4 ms·
I was amused that one of the first responses was to criticize the projection he chose. There's one in every crowd.
by JasonFruit 8y ago
I was amused that one of the first responses was to criticize the projection he chose. There's one in every crowd.
- pg_bot 8y agoOf course, the internet is fantastic for pedantic nitpicking. While we're on the subject of map projections, I would suggest taking a look at the Authagraph projection.[0] It preserves the size and shapes of all the continents while simultaneously giving the viewer vertigo. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authagraph_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authagraph_projection
- fdej 8y agoI've never seen South America look that pointy.
- yosito 8y agoI love the authagraph projection! I'd love to see it more often.
- cwmma 8y agoNot shape, Brazil and Greenland are both distorted
- freehunter 8y agoYeah that's pretty glaring. Even when the map is centered over Brazil, it's still super wide. Is Brazil really that wide, or is this just another super-imperfect projection that wildly distorts the real shape of land?
- jwilk 8y agoThe example map in the Wikipedia article is tiny. This article has bigger ones: https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/authagraph-world-maps/ https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/authagraph-...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jjoonathan 8y agoIn a post about population density, it probably makes sense to choose a projection that preserves area ratios.
- kuschku 8y agoThis projection looks to be either Robinson or Winkel-Tripel – both of which roughly do preserve area ratios. Which is why all Wikis use these projections, or variations thereof, as standard base map (and it looks as if he just took at Wiki base map and colored it)
- Gigablah 8y agoIt's interesting that you characterized the response ("Maybe use another map projection?") that way. That doesn't sound like criticism to me, it sounds like a suggestion. Maybe the person was just curious.