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

The thread: Computed, not quoted — page 7

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 145 to 168 of 299.
The error of a spherical formula is twice the flattening. The worst angular deformation of the spherical Mercator formulae applied to each body's own latitudes, against that body's flattening, on logarithmic axes. The points are measured by differencing the projection; the line is 2f radians, which is not fitted. The two agree to a third of a per cent for Mercury, the Earth and Mars, and depart by 3.3 and 5.1 per cent for Jupiter and Saturn, whose flattenings are too large for the first term to be the whole story. The site's headline number — 0.3848° on Earth — is an instance of this law rather than a fact about Web Mercator. What the numbers refer to

The same projection on a different body

A projection's distortion does not depend on the body's size at all — only on its flattening — so Web Mercator's 0.3848° of angular deformation is not a fact about Web Mercator. It is 2f radians, and the same mistake made on Mars measures 0.6765°, on Jupiter 7.68°, and on a body scaled ten times larger than Mars the identical number to twelve figures.

 10,000 observations of one place, averaged 120 times. Left: 400 single observations of the same place, with a 60-kilometre standard deviation east and north, drawn across ±400 km. They are scattered about the truth and their average is unbiased on the ground. Right: 120 independent averages of 10,000 such observations each, computed on the page and taken back to the ground, drawn across ±1.8 km. The cloud is tight, as averaging ten thousand things should make it, and it is not centred on the cross: it sits 489 m away, against 403 m predicted by the projection's second derivative alone. Measuring distortion

The average of noisy positions moves

Average sixty thousand scattered observations of one place on a Mercator map and the answer is 404 metres too far north — at every sample size, because it is a bias and not noise. The same average on the Lambert cylindrical equal-area is 404 metres too far south, the two being ½ (σ²/R) tan φ and its exact negative, and on the plate carrée it is not displaced at all.

 How far each page reorders the shapes. The number of pairs of shapes whose order on the page differs from their order on the ground, out of 36, for ten projections. Four of them put a shape other than the geodesic disc at the top — Equirectangular, Lambert azimuthal equal-area, Robinson, Miller cylindrical — which means the shape that attains the isoperimetric bound on the sphere is not the most compact thing on those sheets. The projection with none is not the equal-area one; it is whichever one's stretching happens to leave this particular set of shapes alone. Paths and directions

The most compact shape depends on the paper

A geodesic disc attains the isoperimetric bound on a sphere — its score is one, exactly, at any radius. Score the same nine regions from their images on ten projections and four of them put something else on top, an oval and its own 45° rotation come out 4.7 per cent apart, and the projection that preserves the order is not the equal-area one.

 The whole sphere, in two sheets. Two stereographic charts, one centred on each pole, each carried to 100° from its own centre. Two caps cover a sphere exactly when each reaches 90°, so this is the minimal atlas with a little overlap, and the heavy circle in each is the equator — the one curve both sheets contain. Nothing smaller works: one chart cannot cover the sphere at all, which is what this field's first rung proves. What the counting also fixes is a price: the worst point of any two-chart atlas is at 90° from a centre, where a conformal chart's areal factor is exactly 6 and an equal-area one's angular deformation is 49.07°. The impossibility

Two charts are enough, and one is not

The topological minimum for an atlas of the sphere is two sheets, and the counting fixes a price nobody chose: the worst point of any two-chart atlas is 90° from a chart's centre, where a conformal chart's areal factor is exactly 4 and an equal-area one's angular deformation is 38.94°. A national series has a hundred and twenty thousand sheets, and a hundred and twenty thousand minus two of them are bought by accuracy.

 The score does not settle at any resolution. The compactness of one stated boundary — a circle with cosine ripples at eight geometrically spaced wavenumbers, so it has structure at every scale — read at sixteen vertices up to two thousand and forty-eight. The ground score falls from 0.980 to 0.834, and it keeps falling: the boundary's length grows without bound as it is resolved while the area it encloses converges, so the quotient has no limit. The four page curves sit within a fraction of a per cent of the ground curve and of each other, which is the comparison this rung exists to make. Paths and directions

The score is not stable at any scale

One boundary, read at eight resolutions from sixteen points to two thousand and forty-eight: the compactness score falls from 0.980 to 0.834 and is still falling. Changing the projection instead moves it by 0.69 per cent. The two decisions are made by the same person on the same afternoon and only one of them is ever reported.

 The indicatrix is a limit, and here it is being taken. The axis ratio of the image of a circle of radius ρ, measured from the picture rather than computed from the derivatives, against the ratio the derivatives give. It converges, and it converges as ρ² — each halving of the radius quarters the departure. At the smallest radius drawn the two agree to 7.6e-4 relative. This is what "the indicatrix is a limit" means when it is working: there is a number for the ratio to settle on, and it settles. Measuring distortion

The indicatrix at a point that has none

Ten essays on this ladder take the derivative for granted. Rung three proved the indicatrix is a limit and every figure since has assumed the limit exists. There are points on the maps this collection draws where it does not, and they are not exotic: the horizon of a gnomonic map, and every corner of every polyhedral net.

 A hexagonal tiling of the sphere, and its pentagons. 362 cells — 350 hexagons and 12 pentagons, the pentagons marked — drawn on Orthographic. The twelve are not a defect of the construction and cannot be removed by subdividing further: Euler's formula requires exactly twelve however many hexagons there are. Each pentagon here has 0.52 times the area of an average hexagon, so a count aggregated over these cells has twelve entries that mean something different from all the others. What a machine does with it

Hexagons cannot tile the sphere

Hexagons are the best cell shape a plane offers and the sphere will not take them. Euler's formula forces exactly twelve pentagons into any such tiling — twelve at 42 cells and twelve at 642, while the hexagon count rises twenty-one-fold — and each of the twelve is measurably smaller than the hexagons around it.

 What each configuration can see, and what it cannot. The smallest eigenvalue of the fit's own normal matrix — how much the residual changes for a unit move in the worst direction of parameter space — for three parameterised candidates against six configurations of the same size. A zero is not a hard fit: it is a direction the control points cannot see at all, so every value of the parameter along it gives an identical residual. 2 of 18 are at the floor of double precision, and they are not the ones a reader would guess. Where none is, the spread between the best and worst arrangement is still Infinity at a fixed point count. What is taught wrongly

Where the control points are

Five rungs fit a library to a map and ask how much to trust the winner. None asks whether the parameters are recoverable at all. On control points along one parallel an equirectangular's standard parallel is not merely hard to find — it is invisible, exactly, and five hundred and twelve points on the same parallel are as blind as eight.

 The bound was spherical, and the country is not. Three numbers per region, all in parts per million of scale spread. The first is the Chebyshev bound computed on the sphere. The second is that same optimal map used on the ellipsoid, which is what adopting it would actually deliver. The third is the bound with the ellipsoid-to-sphere factor put into the boundary condition, which is the real optimum. The penalty for using the spherical answer reaches 1.22 times — while a named candidate barely moves, because an optimal map has cancelled its own variation and has nothing left to hide a new one in. Grids, and what a survey does

The bound on the body the country is on

The best conformal grid a country could have had was computed against a bound solved on a sphere, with a note saying the flattening was second order and unquantified. It is second order for a named projection — every family's best candidate moves by under 0.7 per cent — and it is 22 per cent for the bound, because an optimal map has already cancelled its own variation and has nothing left to hide a new one in.

 The parameters are not reproducible and the map is. The three-parameter aspect search run at three grid resolutions and compared with the finest, twice over. Compared on the numbers it returns, the answers are 65° of pole apart. Compared on what they do to the region — the root-mean-square difference in angular deformation at every sample — they are 0.29° apart, against a map whose own deformation over that region averages about a degree. The disagreement recorded as a shortfall is a disagreement about coordinates for one map. What each projection optimises

Report the map, not the parameters

The previous rung found the aspect search returning the same score to 2.3 per cent from poles sixty degrees of latitude apart, and recorded that as a shortfall: the answer was not reproducible. The shortfall assumed the disagreeing triples make disagreeing maps. They do not — the three answers agree on the distortion field to a quarter of the deformation the map already has.

 Which scale fields a map could have, and which are only wishes. Liouville's equation — the Laplacian of log k equals 1/k² on the page — is the whole condition for a conformal map of a unit sphere to have a stated scale factor. The first two rows are the scale fields of real projections and they satisfy it to the differencing step. The rest are requests a designer might write, and every one of them fails — except one, which turns out to be a projection somebody already found. Asking for no distortion anywhere fails by exactly one, which is the curvature of the sphere. What each projection optimises

Not every distortion can be asked for

Six essays have written projections as conditions and asked how much freedom a condition leaves. The reverse question has never been put: a cartographer knows what distortion they want, so can they ask for it? For a conformal map the answer is a single equation, it is the Theorema Egregium in disguise, and asking for no distortion anywhere fails it by exactly the curvature of the sphere.

 Vesta, with its own coordinate lines. Vesta drawn in an orthographic projection — every figure here is a projection, including this one — with the parametric coordinate lines its published coordinates are written in. Its three semi-axes are 286.3, 278.6 and 223.2 km, so the equator is an ellipse rather than a circle and the body has no axis of revolution to define a latitude against. The surface's own radius runs from 223.2 to 286.2 km, a ratio of 1.282, and the outward normal departs from the direction out of the centre by up to 14.10°. What the numbers refer to

A map of a body with three axes

Every projection on this site is written in a latitude, and a body with three unequal axes has none: the coordinate lines are not perpendicular, Lambert's equal-area formula spreads areas by 28 per cent on Vesta, and the equal-area map that does work has a different one on every meridian.

 Five stations, ten distances, three spare. A braced quadrilateral with a centre point. Every distance between the corners and every distance to the centre is observed, 10 in all, each with a standard deviation of 8 mm. Holding one station and one bearing leaves 8 unknown coordinates, so the network has three degrees of freedom: three independent statements the observations make that could be contradicted. Everything the adjustment can tell anybody about the quality of the work comes out of those three. Grids, and what a survey does

A coordinate is the output of a solve

Six essays measure a tape, close a traverse, spread a misclosure and reduce a chain. The coordinate that comes out of the far end is the solution of a least-squares problem, and the problem has a decision in it that is not a measurement: what to hold fixed. Change it and every coordinate moves by centimetres while not one residual moves at all.

 The widest zone a tolerance of 690 parts per million allows. At each latitude, the half-width at which a transverse Mercator grid with its scale factor rebalanced for that width reaches 690 ppm at its worst point. That tolerance is the one UTM actually meets at the equator, so the curve passes through UTM's own 3° there — and rises to 37.0° at 85° north, because a degree of longitude covers cos φ of the ground and the scale error goes as the square of the ground width. Six degrees is the answer at one latitude. Grids, and what a survey does

Sixty zones was a decision about one latitude

Twelve rungs price a grid, a zone, an origin and a reference, and every one of them works inside a single zone. The number of zones has never been asked about: six degrees meets its tolerance at the equator and is loose everywhere else, so a system spending the same tolerance evenly would use 51 zones at the equator and 8 at 82° — and UTM's worst error is 981 parts per million, not the 400 always quoted.

 Two unfoldings of the same 80-face solid. Both are edge unfoldings of the same solid along different spanning trees of its face graph, so both preserve every distance on the surface exactly. The left one is a net. The right one is not: 3 pairs of its faces occupy the same ground, so it cannot be cut out of paper and folded up. Nothing in the unfolding procedure prevents this, and past the regular solids most trees produce it. The families

A net can land on top of itself

Every one of the cube's 384 unfoldings is a net, and every one of the icosahedron's five million is too. Past the regular solids that stops being true: at 180 faces, 99 of every 100 randomly chosen unfoldings have faces sitting on top of each other, so choosing a net stops being a choice and becomes a search — except that the net anybody would actually draw works every time.

 Tissot's ellipse and the one that governs gradients, at 20°E 48°N. The solid ellipse is the image of a small circle — Tissot's indicatrix, semi-axes a and b. The dashed one is the image of a unit gradient, whose semi-axes are 1/b and 1/a because a gradient transforms by the inverse transpose of the Jacobian rather than by the Jacobian. Its long axis therefore lies where the indicatrix's short one does. On Mercator both are circles, so a gradient's direction survives; on Lambert cylindrical the two ellipses are the same shape turned through a right angle, so the worst direction for a gradient is the best direction for a shape. Measuring distortion

A slope is not a shape

Every map in this collection has carried geometry. An applied map far more often carries a field — elevation, pressure, a density — and the first thing anybody does with one is differentiate it. A gradient is a covector, it transforms by the inverse transpose of the Jacobian, and the ellipse that governs it is the indicatrix turned inside out.

 The set a reach map shows, drawn from eight bearings. A geodesic disc of 4,000 km and the polygon a fan of eight bearings draws round it, on an equal-area azimuthal page centred on the disc so that the shaded ground is proportional to the ground it stands for. Every vertex of the polygon is on the true boundary and every edge between two of them is a chord, so the drawn set is inside the true one — always, at every count, for any convex reach set. The area it misses is 7.53% of 48,635,855 km², and it is not an error that care removes. It is what a finite fan is. Paths and directions

Every reach set ever drawn is too small

An isochrone is drawn by walking out along a finite number of bearings and joining the points, so its vertices are on the true boundary and its edges are chords — which puts the drawn set inside the true one, always, at every count, for any convex reach set. The deficit falls as the square of the count, and a spherical cap loses less than a circle by exactly cos t (1 + cos t)/2.

 What a 3-figure grid reference names. The square is the 100-metre cell a 3-figure reference stands for, and the filled dot is the point the reference was made from. A reference is TRUNCATED rather than rounded, so the digits name the square's south-west corner — the open dot — which here is 9.1 metres west and 82.8 metres south of the point. Rounding would have landed on the nearest corner instead, 9.1 metres away east–west. The truncation is deliberate: it is what makes a shorter reference a larger square containing the same point. Grids, and what a survey does

A grid reference names a square

This ladder has priced everything about a grid except how a coordinate on it is written. A grid reference is truncated rather than rounded, so it names the south-west corner of a square rather than a point in it — and a population of references is displaced half a cell each way, which is a bias rather than scatter and does not average out.

 Every one of the cube's 384 nets, scored. All 384 spanning trees of the cube's face graph, unfolded and scored on the total separation their cuts leave: how far apart, in edge lengths, the two copies of each cut edge end up on the page. Every one of them is a valid net — no Platonic unfolding overlaps — and they range from 11.30 to 17.97, a factor of 1.59. The heuristic of unfolding outwards from a chosen face lands on the first of them, exactly. The families

What the net heuristic cannot find

Rung seven chose a net by unfolding outwards from a face and showed the choice beats guessing, and recorded that its own limit was unknown. Enumerated in full, the heuristic turns out to be exactly optimal on every solid small enough to check — rank one of 384 — and above that ceiling no sample can tell whether it still is, because eight hundred random nets never reach it.

 A 6° query against a cube scheme, and the cells it fetches. The cells of a tangent-warped cube scheme at level 5, with the 29 cells a query of 6° radius touches shaded. The disc's own area is 16.84 cells; the count is 29, because every cell the disc's boundary crosses is fetched as well as every cell inside it. In Hilbert order those cells form six contiguous ranges of identifiers, which is six range scans, and the span from the lowest to the highest covers 91 cells against the 29 wanted. Drawn in Mollweide, with the mesh shown only near the query. What a machine does with it

A query is a disc, and a disc is not a cell

Everything a cell system does is an address lookup except the one question anybody actually asks it: find everything within five kilometres of here. That is a disc, and the number of cells it fetches is not its area divided by a cell's — at the radii a query is really made at, it is three to seventeen times that.

 The same six contours on Mercator and Lambert cylindrical. The value of a harmonic sum with a summit and a basin in the northern mid-latitudes travels with the point, so the set of points at a stated level is the same set on every map and each contour is exactly right on both panels. Everything a reader measures from them is not: the spacing between neighbouring contours, their lengths, and the area between two of them all change from one panel to the other, and the two panels are the same field. Measuring distortion

The contour is right and the reading is wrong

There is exactly one thing about a field that no projection can get wrong: which points share a value. The contour lines on any two maps of the same field are the same set of points. Every quantity a reader takes off them — the spacing, the length, the area between two of them, the hypsometric curve — is not, and the two kinds of map get different ones wrong.

 Shape predicted from field, against shape as published. Clairaut's theorem gives a body's flattening from two numbers of its gravity field: J₂, which is how its mass is arranged, and m = ω²a³/GM, which is how fast it spins. For a body in hydrostatic equilibrium the prediction is the shape, and the diagonal is where such a body sits. Earth is on it to 0.05 per cent — 12 metres at the pole, out of twenty-one kilometres of flattening. Mars is 12.5 per cent off it, which is 2.23 kilometres, and the excess is Tharsis: a body carrying a continent-sized volcanic load is not a fluid figure, so its ellipsoid is not one of its own level surfaces, and its zero of height has to be chosen rather than found. What the numbers refer to

A body with no sea level

On Earth the zero of height is found rather than chosen — water settles onto the equipotential surface by itself. Nowhere else has one, and the difference is measurable: Clairaut's theorem predicts the Earth's flattening from its own gravity field to twelve metres at the pole and misses Mars's by 2.2 kilometres.

 The set of aspects within a stated distance of the best, for Robinson over Japan. Each row takes every point of a 36 × 19 × 24 grid in the three aspect parameters that scores within (1 + t) of the best, joins neighbouring points, and identifies the pieces the exact degeneracy relates. At t = 3 it is one connected piece spanning 170° of pole; by t = 1 it has broken into 14 pieces; and by t = 0.3 the largest of them spans 11°. So it is not one valley and it is not one basin — it is a sheet that fractures. What each projection optimises

The shape of the valley

An aspect search returns three numbers, two searches return triples that differ by a hemisphere, and the maps they produce agree. One cause is an exact degeneracy and the rest was called a valley and left unmeasured. Sampled densely, it is neither a valley nor a basin: a connected sheet spanning 170° of pole that fractures into fourteen pieces once the threshold tightens.

 Bigger triangles, and how much bigger depends on what is fixed. How well a survey can resolve Gaussian curvature, against the side of its triangles, under three things being held fixed. One triangle: the accuracy improves as the inverse SQUARE of the side, fitted exponent -2.000. A chain of fixed length, which is what every great arc was: bigger triangles mean fewer of them, and the exponent is -1.503 — exactly three halves. A network covering a fixed area: -0.999, exactly one. The trade depends on what a survey is short of. The impossibility

How many triangles it takes

Rung eleven priced one triangle and recorded that a survey observes hundreds. Averaging n of them divides the noise by √n, and n is not free: a chain of fixed length holds fewer big triangles than small ones, so the accuracy improves as the side to the power three halves rather than two. Struve's 141 triangles of forty kilometres are worth exactly Gauss's seven of eighty-five.

All threads