this is a statement about any mass that produces the same deflection. What the numbers refer to

How far the plumb line bends

The previous rung dropped a plumb line down a four-kilometre column of rock beside one buried mass and found it arrived 47 millimetres from the point below the summit. That is a number about that mass. Parameterising by the deflection of the vertical instead — the quantity surveyors actually measure — gives 12.54 mm per arcsecond, exactly linear across a fortyfold range.

 The piece two schemes share, clipped rather than assumed. A cell of a gnomonic cube, whose four edges are great-circle arcs because a straight line on a gnomonic face is one, against a cell of a longitude–latitude grid, whose north and south edges are parallels and are not. Their overlap is neither a rectangle nor a spherical polygon of any standard kind, and it is 5965687 km² of the cube cell's 5965687 km² — 100.0 per cent. Computing it needs the arc of one boundary intersected with the plane of the other, which is three equations and two roots, and it is exact. What a machine does with it

Cells that are rectangles in no coordinate

The previous rung measured what moving a field between two cell schemes costs, and did it between two schemes whose cells are longitude–latitude rectangles — which is what made every overlap a rectangle with a closed-form area. The schemes anybody actually argues about have cells that are rectangles in no coordinate, and their overlaps have to be clipped.

 What a geoid model leaves out, against the degree it stops at. The RMS of everything above the model's highest degree, from Kaula's rule — the statement that the normalised coefficients at degree n are about 10⁻⁵/n². The line is R × 10⁻⁵ ÷ n, so a model to degree 360 omits 17.7 centimetres and one to 2190 omits 2.9. Every orthometric height derived from such a model carries that as an error, and it is not quoted with the height. What the numbers refer to

The geoid model stops at a degree

Eleven essays treat the geoid as a surface that exists. Every geoid anybody uses is a series truncated at a degree, so every orthometric height derived from one carries an omission error nobody quotes with the height — eighteen centimetres at degree 360 — and the same truncation removes two thirds of the slope, which does not converge at all.

 One meridian, two datums, and the ground between them. "the meridian line of the 141st degree of west longitude" — Anglo-Russian Convention, 1825. The line whose longitude is exactly 141° west, drawn twice: once on nad27 and once on WGS84, with the east–west separation exaggerated 3,000 times. The two are 129.0 metres apart, and remarkably constant — the shift changes by five centimetres over nine degrees of latitude — so the strip between them is a ribbon 129 metres wide and 1039 kilometres long, which is 134.0 square kilometres. The sentence has not changed. The surface the number refers to has. Grids, and what a survey does

A meridian boundary moves when its datum does

The 141st meridian is the one boundary description in this collection with no geometric ambiguity in it: every reading of it is the same curve, exactly. It has a different one. A longitude refers to a datum, the 1825 convention named none, and the line of longitude exactly 141° west sits 129.0 metres apart on NAD27 and WGS84 — a ribbon 1,039 kilometres long and 134 square kilometres in area.

 Seven cuts of the same size, in different places on one body. The body's own colatitude and longitude, with the seven windows drawn on it. Each covers the same surface area to 0.24 per cent — the longitude extent is divided by sin θ and a scale is then solved per window — so their sizes are held and only their positions differ. Each is shaded by the areal spread of the conformal map solved on it, listed beside the grid and running from 1.03 to 1.36. The darker windows are the worse ones, and they are the ones over the body's lobes. What the numbers refer to

Cuts of the same size in different places

Where a body is cut decides how well it can be mapped, by a factor of ten — established with five windows of five different sizes, so *where* and *how much* were confounded and the factor could have been entirely about extent. Held to the same surface area to a quarter of a per cent, the answer survives at a factor of 1.32, and what predicts it is the curvature the window encloses.

 A curve built to have dimension 1.2619. The generator replaces every segment with four of equal length at headings 0, +60.0°, −60.0° and 0. Closing the displacement fixes the length ratio at 0.33335, and four copies at that ratio give a dimension of exactly log 4 / log(2 + 2 cos θ) = 1.2619. Nothing here is measured yet: this is the construction the measurement will be checked against. Drawn at depth 5, which is 1024 segments, with the second-level shape shown faint beneath it. What a machine does with it

A line has a length only at a scale

Every measurement on this site so far has been of a curve given by a formula, sampled as finely as the picture needed. A map is not that: the geometry that reaches the page has been through an algorithm whose job is to throw most of it away. The first thing that goes is the idea that the line had a length.

 One of these settles. The largest departure of the fitted map's boundary scale from constant — the quantity the previous rung showed the solver cannot see — against the number of collocation nodes, for the two placements. The clustered fit reaches 7.030e-5 at forty-eight nodes and returns exactly that at every count above it. The evenly spaced fit does not settle at all: it wanders by a factor of 1.43 across the same range, going up as often as down. Refining an evenly collocated fit is not convergence, and the previous rung's finding that more samples improve the report and not the map is this seen from one side. What each projection optimises

The nodes were evenly spaced

The previous rung showed that refining an evenly collocated fit improves the solver's report and leaves the map alone. Moving the same number of nodes to the Chebyshev positions — crowded toward the corners, where a conformal map of a polygon is singular — makes the fit settle: 7.030 × 10⁻⁵ at forty-eight nodes and exactly that at every count above it, against an even fit that wanders by 43 per cent and never converges at all.

 One quantity, one region, and the exponent left free. The scale departure of six projections over the world, aggregated as a p-norm, against p on a logarithmic axis. At p = 1 the best is Eckert IV; at p = 64 it is Winkel tripel. Nothing about the maps changed between the two ends of the axis — only how much of the region a bad point is allowed to spoil. Drawn in no projection: the axes are an exponent and a score. What is taught wrongly

The average was a choice of norm

Ten projections, one region, one measured quantity, and the only free decision left is how to turn a field into a number. Over the world's scale departure the ordering at the mean and the ordering at the worst case have a rank correlation of −0.04, all ten maps change position, and the exponent that produced each answer is stated nowhere.

 One equidistance line, computed five ways. The line equidistant from two facing coasts — Jan Mayen and Greenland — traced by bisection along a fan of parallels, with the two distances measured on the ellipsoid, on the sphere, and with a ruler on three different pages. The basepoints are the same four in every case and the rule is the same words in every case. The sphere sits 20 metres from the ellipsoid; with a ruler on Lambert's cylindrical sits 13.2 kilometres from it, with 324 km² of seabed in between. A delimitation is a sentence about distances, and a distance is a statement about a surface. Grids, and what a survey does

An equidistance line belongs to a surface

A maritime boundary is very often defined as the line equidistant from two coasts — a description with no coordinate in it and no curve to choose between. It has a third ambiguity: equidistant measured how. On the ellipsoid, on the sphere, and with a ruler on three different charts, the same four basepoints give lines up to 39.6 kilometres apart and 2,816 square kilometres of seabed between them.

 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. The families

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.

 The same deflection, from a compact mass and from a broad root. Each curve is the deflection of the vertical across a mass buried 8 km down, with the mass solved so that all of them peak at 10″. The narrow one is the buried sphere the earlier measurement used; the broad ones are crustal roots 40 and 160 km wide, modelled as that mass spread along a line. They agree where it matters most and disagree everywhere else: the signal is 30 km wide for the compact body and 188 km for the widest, which is the difference the plumb line feels as it descends. What the numbers refer to

A mountain is not a buried sphere

The plumb line's drift was measured over a compact buried body and grows as the 0.69 power of the column's height — an exponent that is a statement about how quickly a buried sphere's field weakens with distance rather than about mountains. Spread the same mass into a crustal root and the exponent climbs to 0.84, while the proportionality to the deflection survives exactly.

 The same tolerance, applied in two orders, at 65°. The faint line is the region's boundary as built, 1025 vertices across 400 km of ground. Both pipelines were given the same tolerance of 2000 m on the ground. Simplifying in degrees and then projecting keeps 311 of them; projecting into Mercator and then simplifying keeps 129; doing it on the ground itself, which no pipeline does, keeps 129. The two drawn lines separate by 1883 m, which is 94 per cent of the tolerance that was supposed to bound the whole operation. What a machine does with it

Simplification does not commute with the projection

A pipeline either simplifies the geometry and then projects it, or projects it and then simplifies. Both orders are in use, neither is recorded, and given the same tolerance in ground metres they keep different vertices — 129 of them on the ground, 367 in degree space at 80°, and 459 on an equal-area page.

 Three boundaries, three tripoints. Three bilateral boundaries drawn through one nominal point, each described as the line between two monuments and each realised under a different convention — a geodesic, a rhumb line and a straight line on a Mercator sheet. The tripoint is defined three times, once by each pair of boundaries, and the three definitions are the three marked crossings. They are 21.33 kilometres apart at the widest and enclose 194.960 square kilometres. Under one convention throughout, the same construction puts all three crossings within 0.0 millimetres of each other — which is the refusal this figure carries, and the reason the triangle is a fact about the conventions rather than about the crossing arithmetic. Grids, and what a survey does

A tripoint defined three times

A tripoint is very often not a coordinate in any treaty. It is a description — the point where the boundary between A and B meets the boundary between B and C — and each of those boundaries is itself a description. So the point is defined three times, once by each pair, and under one convention throughout the three definitions agree to half a micrometre. Under three they enclose 6.69 square kilometres.

 The test the ladder asked for, and it refutes the conjecture. How much better the best asymmetric projection is than the best symmetric one, under weightings of four different symmetries, with every symmetric map allowed to re-aim its axis at twelve candidate poles. The conjecture rung eight recorded was that the seven earn their place by PLACING distortion where a symmetric map cannot, so their advantage should collapse under a criterion with no place preference. It does the opposite: the advantage is largest at 1.343 under the uniform weighting and smallest at 1.144 under a band, with the fully asymmetric concentration at 1.204 in between. The winner is named on each row and the map it beat is Equirectangular throughout. The seven are simply better maps. The 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.

 What a sheet does to the points before anybody measures them. The graticule crossings of a map drawn on Conformal conic, with an arrow at each one showing where the same crossing has moved to after the sheet dried — 0.1 per cent along the grain and 0.4 across it, with the grain at 23° to the map's axis, and the displacement magnified 60 times so it can be seen at all. The pattern is a stretch along one direction and a squeeze along the perpendicular, which is what an anisotropic scaling looks like. It is a property of the paper and has nothing to do with the map printed on it. A similarity fit to these points leaves 3.66e-4 of the map's own width unexplained, against 1.22e-10 on the unshrunk sheet. What is taught wrongly

The sheet moved before it was measured

Nine rungs take control points off a map and assume the sheet they came from is the sheet 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.

 The picture is kept, at four tolerances. One closed curve of 3001 vertices, simplified at four tolerances. Douglas–Peucker's promise holds in every panel: no discarded vertex is further than ε from the line drawn in its place, measured at 0.1158 against 0.128 in the last. The picture survives. The enclosed area does not: it falls by 5.43 per cent, and it falls rather than wandering, because cutting a corner takes area off and never puts it back. What a machine does with it

A tolerance is a promise about the picture

Douglas–Peucker guarantees exactly one thing: no vertex it discarded is further than ε from the line drawn in its place. It says nothing about the enclosed area, nothing about which side of the boundary a point ends up on, and nothing about whether the curve still fails to cross itself — and all three are what the geometry is usually being asked.

 The solve's cost is a U in the shape; the curvature is not. Solid: how many conjugate-gradient steps the conformal solve needs, against the window's aspect ratio, at constant surface area. It has a minimum at the square window — 174 steps — and rises to 265 and 275 at the two extremes, which are elongated by the same factor in opposite directions. Dashed: the total Gaussian curvature the window encloses, on its own scale, which falls from 0.311 to -0.012 across the same sweep and is least at one end of it. The cost has its minimum where the window is square and the curvature has its minimum somewhere else, so whatever is making the solve expensive is not what is making the map spread. What the numbers refer to

A long window and a square one

Rung nine held the patch's area and found that where the cut goes still changes the map by a third, with the curvature it encloses predicting the change at r = 0.969. It recorded that it had held area and curvature and not shape. Sweeping the shape at constant area separates two things that had looked like one: the map is curvature and the cost is shape.

 The whole of what an unlabelled map gives you. The outline of Japan as drawn on Conformal conic, delivered as an ordered list of page positions with nothing attached to any of them. No latitude, no longitude, no scale, no north. The rung's question is whether a projection can be recovered from that, and it can: the correspondence between the ink and the ground is found by sweeping the starting point round the curve and both directions, and the true candidate comes back with a residual of 2.88e-14 against the runner-up's 4.57e-4. What is taught wrongly

A map with no graticule

Ten rungs are handed 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 ring round the pole at 80°, and the two pieces it makes. the boundary of a small polar cap — and of everything else. A closed curve divides a sphere into two pieces and neither of them is the outside: one is 4 thousand square kilometres and the other is 506 thousand, a ratio of 130.6 to one, and the coordinates are the same either way. The two colours are the two pieces, sampled at points rather than shaded, because shading one of them would already be the decision this figure is about. What a machine does with it

A polygon on a sphere has no outside

Seven essays have treated a stored ring as a boundary between inside and outside. A closed curve on a sphere divides it into two pieces and neither of them is the outside, so every polygon in every file depends on a convention that no coordinate carries — and the two conventions in common use disagree by a factor of fourteen on any ring that contains a pole.

All threads