3 ms·
_Every_ map projection distorts reality in some way. There's simply no way to accurately portray a sphere as a two dimensional object without some trade-offs. T
by bnralt 4y ago
_Every_ map projection distorts reality in some way. There's simply no way to accurately portray a sphere as a two dimensional object without some trade-offs. The Mercator projection has some useful trade offs, which is why Google maps used it for so long (and still does as certain scales, I believe).
I don't believe the authagraph projection is even the best map projection for preserving things like shape and area (other projections such as the Cahill–Keyes projection or Dymaxion projection seem better for both).
But of course, if you want the least amount of distortion, just get a globe.
- Bakary 4y agoThe Mercator is like circumcision. There might be many reasons invoked for it, but the main reason is that it's just what people in the US are familiar with. Even with no real trade-offs it's fairly clear that Google would still have picked it.
- bnralt 4y agoApparently Mercator wasn't the original projection they used[1]. But they found that it worked better for giving people directions because it preserved route angles in higher latitude regions (it's benefit for navigation is the reason it became so popular, from my understanding). For what it's worth, I feel like I don't actually come across the Mercator projection that often (I'd say the Robinson projection is more popular in schools, for instance). [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/5/17653122/google-maps-update-mercator-projection-earth-isnt-flat https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/5/17653122/google-maps-updat...
- Bakary 4y agoI stand corrected!