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

The thread: Computed, not quoted — page 4

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 73 to 96 of 299.
Three surfaces with the same curvature, one of which is a sphere. Every one of these is a surface of revolution whose Gaussian curvature is 1 at every point, built by solving r″ + r = 0 for the meridian rather than by writing a shape down. The spindle closes to a point with an angle deficit, the sphere closes smoothly, and the bulge does not close at all — it ends in two circular edges. A surveyor confined to a patch of any of them, measuring angles and distances, cannot tell which one it is. The impossibility

Two surfaces with the same curvature

The ladder's base says curvature is the obstruction to a faithful map. It has never asked whether curvature is the whole obstruction — and it is, locally: there is a whole family of surfaces with the unit sphere's curvature at every point, none of them a sphere, and a geodesic circle drawn on one agrees with the same circle on another to one part in 10¹⁴.

 A great circle and the ruled line, on Mercator. The shorter of the two routes is the curved one. The great circle between the two marked points is drawn against the straight line a ruler would give between them on Mercator; over 70° of arc the curve departs from the ruled line by 11.9 per cent of the chord. The flexion at the midpoint, which is the rate the image turns per radian of arc, is 0.788; the angular deformation there is 0.00°. Measuring distortion

Tissot stops at the first derivative

Every quantity this site has measured is read off one derivative of the projection. A map can be conformal at a point — the indicatrix a circle, the angular deformation zero to eleven figures — and still bend every geodesic through it, at a rate of 0.839 radians of turning per radian of arc.

 Why a levelled height is not a distance. The correction between raw levelling and orthometric height, for lines at 200, 500, 1000, 2000 metres above the geoid running north from 50°. It is not instrument error: level surfaces converge towards the pole, so a run that stays on one of them gains height relative to another. A line 2000 metres up reaches 647 millimetres over 400 kilometres. The dashed line is 10 millimetres, which is about what a first-order levelling network closes to over that distance — so this is not a refinement, it is the larger of the two numbers. What the numbers refer to

A levelled height is not a distance

Level surfaces converge towards the poles by five metres in a thousand, so a chain of perfectly executed levelling observations does not sum to a height difference. The correction over four hundred kilometres of northing is larger than the network's own closure.

 Three curves between 45°N and 55°N, 3026 km apart. The normal section observed from the first point, the normal section observed from the second, and the geodesic, each plotted as its distance to one side of the great-circle chord between the two ends. The two sections are 79.0 metres apart at their widest and the geodesic runs between them, 53.3 metres from the first. In LENGTH they differ by almost nothing — 2.40 millimetres over 3026 kilometres — so an observation that follows the wrong one measures the right distance along the wrong ground. On a sphere all three coincide exactly. What is taught wrongly

The normal section is not the geodesic

A theodolite at A sighted on B swings in one plane and the instrument at B sighted back swings in another, so the two observations trace different curves on the ground — 79 metres apart over 3,026 kilometres — and the shortest path is neither of them. The lengths differ by 2.4 millimetres, so the wrong curve measures the right distance along the wrong ground.

 Exact distances from two places, and from nowhere else. The two-point equidistant projection with London and Cape Town as its centres, 87.0° apart. The light circles are drawn in the map at radii of 30°, 60°, 90°, 120° about each centre; every one of them is a true distance circle on the sphere, to 1.8e-14 relative. Between two points that are not centres the drawn distance is wrong by up to 633 per cent. What each projection optimises

A projection written as a condition

Instead of a formula, a sentence: the distance from these two places must be exactly right. The map that satisfies it is found by intersecting two circles, it is exact to five parts in a hundred million million, and it exists over the whole sphere for a reason that belongs to the sphere rather than to the construction.

 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 families

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.

 The taught rule against the measurement, on 30 regions. Each cell is a region built to order — a box of the stated height and width-to-height ratio, centred at the stated latitude — with the family that actually scores best over it, and whether that is what the rule says. Every family is given its own parameters for the region: the conic its cone constant, the cylindrical its standard parallel and the choice of a normal or transverse axis, the azimuthal its centre. The rule is right on 19 of 30, and where it is wrong it is wrong in one direction: it keys on latitude, and what decides the answer is shape. What is taught wrongly

The rule of thumb, scored

Cylindrical near the equator, conic in the middle latitudes, azimuthal at the poles. It is the most repeated piece of practical advice in cartography and it has never been run against a population of regions. Run against thirty, it is right nineteen times, and every one of its failures has the same shape.

 One length, three corrugations. A straight segment shortened by a factor of 0.9, then wiggled across its own direction until its length is back to what it was. The wiggle's amplitude is what buys the length and the number of wiggles is free, so all three curves have exactly the target length while the third stays 16 times closer to the shortened segment than the first. That is the mechanism: the family converges to a map that is not isometric, while every member of it is. The impossibility

Impossible in two derivatives, possible in one

The impossibility this whole collection rests on computes a second derivative, so it is a statement about maps that have two. Take one away and it is false: a corrugation restores an exact length while converging to the map that does not, and iterating it gives a flattening whose derivative converges and whose curvature runs to half a million.

 A deflection of 10 arcseconds, and what it hides. The ellipsoid normal and the plumb line at one point, with the geoid tilted against the ellipsoid by 10 arcseconds — drawn 3000× steeper than life, because at true scale the two lines are indistinguishable. The relation is exact and linear: an arcsecond of deflection is the geoid rising 4.85 millimetres in a kilometre, so 10 arcseconds is 48.5 millimetres per kilometre. A star sight measures the plumb line's direction, so astronomic latitude differs from geodetic by exactly this angle — 309 metres of ground, at a point where the coordinate itself is correct. What the numbers refer to

The plumb line is not the normal

A latitude measured from the stars and a latitude that means a position on the ellipsoid are different angles, because a plumb bob hangs along gravity and gravity is not perpendicular to a mathematical surface. Ten arcseconds of difference is 309 metres of ground.

 Three distances, two degrees of freedom. The Chamberlin trimetric construction with its three centres marked. A point is placed by intersecting circles of its true distance from each centre — but three circles in a plane do not meet in a point, and the three candidate positions obtained by taking the conditions two at a time are 17.0 km apart at the sample point. They are drawn here magnified 120 times about their own centroid, which is where Chamberlin's rule puts the point. The residual is not an error in the arithmetic; it is the amount by which the sphere refuses to be a plane, and it grows as the cube of the size of the region. What each projection optimises

Three conditions are one too many

Two distances fix a point in a plane and a third has no freedom left to be satisfied with. Chamberlin's trimetric construction averages the three positions that satisfy two conditions each, and the spread between them — never zero anywhere, 22 km over North America, growing as the cube of the region — is the price of the extra clause.

 The route at height does not lie above the route on the ground. London to Tokyo, solved at the surface and again at a stated height, with the two ground tracks compared point for point. At a cruising altitude of eleven kilometres the two part by 11.8 metres; the departure is proportional to the height, at a fitted slope of 0.997. On a sphere the same measurement returns 2.7e-9 metres, because the offset of a sphere is a sphere and the two geodesics coincide exactly. The offset of an ellipsoid is not an ellipsoid, and this is what that costs. Paths and directions

The shortest route is not at sea level

Ten rungs route on a surface and nothing is ever flown on one. The offset of a sphere is a sphere, so at altitude the great circle is the great circle. The offset of an ellipsoid is not an ellipsoid — its radii of curvature are M + h and N + h, which belong to no ellipsoid — so the shortest route at cruising height does not lie above the shortest route on the ground.

 Two conventions, and neither of them finds the blunder. A blunder of 350 mm added to leg 3 of a closed traverse, producing a misclosure of 350 mm — one part in 8344, which most specifications would accept. Bowditch's rule shares the misclosure out in proportion to leg length; the Transit rule shares it in proportion to each leg's component along the axis being corrected. Both close the figure exactly, so both are valid; they disagree with each other by up to 14 mm; and neither puts more than 104 mm of correction on the leg that is actually wrong. A rule for distributing a misclosure is a convention for producing consistent numbers, and it is not an instrument for finding errors. Grids, and what a survey does

The two ways to spread a misclosure

Bowditch's rule and the Transit rule take the same closed figure and the same misclosure and disagree about which legs were wrong. Both close it exactly, neither puts the correction on the leg that actually carries the blunder, and no measurement can settle which is right.

 A straight line stored in Web Mercator, and where it really goes. Two points 5570 kilometres apart, joined by a straight segment in the plane the file's coordinates are in. Drawn on that plane it is a straight line and looks like the route; on the ground it is the curve marked measured, and the geodesic between the same two endpoints is the other one. The profile below is the distance between them along the line, reaching 718 kilometres at 49 per cent of the way across. Nothing here is an error in the data: both endpoints are exact, and the whole of the discrepancy is the word straight. What a machine does with it

A straight segment is a claim about a plane

Two exact endpoints, joined by a straight line in the plane the file is stored in. On the ground the line is 718 kilometres from the route it claims between New York and London, and 2,961 between London and Tokyo. The departure grows as the square of the length — fitted exponent 2.001 — so a stated tolerance costs vertices as a square root.

 How each projection escapes being one to one. Eighteen projections, and the theorem allows no fourth column. A map of the whole sphere either leaves ground undrawn, or draws one place as a curve, or is cut so that one ground curve appears twice — and 11 of the eighteen do more than one of those. The three columns are a solid angle, a count of places and a page length, which is why they are three columns rather than one score: there is no rate at which a hemisphere converts into a pole. The impossibility

No map of the whole sphere is one to one

Eleven essays establish that no map preserves distance, and every step of that argument needs a distance. There is a second impossibility underneath it that needs nothing at all: a sphere is compact and has no boundary, so a continuous map of it into the page cannot also be one to one. Eighteen library projections, eighteen escapes, and not one of them free.

 The order the corrections go in, and what it costs. Setting out a 51.8 km line on the UTM zone 31N means turning a grid bearing into an azimuth to observe, and there are two corrections: the meridian convergence, 0.8669° here, and the arc-to-chord correction, 6.242″. Each bar carries the lateral offset it produces at the far end of the line, because a bearing error is a number nobody can picture and a sideways miss is the thing that misses. The exact arc-to-chord and the classical formula every manual gives differ by 0.0044″, which is 1.10 mm at the far end — small, real, and the reason the corrections have an order rather than a sum. Grids, and what a survey does

Setting out runs the chain backwards

Turning a design coordinate into something to observe on the ground means undoing the reduction chain, and undoing a chain reverses the order as well as the operations. Two of the corrections do not commute, and getting them the wrong way round misses by a millimetre at fifty kilometres.

 Which edges to cut is a spanning tree. The icosahedron's faces as nodes and its 30 shared edges as links. A net keeps 19 of those joins and cuts the rest, and the joins have to form a spanning tree — connected, so the net is one piece, and acyclic, so it lies flat. The heavy links are one such tree. The number of distinct nets is therefore the number of spanning trees of this graph, which Kirchhoff's theorem gives as a determinant: 5,184,000 for the icosahedron. The families

The cut has to go somewhere

A solid lies flat only if it is cut open, and which edges to cut is a spanning tree of the face graph — so the icosahedron has exactly 5,184,000 distinct nets, a determinant rather than an estimate. All 384 of the cube's were laid flat and tested: not one overlaps, while an irregular tetrahedron overlaps in four of its sixteen.

 Everywhere within 3,000 km of London, drawn in Lambert cylindrical. The set of places exactly 3,000 kilometres from London by the shortest route, projected point by point. On the ground it is a circle — every point of it is the same distance from the centre, in every direction. On this page the longest radius from the drawn centre is 4.17 times the shortest, so a reader with a ruler measures two different distances for one ground distance depending on which way the ruler points. The two extreme radii are drawn. Paths and directions

A circle of a distance is not a circle

Eleven essays in this field have followed a route across a map. A range ring is not a route — it is the edge of a set — and drawing one exposes a failure the route essays cannot: the same ground distance comes out 4.17 times longer in one direction than another on a common projection, and 13.03 times at 70° north.

 A 20° shape across the antimeridian, in the space where the numbers live. Longitude runs across the page from −180° to 180°, which is where the failure is: the shape is one rectangle on the ground and two pieces in the numbering, and every operation that treats longitude as a real number sees the two. The bounding box comes out 359° wide instead of 20°, the planar area comes out 17 times too large because the shoelace encloses the complement, and the midpoint of a segment from one edge to the other lands 20015 kilometres away — the antipode of where it belongs. The true area, from the closed form, is 4,920,667 square kilometres. What a machine does with it

The antimeridian is a cut in the numbers

A twenty-degree box across 180° has a bounding box of 359.4°, a planar area seventeen times too large, and a midpoint 20,015 kilometres from where it belongs — which is the antipode, exactly. Moving the cut moves the failure and never removes it, because a circle cannot be numbered by an interval.

 The two reductions, at a grid factor of 1.0004. A measurement made on the ground has to be brought to the ellipsoid and then to the grid, and the two corrections have opposite signs. The elevation factor is R/(R+h) and always shrinks; the grid factor here is 1.0004, which stretches. Their product is the only number a surveyor can use. They cancel exactly at 2551 metres. At 1500 metres the combined factor is 165 parts per million, which is 1.65 metres on a 10 kilometre baseline. What the numbers refer to

The ground is not the grid

A tape measure on a hillside has to be brought down to the ellipsoid and then out onto the map, and the two corrections have opposite signs. On a grid whose scale factor exceeds one there is exactly one elevation where they cancel — 2,551 metres, for a factor of 1.0004.

 Every candidate fitted to one map's graticule, ranked by what is left over. The map is drawn in Conformal conic over a region 40° tall centred at 45° north, and the projection is not told to the fit. Each candidate is evaluated at the same 121 graticule crossings, its own parameters are searched, the best plane similarity between its output and the picture is removed, and what remains is drawn as a proportion of the map's own width on a logarithmic scale. Conformal conic fits to 1.3e-10, which is the arithmetic's floor; the next candidate is 3.7e+7 times worse. What is taught wrongly

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.

 Eight world maps ranked by their second derivative. Each projection's root-mean-square flexion and skewness over the whole sphere, combined and ranked. The first-order ranking of the same eight by Kavrayskiy's criterion is given beside each bar; Spearman's rank correlation between the two orderings is 0.69. The two criteria are measuring different derivatives of the same maps and there is no reason for them to agree. Measuring distortion

The second derivative has its own ranking

Rank eight world maps by how much they stretch and Mercator comes sixth of eight. Rank the same eight by how much they bend and it comes third. The two halves of the second-order score disagree with each other more sharply than either disagrees with the first-order one — Spearman 0.45 against 0.69.

 The same coordinate on four datums. One pair of numbers — 2.0° west, 54.5° north — read as a coordinate on OSGB36, ED50, NAD27 and on WGS84, and plotted where each reading puts the mark on the ground. The spread runs to 195 metres, and the height changes by 51, 44, 47 metres, which is the component nobody quotes. What the numbers refer to

The third coordinate moves too

A datum shift is quoted as a horizontal displacement because horizontal is what people look at. The transformation acts on a three-dimensional point, and its vertical component is between a quarter and a half of the horizontal one — 51 metres, for a British coordinate.

 The minimum-distortion conformal map of an elongated region, 30° by 10°. The conformal projection of an elongated region, 30° by 10° whose scale is constant on the boundary, which is Chebyshev's criterion, obtained by fitting eight terms of a series rather than by choosing a named projection. The scale factor runs from 0.98640 to 1.00000, a spread of 1.01379; on the boundary itself the largest departure from constancy is 2.13e-7 in the log, which is what the fit achieved and not what it was told. Each dot is an interior sample shaded by its own departure from the boundary's scale. What each projection optimises

Solving for the map instead of choosing it

Chebyshev's criterion has sat on this site since its second phase with one case it could be applied to: the spherical cap, whose answer is the stereographic projection. For any other region the site stated the criterion and stopped. It is a linear least-squares fit, and the fitted map beats every named projection over the region it was fitted to.

 Which of eight places is nearest, decided on the ground and decided on the page. Every cell of the window shaded by which of eight places across Europe is nearest on the ground, with the cells the page's own answer would hand to a different site drawn in the failure colour. Plate carrée misassigns 13.67 per cent of the window's ground area — 3,058 thousand square kilometres. The misassigned cells are not scattered: they lie in bands along the boundaries, which is what a systematic error looks like and what a sampled test of a few query points is least likely to find. Paths and directions

Nearest of many is a partition

One reach question with one source is a disc. With several sources it is a division of the whole surface, every place belonging to whichever source is nearest — and computing that division in the plane the data is stored in hands away between 0.75 and 22.16 per cent of the ground, in unbroken strips up to 1,591 kilometres across.

All threads