Of discontinuous projections, I prefer Waterman over Dymaxion, it feels more regular and is more intuitive to see how it wraps around a sphere (or geoid). While

Of discontinuous projections, I prefer Waterman over Dymaxion, it feels more regular and is more intuitive to see how it wraps around a sphere (or geoid). While Waterman might have more distortion in some absolute sense, the regularity of the distortions makes it still more pleasing (subjective, I know). One weird thing about Dymaxion is how the 70° parallels around both north and south poles are distinctly lumpy. But really the biggest problem I have with Dymaxion (and with all discontinuous maps to some degree) is how difficult it is to grasp how the different landmasses are located in relation to each other across the discontinuations; the worst-case example is probably estimating the path from South-America to Australia or Africa which requires some degree of mental gymnastics to accomplish.