4 ms·
From my perspective, new projections are very interesting but largely irrelevant until a specific use case is defined. Just minimizing a specific type of projec
by sarcher 10y ago
From my perspective, new projections are very interesting but largely irrelevant until a specific use case is defined. Just minimizing a specific type of projection error isn't typically enough, since a large amount of map comprehension is guided by the users pre-existing conception of what a map of a specific area should look like. And there are a lot of projections/coordinate systems/datums to consider, here is a source to browse through:
http://spatialreference.org/ http://spatialreference.org/
I'm usually working in an EPSG code, and of the 4,000+ EPSG codes I probably use 10 regularly and perhaps have used 100 in my lifetime (if anything, that's an overestimate). They are designed this way, most of them simply represent a small area of the earths surface well. Since I primarily work in the Northeast United States, I don't need to use a whole lot of them.
I'm playing loose with terms here, the EPSG codes are really 'spatial references' made up of various 'projections' and 'coordinate systems' and 'datums' and etc. I usually find it easier to just talk about spatial references because they are so commonly used as a shortcut approach as opposed to individually selecting the attributes that make up the spatial references.
Cartography includes an incredible wide body of work, defined largely by the data sets being used, the audience/purpose of the display, and the medium.
For example, if we narrow our focus to just models of the actual world this includes surveys, navigation programs, hiking maps, remote sensing rasters, etc. - all of which have very little overlap concerning data, audience, and medium.
I build geography products, but I'm not a researcher - hopefully someone with more research experience can chime in, but perhaps your questions is too broad given how deep various geography niches can run. I know I certainly haven't even started to answer your question.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 10y agoI think Google has done a lot to get us away from different projections with EPSG 3857 and 4326. It's both a blessing (because you can expect most geographic data to be available in that format) and a curse (because 3857 is kind of a shitty projection and the standardization sort of disincentivizes people to learn about the intricacies of coordinate representation).
- sarcher 10y agoTotally agree about prevalence of 4326/3857 as a net positive. Given I still find projection/coordinate representation a little tricky, I think the chances that widespread education on the subject would ever exist to be pretty slim. Might as well just have a good default. Displaying state/country level data using EPSG:4326 isn't great, thankfully it doesn't happen often.