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

The thread: Computed, not quoted — page 11

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 241 to 264 of 299.
What a seven-parameter fit's residual is made of. A published transformation accuracy is the root-mean-square residual at the common points, and here it is 1.51 metres. Almost all of it — 1.51 — is the network's own distortion, which a rigid motion and a scale cannot follow and which is present at every point of the country whether it was used in the fit or not. The transformation's own error, measured as the disagreement between the fitted parameters and the true ones over a clean grid, is 0.091 metres: 6 per cent of the quoted figure. The last bar is the control — the same fit with the distortion switched off, at 2.9e-4 metres. What the numbers refer to

What another common point buys

Rung three finds that a seven-parameter datum fit leaves a pattern rather than noise. Six per cent of the residual it reports is the transformation's own error and the other ninety-four is distortion no seven parameters can follow — so adding common points improves a term that was already small and cannot touch the one that is quoted.

 What simplifying a boundary does to the number stored beside it. One region, simplified at five tolerances, with the error in the two quantities a consumer computes from the pair. If the density was stored, the total it implies moves by exactly the area's error — -1.55 per cent at the loosest tolerance. If the total was stored, the density it implies moves the other way by the same amount. Nothing in the file says which of the two was measured and which is being derived, and the simplification is normally done by a tool that never opens the attribute table. What a machine does with it

The attribute is a claim about the geometry

Fourteen essays price what a stored coordinate means and not one asks what the number stored beside it means. A rate is a quantity divided by an area, the area belongs to the geometry, and no format records which area — so a simplification that moves the outline by nothing visible moves the implied total by 1.55 per cent, an unweighted average of densities is 4.09 per cent out, and a choropleth gives a polar square kilometre fifteen times the ink of an equatorial one.

 Two source geometries of 96 cells each, rebinned to the same three targets. Both curves start from a source of 96 cells and rebin to targets of 32, 128, 512 cells, so the count ratio is identical along them and the only difference is the shape of the source cells: gnomonic squares on a cube against rectangles in longitude and latitude. The ratio dominates — both curves fall by more than half across the range — and the shapes still separate by 25 points at the middle target. The cube loses less, because its cells are all much the same size and the lon/lat source's collapse towards the poles. What a machine does with it

The same number of cells, in two shapes

Moving a field between two cell schemes loses 18 per cent of it per cell in one geometry and 39 in another, and the earlier measurement could not say whether that was the shape of the cells or the ratio of their sizes, because changing the schemes changed both. Holding the counts settles it: the count ratio decides most of the loss, and the shape is still worth a quarter of the field.

 An error in a rotation rate is a longitude error that never stops growing. Where the prime meridian of each body has got to, if its published rotation rate is wrong by one unit in its last published decimal. Every line is straight through the origin, because the error is the rate error multiplied by the elapsed time and nothing else — there is no date after which it settles. Jupiter reaches 2279 metres at the equator after a century; Mars, whose rate is published to twelve decimals rather than seven, reaches 0.0011 metres over the same interval. What the numbers refer to

A longitude that drifts with the rotation rate

Ten essays here map bodies whose shape is the problem. A longitude is not about shape: it is a landmark plus an extrapolation over however many days have passed, and an error in the last published decimal of a rotation rate is a coordinate error that grows without bound in time.

 What reading the seven parameters under the wrong convention costs. The distance between the two published conventions' answers for the same parameter set, at the worst point of the world. The difference is 2s(r × X) exactly — twice the rotation, crossed into the position — so a parameter set with no rotations is immune and one with a large rotation is not: DHDN reaches 152.3 metres and NAD27, whose published transformation is three translations and nothing else, reaches zero. The note beside each bar is the size of that datum's rotation. What the numbers refer to

The rotation has two sign conventions

Eleven essays price a datum transformation's parameters, their fit, their residuals and their uncertainty. None asks what the numbers mean: three of the seven are published under two conventions whose rotations differ in sign, and reading one set with the other formula costs exactly twice the rotation — 55 metres on OSGB36 and 152 on DHDN.

 What a rebinning loses depends on where the target's edges are. Two grids of fixed counts, fixed shapes and fixed resolution, with the target slid across the source from perfect alignment to a full cell. Nothing about either grid changes except where its boundaries fall. The loss runs from 27.5 per cent at zero to 56.3 at half a cell — a factor of 2.04 — and the longitude-only curve returns to its starting value at a full cell to six decimal places, which is the periodicity check. A cell boundary that coincides with a target boundary loses nothing, and a grid comparison that does not say where its boundaries are has left that out. What a machine does with it

When the edges do not line up

Rung eight held the cell counts equal so that shape could be compared without the count ratio drowning it, and recorded a doubt: a longitude–latitude source shares its boundaries with a longitude–latitude target wherever their counts share a factor. The mechanism is real and worth a factor of two. It was not what the published number was made of.

 There is no such thing as the radius of the Earth at a latitude. The two principal radii of curvature of WGS84, against latitude, with the mean radius that every table prints drawn across them. The meridional radius M runs from 6335.44 km at the equator to 6399.59 at the pole; the prime-vertical radius N from 6378.14 to the same value. They differ by 42.70 km at the equator and meet only at the pole, and the single number 6,371 km lies between them at no latitude where either is right. What the numbers refer to

The radius of curvature is two numbers

Twelve essays work on the ellipsoid and every one of them takes a radius when it needs one. There are two at every point, they differ by 42.70 kilometres at the equator, and the single number every table prints is out by 5,583 parts per million on a line running north.

 The same 2-pixel road at three latitudes, zoom 5. The dark bar is the mark as drawn — 2 pixels, identical in all three panels, because that is what the stylesheet says. The pale band behind it is the ground that mark covers, drawn to one common ground scale: 9.78 kilometres at the equator, 6.92 at 45° and 1.70 at 80°. The reader sees the dark bar and is being told about the pale one. What a machine does with it

The road is drawn two pixels wide

Seven rungs measure what a screen map does to position. Nothing on a map is a point: every mark has a width, the width is chosen in pixels, and a two-pixel road covers 9.78 kilometres of ground at the equator and 1.70 at 80° north. That is a generalisation applied at a strength varying by a factor of six across one sheet, by a stylesheet with no latitude in it.

 Two features, one shared boundary, simplified apart. Two neighbouring areas whose common boundary is a curve with structure at every scale — a river or a ridge, in effect — each stored with its own copy of that boundary and each simplified on its own at a tolerance of 0.01. The faint outlines are the originals and the solid ones what came back. The two copies of the shared boundary were within 0.01 of each other before the simplification and are not afterwards: 144 probe cells of 40000 now lie inside both features and 0 inside neither. What a machine does with it

A boundary that two features share

Three rungs simplify one curve and price what a tolerance covers. Almost no boundary in a real dataset belongs to one feature: a county's edge is the next county's edge, it is stored twice, and it is simplified twice. What opens between the two answers is a region belonging to both features or to neither, and its area is not bounded by the tolerance.

 The same baseline, turned. The part of a 20 km height difference a degree-360 geoid model omits, against the direction the baseline runs, at four anisotropy ratios. A ratio of one is the model rung 9 used and is a flat line — the isotropic covariance cannot depend on a direction, by construction, which is the whole of the objection. At a ratio of two the same baseline omits 165 millimetres along the grain and 241 across it. What the numbers refer to

The correlation is not the same in every direction

Every number in the previous rung came out of Σ cₙ Pₙ(cos ψ) — a covariance that depends on the angular distance and nothing else. Ground has grain: at a modest anisotropy the same 20 km baseline omits 165 millimetres along it and 241 across, and the isotropic answer understates the worse direction by 18.4 per cent.

 Twenty-four versions of one shape, and not one of them gains area. The same closed boundary rotated twenty-four times and simplified at the same tolerance. If the area error were noise the values would straddle zero and their mean would fall towards it; they do not. Every one is negative, the mean is -0.4644 per cent, and the mean is 71 standard errors from zero. A bias of that size cannot be removed by averaging over more boundaries, which is the only defence anybody has against a rounding error. What a machine does with it

A thousand features are wrong in the same direction

The area a simplification costs is unpredictable in sign for one feature. Over a population it is not: twenty-four presentations of one shape all lose area, the mean is seventy standard errors below zero, and no amount of aggregation removes it.

 a transform boundary: what the ground is doing to itself. The same 72 places as the velocity field, with the strain rate computed from the motion's own four partial derivatives rather than from its size. Each cross carries two principal rates: the long stroke is the greater extension, the barred one is shortening. The largest second invariant anywhere here is 241.0 nanostrain/yr, and the arithmetic is the same arithmetic that reads a projection's indicatrix. Drawn in Azimuthal equidistant centred on the window. What the numbers refer to

The ground has an indicatrix too

Two hundred and forty-six essays hold the Earth still while the page is measured. The ground is moving at tens of millimetres a year, and the motion is a map with four partial derivatives — so the same construction that draws Tissot's ellipse draws one for the ground, and the fastest plate in the model returns exactly nothing.

 One degenerate zero, nudged, becomes two ordinary ones. The direction of steepest ascent within twelve degrees of the north pole, for the sectoral harmonic alone and with two amounts of the tesseral added. On the left is one zero of index −2, a monkey saddle: three ways up and three ways down, and a Hessian that vanishes. On the right are two ordinary saddles of index −1 each, both of which the second-derivative test names correctly. Nothing has been added to the field but a term whose size can be made as small as anyone likes, and the classification changes at every nonzero value of it while the total does not change at all. Measuring distortion

The second derivative cannot classify

Seven essays have used a second derivative to measure a size. The one thing a second derivative is classically used to do is say what KIND of thing is at a point, and on a sphere that use fails: the determinant test totals six where the truth is two, its failure is confined to exactly the field it is asked about, and the count that gets it right never differentiates twice.

 One velocity field, three frames. a transform boundary, drawn three times. The ground is the same ground and the arrows are not the same arrows: the fastest velocity anywhere in the 3 panels is 70.6 mm/yr and in the quietest panel the same places are nearly still. A frame is a choice of which rotation to subtract, and there is no measurement that picks one. Every panel has the same strain rate at every point. What the numbers refer to

A velocity needs a frame and a strain rate does not

One place on a plate boundary moves at 5.3, 7.0, 10.2 or 54.6 millimetres a year, and towards the south-east or the north-west, depending on which rotation was subtracted first. Every one of those readings reports the same strain rate, to two parts in a hundred thousand million.

 A 900 km circular accuracy at 55° north, projected. Six thousand ground positions drawn from a circular error of 900 kilometres about one place, each projected in Mercator and plotted as a displacement from the projected place. The curve is the nominal 95 per cent ellipse, computed the standard way — the ground covariance sandwiched between the projection's own derivatives. It holds 93.83 per cent of the points, the cloud is measurably longer than it along its own long axis by 5.52 per cent, and it is not symmetric: the third moment along the page's second axis is 0.727 rather than zero. Measuring distortion

The error ellipse is not an ellipse

Rung two pushed a covariance through a projection with the same matrix sandwich that draws an indicatrix. That is a first-order operation on a map with a second derivative, so the propagated distribution is not the ellipse the sandwich draws — and a nominal 95 per cent ellipse holds 93.06 per cent on one projection and 95.63 on another, in opposite directions, from the same input.

 Töpfer's square root is one line of a family. The fraction of features surviving to a smaller scale, for four stated populations whose size distributions differ only in their exponent. Every one is a straight line on these axes, and the slope of each is its own exponent: 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.2. Töpfer's radical law is the line at 0.5 — the square root — and it is exact for that population and for no other. The law is not a rule of thumb with exceptions; it is a theorem with a hypothesis nobody states. What a machine does with it

How many features a scale can carry

Töpfer's radical law is quoted everywhere as a rule of thumb. It is not one: it is a theorem about a size distribution with a Pareto exponent of exactly one half, exact to 1.8 per cent for that population and out by 99.4 per cent for a lognormal one.

 The same resolution, the grid moved, and a different answer. The same field at a fixed 18 × 9 division, with the grid slid by fractions of a cell. Nothing is lost — every cell is the same size as before and there are exactly as many of them — and the largest reported value moves over a range of 12.59 per cent. That is more than a whole halving of the resolution costs, which is 10.15 per cent on the same field. The scale effect has an excuse and this one has none. What a machine does with it

The answer depends on the cells it was counted in

Nine essays price the cell as a shape. The number reported out of it is priced nowhere: sliding a grid without changing its resolution moves the largest reported value by 12.6 per cent, which is more than halving the resolution costs.

 How long a network has before it breaks its own tolerance. The years until the worst baseline in a 400-kilometre network exceeds five millimetres plus one part per million of its length, which is an ordinary first-order specification. A boundary zone breaks it in 16 years; a plate interior takes 1819; a rigid plate never does, at any speed, because a rigid body keeps every distance it has. Bars are clipped at five thousand years. What the numbers refer to

A grid stops fitting the ground it was laid on

A hundred-kilometre baseline across a plate boundary changes by 815 millimetres in fifty years, and the same baseline on the fastest plate in the model changes by nothing at all in the same fifty. The interval before an ordinary first-order specification is broken is six years in one place and never in the other.

 How aligned a region's ellipses are, for every projection and every region. The resultant length of the doubled indicatrix orientations, over 12 projections and 9 regions. One means every ellipse in the region points the same way; zero means they are spread evenly and cancel. Three cylindrical rows are 1.00 throughout, and everything else varies down the row and across it — which is the answer to the question the number was first stated without: alignment is a property of the pair. Mercator's row is the exception that is not a measurement, because a conformal projection's indicatrix is a circle and a circle has no orientation. Measuring distortion

Whether the ellipses point the same way

The previous rung found that alignment decides whether the average of a region's deformations is above or below the deformation of its average, and stated it at ten projections over one region. Swept over a hundred and eight pairs, the answer is that alignment belongs to the projection 28 per cent, to the region 38, and to neither 33 — and two rows of the table turn out not to be measurements at all.

 Four cities, met — the triangular, x first construction. Every cell drawn here holds the same area of ground and a different area of page: the map has been constructed so that its areal scale factor is the density it was handed, cell by cell, over a contrast of 25.99 to one. The residual against that target is 5.1e-6, measured from the map's own derivatives rather than from the construction. What it cost is the shape: the redistribution alone reaches 139.1° of angular deformation and averages 70.4°, on top of whatever the equal-area projection under it was already doing. Measuring distortion

A map drawn to a density it was handed

Two hundred and twenty-six essays measure distortion after the fact. This one specifies it: a density is handed to a map as a boundary condition, the areal scale factor comes out equal to it to five parts in a million, and every other invariant the site owns becomes the price.

 One of these three lines does not slope. Three lengths at each zoom, for a world coordinate near the antimeridian. The pixel halves with every level, as it must. The spacing between representable double-precision values is far below it and halves with it. The spacing between representable SINGLE-precision values does not move at all — 2.0 metres at every zoom, because it is a property of the size of the number and the world does not get smaller. The two cross at zoom 17, and past it a vertex snaps to a lattice coarser than the pixels it is drawn into. What a machine does with it

The renderer runs out of numbers before the zoom does

Eleven essays price the pyramid in exact arithmetic. The pipeline that draws it carries single precision, where a world coordinate near the antimeridian quantises to two metres — at every zoom, because the number does not get smaller when the pixel does. At zoom 22 that is fifty-four pixels.

 A compacting basin, and the tilt it produces. The stated vertical velocity field — a bowl of subsidence 120 km across, with no mass leaving — drawn as circles proportional to the rate, with the tilt of the ground surface as the arrows. The subsidence is largest at the centre and the tilt is exactly zero there, because a smooth bowl has no gradient at its own bottom. The largest tilt is 125.5 nanoradians a year, on a ring at the bowl's own scale length over root two, and it is the quantity a levelling network measures. What the numbers refer to

A vertical rate needs a height system

Four rungs of this anchor measure the two-by-two horizontal tensor, because that is what a tangent chart returns. The larger signal in a subsiding basin is vertical — 126 nanoradians a year of tilt against 0.76 nanostrain a year of horizontal strain — and it is not a measurement at all until the surface it is measured against is named, because that surface is moving too.

 Four cartograms of one density. The same stated density — four cities — met four different ways, drawn on the same cells. Every panel is a correct cartogram of the same numbers: a region's page area is proportional to its mass in all four. They do not look alike, because the areal scale factor fixes one number per point and a map has four derivatives, so three degrees of freedom per point are left over and each construction spends them differently. Measuring distortion

Every density can be met and none is free

Four maps of the same data, all of them correct, charging between 57.6° and 104.4° of angular deformation for it. There is no such thing as the cartogram of a density — there is an infinite family, and somebody picked a member of it without saying so.

 A parent and its children, twice. An aperture-7 hexagonal hierarchy beside a square one. The heavy outline is the parent and the light ones are its children. On the right every child is wholly inside and the four of them tile the parent exactly. On the left the child lattice is turned by 19.107° relative to the parent's, only the central child is wholly inside, and 7.14% of the parent is covered by no child of its own. The two families have exactly the same total area — a hexagon cannot be tiled by smaller hexagons at any ratio at all, which is why the mismatch is a construction rather than an approximation. What a machine does with it

A cell's children do not fit inside it

Ten rungs price one cell system at one resolution, and every one of them is used hierarchically. A hexagonal hierarchy does not nest: at the aperture-seven scheme the discrete global grids use, one fourteenth of a parent is covered by no child of its own, exactly, and each of the six ring children is eleven twelfths inside.

All threads