4 ms·

Looks pretty good to me? I'm no expert of course, but at least it's not similar to Mercator at all. https://i.imgur.com/D6fMLop.gifv https://i.imgur.com/D6fMLo

• SamBam 6y ago
  It is definitely the Mercator projection. Here is the first frame of your video overlaid on top of a standard Mercator projection: https://imgur.com/a/4cHi6Di https://imgur.com/a/4cHi6Di As for whether it looks "so bad," it's hard to tell from that video, because it's a small segment of the map, all in the northern-most latitudes. The Mercator projection is very shape-conforming (except close to the poles, as you can see from the huge top of Greenland), and its size distortions depend on latitude, so locally it's always going to be very "good" compared with a globe. You're not going to see any huge "errors" just comparing the before-and-after shapes of Greenland (although, again, the top of Greenland is very distorted there), or comparing its size to its closest neighbors.
  • fireattack 6y ago
    Sorry I wasn't clear. The first frame is the Mercator projection; the whole conversion (See GP: "..I think any digital map that lets you zoom out more than a hundred miles or so should be an accurate 3D projection" and then the reply "I think Google Maps already does this at least") is about now on GMaps you can enable "globe" option, which uses a more accurate 3D projection. The video shows before/after enable globe option.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]