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 from the projection's own formulae. None is a number recalled from a table. Essays 241 to 264 of 383.
Two lines of position replace two circles thousands of kilometres across. A ship at 50° N 20° W observes two bodies at altitudes of 45.60° and 42.69°, which place it on two circles 4,938 and 5,261 km in radius, drawn faint. From an assumed position 150 km to the north-east, each body's azimuth is laid off (dashed) and its intercept marked — 12.2 km and 111 km — and a line of position drawn perpendicular to the azimuth through that point. On Mercator the two lines cross 3.28 km from the ship: each line is only its circle's tangent at the intercept, and by the time the two lines meet they have left their circles. Paths and directions

A line of position is Newton's method, but only on a conformal chart

An altitude of a star puts a ship on a circle five thousand kilometres across, and the intercept method replaces that circle with a straight line. On Mercator the fix those lines give is one step of Newton's method: its error falls as the square of the assumed position's, and re-running it turns 300 kilometres into 24 metres in two steps. On a sheet that does not correct longitude for latitude it keeps a fixed share of every east–west error, one less the cosine of the latitude — 36 per cent at 50° north.

 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 conjecture 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 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

Seven projections have no continuous symmetry, and they are almost exactly the set anybody would choose for a world map. That coincidence came with a conjecture and 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

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.

 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 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

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.

 Four lines of position, two unknowns, and four gaps that do not close. Four bodies at azimuths of 20°, 110°, 200°, 290° from the ship, each sight given an independent error of about 2 km along its azimuth. No point lies on all four lines. The least-squares point — the hollow dot — is the one whose squared distances to the four lines are smallest, and the dashed perpendiculars are those distances: 0.31, 2.83, 0.32, 2.83 km. The ship, the solid dot, is 3.21 km away. Three lines would have left a triangle and no residual worth the name; four leave two degrees of freedom, and the four gaps are the first quantity here that can be read as a measurement of the sights themselves. Paths and directions

The residual reports the error the fix was immune to

A fourth sight gives a four-line fit something three lines never had: a leftover. The leftover is a real measurement of the sights, and it is useless exactly where it is needed. One number computed from the four azimuths alone — before any star is observed — says how much of a common error reaches the residual, and it is 1 when the bodies stand at the quarters of the compass, where such an error moves the fix by nothing at all, and 0.004 when they are bunched within sixty degrees, where it moves the fix by two kilometres.

 Two pairs of ten are in every picture that can be drawn. London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney, Cape Town, drawn holding seven of their ten pairs' bearings exactly — the most any flat picture of five places can hold. Of the 15,360 ways of choosing seven pairs and a direction on each, 152 give a picture whose held arrows all point forwards, and London–Tokyo and Sydney–Cape Town, drawn heavy, appear in every one of them. The three pairs this particular choice leaves out are dashed. The price is paid by the rest: the worst, New York to Sydney, is 142.1° from the truth. The impossibility

The pair that cannot be held is not the one the geometry names

Four world cities have exactly one pair of the six that no drawable picture holds, and the obvious candidate — the pair whose bearing there and bearing back disagree most — is not it. That quantity predicts something else exactly: whether a held pair's arrow has a forced direction. It separates the two groups with a clean gap and nothing in between. And at five places there is no forbidden pair at all, so the four-place case was a statement about how little room five constraints leave rather than about the map.

 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.

 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

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.

 A coast that agrees with its graticule, except where it was copied. The outline of Japan on a map whose graticule is a conformal conic projection. 30 per cent of the coast, drawn in the second ink, was copied from a sinusoidal sheet of the same ground and fitted into place so that its two ends meet the coast either side, the dots. The dashed line is the coast the graticule predicts. Everywhere else the drawn coast lies on it exactly; along the copied stretch it departs by up to 9.4 thousandths of the map's width. Nothing in the graticule shows it. What is taught wrongly

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.

 Where the summits are, and where the water divides. A stated range 100 km across and 80 km long, its summits 3,000 m high and about 35 km from the western edge, with a plateau falling gently to the eastern edge. Over 40 km of the range the plateau carries a broad rise up to 18 km east of the summits, and a gorge cuts through the range in the middle of that stretch. The dashed line runs through the highest summits; the solid line is the watershed, computed from the land. Lightly shaded ground drains west. Where they part, the darker ground lies east of the summits and drains west: 331 km², reaching 18.1 km from the summits. The terrain is stated, not surveyed. Grids, and what a survey does

The highest summits stay where they are, and the watershed does not

A treaty that puts a boundary on the highest crests which divide the waters names one line where the water divides on the summits and two where a river has cut back through the range. On a stated range the two part by up to eighteen kilometres. They also differ in kind: an error of ten metres in every height moves the summits three metres and the watershed on the plateau more than a kilometre.

 Two defensible answers from the same four sights, and they are kilometres apart. Four bodies within sixty degrees of one another at azimuths of 60°, 80°, 100°, 120°, each sight carrying an independent error of about 2 km and the same common error of 3 km. The four lines are nearly parallel, so a step towards every body at once is almost exactly a step to the south. The two-unknown least-squares point takes that step and lands 3.66 km from the ship; the three-unknown fit, which solves for the common error as well, refuses it and lands 2.22 km away — its estimate of the common error being 1.87 km. Neither is wrong. They are the two ends of one exchange. Paths and directions

What the extra unknown costs where nothing can see it

Four lines of position can estimate a common error in every sight as well as the position. The estimate is honest — three kilometres put in comes back as 2.8 — and where the residual is blind, its scatter is plus or minus thirty-one, and the fix that carries it is scattered fourteen kilometres from the ship against the biased fix's two and a half. Letting the residual choose between the two is worse than either, because a test with no power is a one-in-twenty lottery on the worse answer.

 Six of eighteen, where either kind alone can hold only five. London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney, drawn holding five distances exactly — the thick edges — and one bearing exactly, the arrow from London to New York. Six exact constraints, where five distances is the most any flat picture of four places can hold and five bearings is the most it can hold of those. All six are satisfied to 1.9 × 10⁻¹¹. The sixth is not free room found by luck: a picture is blind to where it sits, how it is turned and how large it is, distances see the last of those three and bearings see the second, and a picture holding both kinds is blind only to where it sits. Tokyo–Sydney, dashed, is the distance left out; the picture is wrong about it by 6.9%. The impossibility

A mixed picture holds one more, and what it is holding is north

A flat picture of n places can hold 2n − 3 distances exactly, and it can hold 2n − 3 bearings exactly, and it is tempting to read one budget spent twice. It is not one budget. A distance cannot see which way the page is turned and a bearing cannot see how large it is drawn, so a picture constrained by both kinds is blind to one freedom instead of two — and holds 2n − 2. For four cities that is six of the eighteen available where either kind alone can hold five, and nothing whatever can hold seven: nought of 31,824 choices.

 The same composite with a strip spliced in, and the meridians no longer turn a corner. Goode's composite redrawn with an equal-area strip of 8° of latitude spliced between the sinusoidal and the Mollweide cap, shaded. The strip's parallel half-length is the unique cubic matching the sinusoidal's value and slope at 36.74° and the Mollweide's at 44.74°, so every meridian arrives and leaves along one direction and the 11.2° corner the plain join turns at 60° of longitude is gone. Nothing else about the map is changed: the cap is the unmodified Mollweide, and the composite is equal-area throughout. The families

An equal-area strip removes the corner and charges nothing for it

Goode's seam matches three quantities and breaks the fourth: every meridian but the central one turns a corner there. A third map spliced between the two removes it — four conditions on one function, satisfied uniquely by a cubic — and the expected price does not arrive. The spliced composite carries less angular deformation across the seam than the plain join, not more: 34.7° against 37.7° at sixty degrees of longitude. What it does leave is the same defect one derivative up, a jump in curvature falling as the reciprocal of the strip's width.

 Three criteria, three maps, and the tolerance band each one encloses. A spherical square of 25° circumradius under three conformal maps, with the two contours at ±0.5% of true scale drawn heavy and the region between them the area each map keeps inside that tolerance. Chebyshev's map holds 37.0 per cent of the area there, the mean-square map 45.4, and the map fitted to the tolerance itself 64.1. The faint lines are further multiples of the tolerance, and they say where each map spends what it is not counting: the third map's outermost contours are much further out than the other two's. What each projection optimises

The map that keeps the most ground inside a tolerance

A surveyor does not want the smallest worst case or the smallest mean square. They want as much of the territory as possible within a stated tolerance of true scale and are indifferent to how far outside the rest goes. That is a third criterion, it is answered by a third map, and on a 25° square at half a per cent it keeps 64.1 per cent of the area where the mean-square map keeps 45.4 and Chebyshev's 37.0 — bought by sending a tail out to 5.6 per cent where Chebyshev's worst is 1.5.

 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.

 Three budgets for one meridian distance, seven orders of magnitude apart. Every quantity that can make a computed distance from the equator to the pole wrong, on a scale of powers of ten. The series in the third flattening, at its worst anywhere on the meridian, is out by 76 nm at four sine terms, 31 µm at three and 22.0 mm at two. The two conventions WGS84 and GRS80 put the pole 82 µm apart. The ellipsoid that best fits the Earth is known only to 15.7 cm from its axis and 563 µm from its flattening, and WGS84 puts the pole 67.2 cm away from it. What is taught wrongly

An ellipsoid computed to a nanometre is known to a decimetre

The meridian series is exact to seventy-six nanometres on WGS84, and WGS84 is exact by definition: its axis and flattening are conventions with no uncertainty at all. The ellipsoid that actually fits the Earth is a measurement, known to sixteen centimetres from equator to pole, and WGS84 puts the pole sixty-seven centimetres away from it. From its second term, the series is more accurate than anything it is used to compute.

 Forty-two starts, forty-two answers. Every local optimum coordinate ascent reaches from 42 starts on the same region and the same criterion — a 25° spherical square at a tolerance of ±0.5% — plotted at the share of area it keeps. They run from 36.98 per cent to 67.50, a spread of 30.5 points, and no two of them are the same map: clustered on their scale fields rather than their coefficients, 42 of the 42 are distinct. The two marked starts are the ones anybody would actually use — Chebyshev's map reaches 36.98 per cent and the mean-square map 64.05, and neither is the best this search found. What each projection optimises

A criterion worth using is one whose answer is not unique

Forty-two starts on one region and one tolerance give forty-two different maps, keeping from 36.98 per cent of the area to 67.50. The two starts anybody would actually use — Chebyshev's map and the mean-square map — end 27.1 points apart, which is more than the criterion buys over either of them. And the spread is widest at exactly the tolerance where the criterion is worth using at all, because both facts are the same fact: an objective with a flat top and a sharp edge has somewhere to hide answers.

All threads