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

The thread: Measured, not named — page 12

A projection is usually called conformal because that is its name. Here it is called conformal only after the angular deformation has been computed at several hundred points and found to be zero. Essays 265 to 288 of 372.
A local station's error ellipse is the national network's, arriving. Three orders of a stated survey, each a network of distances adjusted with the stations of the order above held fixed: a national network of seven stations 60 km apart, a regional one of ten stations inside one of its triangles, and a local one of five stations about a kilometre apart tied to three regional stations 10 km away. Every error ellipse is drawn at one scale in all three panels. Dashed: the ellipse each adjustment reports from its own observations. Solid: the full ellipse, with the error of every order above carried in. The national network's centre station is its origin and its eastern station fixes its bearing, so the one has no ellipse and the other's is a line; it reports its full error because nothing is above it. The local stations report 11.2 mm and carry 59.4 mm: their solid ellipses are the size of the national network's at that place. Grids, and what a survey does

The control carries the error of every network above it

A local survey is adjusted with its control stations held fixed, and the error ellipses it reports come from its own observations alone. On a stated three-order network a local station reports 11 millimetres and sits 59 from where the national origin puts it: 52 of them from the national order and 26 from the regional. Its own residuals can see almost none of that. What it does own outright is its lengths, and nothing of those is inherited.

 Pins at one place move where the picture sits; pins at four reshape it. The best flat picture of four cities, fitted to every distance with a tolerance of 1 per cent, one bearing a pair to 0.01 radians, and pins to the sheet good to 50 km. Each ellipse is the error in a city's position relative to the picture's centre — its shape, which no shift changes — drawn 30 times its size. Solid: the part the distances and bearings put there. Dashed: the part the pins put there. Pinned at London alone, the pins put 0.00 km into the shape and the places 63.0 km. Pinned at all four, the pins put 30.5 km and the places 29.7 km, and the shape as a whole is 42.6 km against 63.0. The impossibility

A second pin is a measurement of the places

Counted exactly, a picture of places is a direct sum: the distances and bearings spend its shape and two pins spend where it sits on the sheet. Given tolerances, the sum survives in one form and fails in another. Pins at one place put none of their error into the shape at any tolerance, and wherever the pins are, their average takes none of the distances' error. But every place pinned after the first is a statement about the geography, and held exact it makes the shape worse once its error passes about two thirds of the shape's own.

 The curve that does the whole job has no kink and does not turn over. The parallel spacing along the central meridian, as a share of the equator's, for the best single smooth curve found and for three maps it is being compared with. Goode's composite is flat to its join at 40.7° and then follows the Mollweide's, and the kink where the two meet is the join every essay before this one has been about. The fitted curve has no kink, and it is not the shape the question expected either: it is flat only through the first fifteen degrees (97.2 per cent at 15°), then closes monotonically and faster than the Mollweide — 54.3 against 77.3 at 60° — and it never turns over. The families

One curve beats the three maps it would replace

Goode's composite is a sinusoidal, a Mollweide and now a splice strip between them, and the question left open was whether one smooth spacing curve could do the whole job or whether the joins are doing work no single curve can. One term does it: a curve with a single coefficient carries 6.8 degrees less angular deformation than the composite, two beat every named equal-area pseudocylindrical in the library, and the composite turns out to be worse than the Mollweide it is half made of.

 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

Simplifying one curve prices 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 measurement before this one 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.

 Where the correction overtakes the sphere it is correcting for. The worst angle error of four substituted spheres against the size of the triangle, with Legendre's spherical excess on the same axes. The two that are wrong at first order in the flattening are flat in the side, because the error belongs to the latitude and not to the distance. The two that are right at first order have no such floor, so what is left is a term rising in proportion to the side. The excess rises as its square, so each pair meets exactly once, and the meeting decides which of the two corrections a computation is entitled to ignore: the geodetic latitude at 490 km, the rectifying latitude at 247 km, the conformal latitude at 23.8 km, the geocentric latitude at 17.6 km. What is taught wrongly

The correction is the smaller of the two corrections

Legendre's theorem subtracts a third of the spherical excess from each angle of a triangle and solves the rest as a plane figure. It is the correction every nineteenth-century computer applied and the one every textbook explains. Beside the error the choice of substituted sphere leaves in the same triangle it is small: on the thirty-kilometre triangle a first-order chain is made of, omitting it costs 166 millimetres in a computed side and using the geodetic-latitude sphere costs 43 metres. The two terms scale differently, so each sphere has a size at which the correction overtakes it — and for the two spheres a careful computer would have chosen, that size falls inside a real chain.

 Weighting the low sight turns the region the fix is in. Four bodies, three of them between 44° and 58° up on one side of the ship and one 5° up behind, with each sight's error made of a sextant part of 0.5′ and a tenth of its refraction correction: 0.94, 0.95, 0.93 km for the high bodies and 2.05 km for the low one. Solid: the 95 per cent ellipse of the fit that weights each sight by its variance, 2.30 by 1.55 km. Dashed: the ellipse a navigator draws who gives every sight the same variance, 2.63 by 2.02 km, its long axis turned 20.1° from the weighted one. Dotted: where that unweighted fix actually scatters, 2.98 by 1.57 km, turned 27.7° from the ellipse drawn for it. All three are centred on one point. Paths and directions

A low sight is worth keeping only if it is weighted

A body five degrees above the horizon is seen through so much air that its refraction correction is ten times a high body's, and a tenth of that correction uncertain doubles the sight's error. Given the same weight as the others, a sight below seven degrees makes the fix worse than throwing it away; weighted by its variance it never does. The ellipse drawn without weights is turned twenty degrees from the right one, and a navigator who must guess the weights loses far less by guessing high.

 Two of six projections have a curve. The depth of the pass that decides when a near-optimal aspect set comes apart, against how much of its own scale variation the region sees, for six projections at nine latitudes and four region sizes each, with each projection's own power law. A curve, R² 0.8 or better: Mollweide (0.47, R² 0.81), Hammer (1.35, R² 0.95). Partial: Eckert IV (0.34, R² 0.52). No curve: Robinson (0.02, R² 0.01), Winkel tripel (-0.06, R² 0.05), Sinusoidal (0.28, R² 0.15). Pooled over all six the fit is R² 0.03, because the six sit at different levels. What each projection optimises

Six projections have two curves, and the refusal has company

Three projections at four latitudes gave three pass-depth exponents, and the question was what sets them. Six at nine latitudes say that most of them have none to set: the Hammer's pass depth rises with what the region sees at R-squared 0.95 and Mollweide's at 0.81, Eckert IV's half-follows, and Robinson's, the Winkel tripel's and the sinusoidal's do not follow it at all. Neither candidate explanation predicts a left-out projection's exponent better than guessing the average — and the sinusoidal, once the lone refusal, is one of three.

 The seam corner falls faster than the paper and crosses it at 720 faces. For an icosahedron globe of 100 mm radius with every face divided ν ways, the gnomonic face map's worst seam corner against what a hand-folded paper net is accurate to. On twenty faces the corner is 9.19°, 12.8 times the whole budget of 0.716°. The corner falls as ν to the power -1.97 and the fold's error as ν to the -0.97, so the two lines converge; the budget stops falling once the crease, a fixed quarter-millimetre radius of paper, is larger than the fold. The corner passes under it at ν = 6, 720 faces, where it is 0.315° against 0.321°. The families

The seam falls faster than the paper

Divide each face of an icosahedron ν ways and two things shrink at different rates. The fold's error falls as 1/ν, because it is the face's own radius times a degree. The gnomonic seam corner falls as 1/ν², because it needs both a tilt between faces and a distance along their edge. So the gnomonic, 12.8 times the whole assembly budget on twenty faces, goes under it at 720 faces on a 100 mm globe. No globe of any size needs more than 5,120, and what it costs is paper folded out of sight: 5.8 per cent of the sheet at that crossing.

 Ties ten kilometres long locate the control along themselves and hardly at all across. The local order of the stated survey: five stations about a kilometre apart, and the twenty-five lines from them to one another and to three control stations 10 km away. Adjusted on its own lines, the network knows where each control station lies along its ties to within a few centimetres and across them only to 179.0 mm, because five lines leaving a cluster a kilometre wide are nearly parallel ten kilometres out. The long ellipses at the control stations are that knowledge, drawn at one scale. At the local cluster, drawn at the same scale: dashed, the error the held-fixed adjustment reports for each station, 8.0 mm on its long axis at the first station; solid, the same station's own error after an equal-weight rigid fit of the free network onto the three control stations, 70.2 mm. The equal-weight fit trusts each control coordinate as much as every other, and the across-tie ones are worth almost nothing. Grids, and what a survey does

Three numbers are all a local survey can check of its control

Adjust a local network on its own lines, then fit it onto its three control stations, and the misfit at the control is the only place the control's error can show. It is exactly the excess the held adjustment's variance factor already carried, counted on three degrees of freedom instead of fifteen, and it catches a disturbed monument 79 times in a hundred where the held report catches it 49. Give the fit a scale and it hides 98 per cent of that excess, and lends the control's error to every length.

 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.

 Five readerships, four winners, one library. The best projection under each stated readership, with the share of the sphere carrying half that readership's weight. The criterion is Kavrayskiy's throughout, every map is in its normal aspect, and the library is the same twenty. Four different projections win. The flat weighting at the top is the one every earlier comparison used, and naming it as a readership rather than as the absence of one is the whole of what this changes: it is the assumption that everybody who will ever read the map is spread evenly over the globe. What is taught wrongly

The area weighting was a readership all along

Twelve measurements have taken a projection comparison apart and found the comparer's own freedom in every part of it. All twelve rested on one thing none of them examined: that a square kilometre of empty ocean counts exactly as much as a square kilometre of city. That is not the absence of an assumption about the reader — it is the assumption that everybody who will ever look at the map is spread evenly over the globe. Named as one readership among five, it produces a different winner from three of the other four, and against a North Atlantic readership its choice is fifth of twenty and 33 per cent worse.

 The second clause moves the map without moving what the first clause measures. The plateau the tie-break changes most, drawn before and after. The contours are where the scale departs from true by the stated half a per cent, so the ground between them is the ground the specification asks to be kept. The rule leaves that ground alone — 52.23 per cent of the square before and 52.54 after — and spends its freedom outside it, where the worst departure falls from 27.16 per cent to 23.77. Of the 42 plateaux this is the largest change any of them shows. What each projection optimises

A second clause decides the half that was already decided

A specification written as a band admits forty-two maps keeping between 37.0 and 67.5 per cent of a region. Adding a tie-break — among those, take the one whose worst departure is least — is a linear programme, and it works: it makes each of the forty-two definite. It also merges three neighbours at the bottom into one, leaves 29.1 of the 30.5 points of spread in area kept, and names a single map only at the tolerance where every map keeps everything and the first clause has stopped asking for anything at all.

 Cut into Goode's lobes, the ranking of uncut sheets turns over. Mean angular deformation over the sphere for eight equal-area pseudocylindricals, each read two ways: as one uncut sheet, and cut into Goode's lobes with every point measured from its own lobe's central meridian. Uncut, Eckert IV is the best named map at 27.70° and the one-term curve fitted to the uncut sheet beats Goode's composite by 6.83°. Cut, Eckert IV falls to 21.34°, second from last, the curve fitted uncut reads 20.77° against the composite's 18.48, and the plain sinusoidal beats the composite at 17.88°. A curve refitted for the cut sheet reaches 17.01°. The families

Scored lobe by lobe, the homolosine loses to its own lower half

Read as one uncut sheet, a single smooth curve beats Goode's composite by 9.6 degrees. But the homolosine is used cut into six lobes, so here it is scored cut, with each point measured from its own lobe's meridian, and the ranking turns over. Eckert IV, the best named map uncut, falls to second from last. The curve that beat the composite is now 2.3° worse than it. The plain sinusoidal, the composite's own lower half, wins at 17.88° against 18.48. The best smooth curve for a cut map is the sinusoidal with a few per cent of correction.

 Weighted by their residuals, six sights hand the low one six times its share. Six bodies seen from one ship: five between 44° and 61° up between east-north-east and east-south-east, and one 5° up due south, alone in its direction. Along each bearing, two bars: the share of the fix's weight the sight's altitude earns it, and the median share it ends with when every sight is weighted by its own residual and the fit is repeated until the weights settle. The low sight earns 4.0% and ends with 25.0%; the five good ones earn about 19% each and end with 1.8% to 3.1%. Bar length goes as the square root of the share. Paths and directions

Weighted by what it disagrees with, the fix trusts the sight it leans on

With six sights and two unknowns, the residuals seem to offer a way to find the bad sight without knowing the weather: weight each line by how little it disagrees, and solve again. One step of that gives a low body almost exactly the weight its altitude would, 4.5 per cent against 4.0. Every further step walks it away. Iterated until the weights settle, the fit is worse than weighting nothing in all four arrangements tried. Where the low body stands alone in its direction it ends with six times the weight it earns, because the fix leans on its line and its residual shows only 46 per cent of its error.

 Moved five centimetres, one station of three looks like all three, and one of five looks like itself. The local cluster at the centre, tied to three control stations (left) and to five (right) ten kilometres away, drawn on their true bearings with the distance shortened. The northern station, filled, has been moved 50 mm along its tie and nothing else is wrong. The bar at each station is the expected value of its own test for a displacement along its tie, noise-free. With three stations the three tests read 3.25, 3.22, 3.22: the data say only that the triangle is too large, and any of its corners could have made it so. With five, the moved station reads 4.31 and no other more than 2.44. Grids, and what a survey does

Naming the control station that moved takes a fifth

A local survey tied to distant control can tell that a monument has moved, and with three control stations it cannot say which. Each station gives the local lines one number they know well — its distance — and a shift of the whole control uses up two of them, so three stations leave one and four leave two. Five evenly spaced name a station moved five centimetres 83 times in a hundred; three name it 20. Better lines cannot stand in for the missing stations, and every station added also exposes more of the control's own published error.

 The geoid's curvature at a point has no limit; averaged over a triangle it settles. Dashed: the curvature a geoid model contains at a point, as a fraction of the sphere's own, rising in proportion to the degree the model stops at — from 0.36 per cent at degree 360 to 36 per cent at 36,000. Solid: the geoid's contribution to the mean curvature over equilateral triangles of 1, 10, 50 and 100 km, the rms of the anomaly in each one's spherical excess divided by that excess. Each rises while the model is coarser than the triangle and settles once it is finer: the 50 km triangle reads 0.64 per cent at EGM2008's degree 2190 and 0.68 per cent at 36,000; the 1 km triangle 2.19 per cent and 27 per cent. The impossibility

A triangle reads the geoid's curvature, and that one converges

The geoid's Gaussian curvature at a point has no value: its spectrum carries two more powers of the degree than the height's, and the sum never settles. A surveyor's triangle does not measure it at a point. By Gauss–Bonnet its excess is the total curvature over its area, which on the geoid is the flux of the deflection of the vertical through its three sides — a first derivative averaged along lines, and that sum converges. A fifty-kilometre triangle reads 0.64 per cent of the sphere's curvature from the geoid at EGM2008's degree and 0.68 at degree 36,000, where the curvature at a point has grown sixteenfold. The quantity nothing could measure was the one nobody measures.

 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

A positional covariance pushed through a projection is 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 copied stretch, dropped in rigidly and eased into place. One coast drawn twice. In the first ink the copied stretch is moved as a rigid, scaled piece and meets the rest of the coast at two corners — the dots. In the second it is pinned at the same two points and then eased along 30 per cent of the outline either side of each of them, which is what a compiler fitting a sheet by eye does. The dashed line is the coast the graticule predicts. The eased version departs from it by 6.1 thousandths of the map's width against the rigid one's 9.4: easing moves the departure about, and removes very little of it. What is taught wrongly

A copy eased into place loses its seams before its source

A stretch of coast lifted from another sheet and dropped in rigidly leaves two sharp corners where it joins, and both of them are findable. A compiler does not work that way: they pin the ends and ease the middle until it looks continuous. Easing halves the corner within five per cent of the outline and the seams survive it — until forty per cent, where the located seam jumps from four per cent of the coast out to twenty. The source projection survives twice as far, to seventy-five. The piece goes on naming where it came from after the method has lost track of which piece it is.

 Eighteen ways to close an archipelago within a hundred miles. A stated archipelago about 580 km across: three main islands near the centre (A, B and C, 23,576 km² of land between them) and thirteen smaller islands round them, 26,970 km² of land in all. The dot on each island is its outermost point, where a state drawing the widest lawful system would put its basepoint. Solid: the lawful system enclosing the most water, 186,617 km² at a water-to-land ratio of 6.96 to one, 12 segments, the longest 86.6 nautical miles. Dashed: the lawful system enclosing the least, 159,032 km², through the main islands A, B and C. Dotted: the two segments that would take in the outlier P to the south-east, 122.3 nautical miles and 100.9 nautical miles — both over the hundred-mile limit. The archipelago is stated, not surveyed. Grids, and what a survey does

Written in numbers, the archipelago rule still leaves eighteen

The article on archipelagic baselines gives its tolerances as numbers: no segment over a hundred nautical miles except three per cent of them, which may reach 125, and water between one and nine times the land. On a stated archipelago 8,799 closed systems keep the main islands inside, the ratio passes all of them and the length test eighteen, and the eighteen still differ by 27,585 square kilometres. Thin the land and the ratio does the deciding; the lower bound decides nothing; and the three-per-cent exception can be used only by a system padded to thirty-four segments.

All threads