7 ms·
> Every flat map projection distorts something, so every projection has to optimize some parameter and trade off other utility. I'm constantly amazed at how hun
by eddythompson80 3y ago
> Every flat map projection distorts something, so every projection has to optimize some parameter and trade off other utility. I'm constantly amazed at how hung up people are on apparent size of countries. If size is your thing, use some other projection!
That's the point of the post. The trade-offs between different projections are rarely discussed, considered or even mentioned outside very small cohorts because there is a specific shape of the world map that most people who are not map-heads or spherical projection experts take for guaranteed. Get a non-Mercator projection map and put it in your dinner room, and then see how many of your guests will comment about "so.. why is this map weird? It doesn't look right?" then tell them "every flat map projection distorts [...]"
> Mercator is and remains popular because it preserves local angles and shapes, which makes it simple use this projection to navigate by rhumb lines (compass headings). Because most maps people are exposed to are designed for navigation, it is the most commonly seen projection. And yes, it distorts size and is largely unusable past about ± 70º latitude. Every map is a compromise.
Out of the millions of decorative world maps on walls, kids with maps to learn the world, world maps on the news, maps used in data visualization charts etc., non of those are using the map for "navigation" yet they still use Mercator projection simply because "that's the right shape of the world" regardless of what "right" means. Not because they evaluated the compromises of the different projections and figures "oh maybe someone will be lost at sea and only have access to our GDP per capita world map visualization, better use Mercator projection to preserve local angles and line up with compass headings"
- the_af 3y ago> Get a non-Mercator projection map and put it in your dinner room, and then see how many of your guests will comment about "so.. why is this map weird? It doesn't look right?" then tell them "every flat map projection distorts [...]" This is actually a pretty cool conversation topic during dinner. I would take the opportunity to show off. It doesn't have to be a downside. "Hey, did you know that [interesting stuff]...?". If your guests are the kind of people who get irritated instead of awed by cool explanations about the world, I admit then you have a problem.
- eddythompson80 3y agoyeah, I think it would be an interesting discussion topic. Especially if you could show the 6th figure from that post (the one showing the 7,500km distortion). It just depends on how you put it. OPs remarks were condescending as if the only reason to bring this up is "because of size hang ups" as oppose to "bring this up to question your own basic wrong assumptions about the world" It's far from common knowledge or a well known fact that the only reason the World Map looks the way it looks is just an arbitrary projection type that's picked for equally arbitrary reasons. Because as I mentioned, compass navigation is hardly the only map use-case. It may have originally started that way in the 1,200s or whatever, but today we use maps for all sorts of visualizations and other things. And the assumption that "Mercator projection" is the "right" shape of the world is held by most not because they have "size hang ups" but because it's just the way it is. Just like any assumption you hold that you never question because there is no reason to question it really.
- dontupvoteme 3y agoIs it that surprising/arbitrary though? 1. It's very useful for sailing 2. European nations who were good at sailing created the age of empires (yes this was a bad thing) 3. These empires persisted until the end of WW2 (1945) or arguably even the Suez crisis (1956) at which point the American/Soviet world order began Changing a map is changing everyone's internal worldview, and for obvious reason empires were not about to allow such a massive change unless they had a good reason[0] so It's really only been about 80 years and most of them we were at war with the Soviets, so when we thought about maps, we thought about if they were red or star spangled, not which projection. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just not at all surprised we have the "original" one. 0 - I could easily see an alternate history where e.g. the Spanish and/or Portugese use a different one if it makes them look "better" than the English, or vice versa. Now i'm curious of what projection could be 'anglo/iberi-maximal'
- prepend 3y ago> That's the point of the post. I lost it in the post. Whenever I hear the “crisis” part presented without the perfectly rational explanation I get frustrated and spend more time trying to figure out if this is a problem. Saying “maps distort the way we see the world” is a problem unless you immediately follow it with “and that’s ok because…” Otherwise we waste time on stuff like “eyeballs distort the way we see the world” when it’s true but not an issue at all. Especially since the first paragraph mentions how countries closer to the equator tend to be poorer. As if that’s somehow relevant.
- thfuran 3y agoI don't understand what you're saying. The article doesn't present this as a crisis. It doesn't really make sense to say it's okay or not okay, except insofar as anything that isn't an existential threat is okay, I suppose.
- p0pcult 3y agoThe second sentence of the article strongly implies some nefarious concentration of power and wealth among the globally powerful countries is at the root of the popularity of mercator projections.
- watwut 3y agoThat is entirely on you tho. Becasuse that sentence does not imply anything about concentration of power nor about globally powerful countries and even nothing about origin of popularity of mercator projections. It does imply that poor countries around equator are bigger then they look like. That is it.
- aydyn 3y agoIt literally does. Dont play ignorant.
- coldtea 3y agoWell, they is a "nefarious concentration of power and wealth among the globally powerful countries". And the Mercator projection does suit them practically, and shows their countries bigger than they are, so...
- ecshafer 3y agoThe problem with these kind of posts is that they also ignore the existence of globes. No one should be surprised by the "size" of any country because globes already exist which are a pretty close to true representation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kadoban 3y agoGlobes are a lot more rare than maps.
- zokier 3y ago> Out of the millions of decorative world maps on walls, kids with maps to learn the world, world maps on the news, maps used in data visualization charts etc., non of those are using the map for "navigation" yet they still use Mercator projection simply because "that's the right shape of the world" regardless of what "right" means I question what percentage of those maps in reality are actually Mercator? I feel this is one of those strawman memes that mercator is everywhere, when in practice it feels relatively rare to actually encounter it.
- m2fkxy 3y agoAgree. Most of the general-public wall maps I see out there use equal-area projs.
- zztop44 3y agoReally? In my entire lifetime I’ve seen maybe five? Including the one hanging up in my childhood home. Even Google Maps uses Mercator by default.
- cityofdelusion 3y agoI wonder how much location bias affects this. I also grew up with basically only seeing equal-area projections and globes -- that's just what my school district used. It was weird seeing all the online memes about Mercator when I grew up never seeing it, heh.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rusticpenn 3y agoI had mostly seen this projection, until i grew up. https://www.nationsonline.org/maps/Political-World-Map-3360.jpg https://www.nationsonline.org/maps/Political-World-Map-3360....
- DirkH 3y agoWhat country do you live in? If I visit there I'll look out for them because I see equal-area projs like never. Even the decorative one in my room right now clearly has Greenland look more than half the size of all of Africa.
- GuB-42 3y agoMap projection trade-offs are discussed a lot. I studied it at school, I can't count the number of "do you realize how big country X compared to country Y" articles, (the one linked here is a good one btw) and it often pops up in trivia questions. Everyone has seen a globe, and non-Mercator maps are everywhere. Famously on National Geographics. Also, using a (truncated) Mercator projection for a GDP per capita map (or any political map that isn't about land mass) is not a bad idea as its most notorious flaw becomes an advantage because coincidently, it tends to enlarge small countries and shrink large countries, which makes for a more readable map.
- littlestymaar 3y ago> it tends to enlarge small countries and shrink large countries, which makes for a more readable map. It enlarges the two biggest countries in the World (Russian and Canada) while shrinking central American and central African countries that aren't particularly big to say the least…
- JackFr 3y ago> The trade-offs between different projections are rarely discussed, considered or even mentioned outside very small cohorts Not true. They're honestly discussed all the time to the point of becoming tiresome.
- snoman 3y agoRight? Is there a person above 25 that hasn’t seen the episode (or clip) from The West Wing about map projections at this point?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- resolutebat 3y agoI'd like to think you're being ironic here, but I suspect you're not, so no: the vast majority of the world is outside the US and has not, in fact, seen an obscure episode of a TV drama about American politics. For others who haven't, here it is: https://youtu.be/vVX-PrBRtTY https://youtu.be/vVX-PrBRtTY Although the projection it proclaims as superior, Gall-Peters, has grievous flaws of its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection
- dwaltrip 3y agoI just learned about the equal earth projection, which was apparently invented very recently in 2023. It’s the best looking equal area projection I’ve seen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection
- dwaltrip 3y agoAh, oops, that should say 2018, not 2023.
- DirkH 3y agoAs an adult I was shocked to find out how the projection I grew up with altered my perception of my poverty-stricken country. I had no idea for my entire life that it was so much larger than other countries on the map I thought were larger. I doubt I am rare here at all. And I have no idea what "The West Wing" is. And I doubt I am rare here at all also.
- thrashh 3y agoPeople have a problem with this post and these kind of posts because they imply it was deliberately done for evil reasons. The point of any article isn't just its factual content; it's the hidden message from the way it's said. I don't know if you intended to say it the way you did when you started off with the comment about poverty in the first two sentences, but by doing so, you set the tone for the rest of your article. (You also didn't expand on that tidbit so it kind of leaves your audience wondering why you mentioned it.) I like the rest of the article though.
- pseudalopex 3y agoProbably eddythompson80 is not Tomas Pueyo. The comment about poverty was compatible with believing it was deliberate and evil, careless, or excusable but unfortunate.
- nilmask 3y ago> People have a problem Why do you presuppose that others infer & arrive at the same interpretations you do? Isn't your own form of generalization from the subjective inferences made from your own individual mind, to the thoughts of others, presumptuous? I'm getting tired of the progressive tendency to read offence, bigotry, racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. into every little word & minutiae of nuance uttered by others. It's on the verge of induced pareidolia for outrage & victimhood. Do you reside or hail from one of the aforementioned countries, or are you merely "signal boosting" and getting outraged on their behalf?
- TheBigSalad 3y agoDid you read the post? I didn't think it was too subtle. Especially because it was so out of place.
- gsich 3y agoI think most people know what a globe is. And that a globe is not a 2D map, even though they might not be able to articulate that.
- mc32 3y agoYou know whose problem this is. The map buyer/owner. They can buy whatever projection fits their fancy. I happen to have Robinson projections at home because I don't prefer the cylindrical projection. I used to have homolosine projections but they were funky in other ways. Preferably people would have a Globe and also have some flat projections.
- kortilla 3y agoThe faux outrage is hard to take. I grew up with the chopped up non Mercator maps and nobody cared looking at one or another. It was called out multiple times in my geography glasses in the 80s that the flat contiguous map was wrong and we spent lots of time looking at globes and North or South Pole centered maps. Nobody is being oppressed or underrepresented by this projection. This isn’t an episode of the west wing.
- heleninboodler 3y agoThe idea that we're all in the dark about the real relative sizes of the countries is silly. It's not like we look at a globe and get shocked by the sizes of the countries.
- melagonster 3y agothis almost like we should use another map in school. but I sure this is contained in geology of high school.
- usrbinbash 3y ago> The trade-offs between different projections are rarely discussed And? The trade-offs between longpolling and websockets are rarely discussed outside of very small cohorts. The tradeoff between wankel-engines and piston-based motors are rarely discussed. The tradeoffs between oak and pearwood are rarely discussed. That's why our society has division of labor and people becoming experts in their topics. And I am pretty sure experts on cartography have discussed the different merits and tradeoffs and converged on Mercator for a reason. I don't know what that reason is, and I don't care. It works, I can use it, and as long as no one can point out a tangible problem with it, I see no reason to worry about it. Same as the cartographer doesn't need to know or care why I decided that the chatapp he installed uses longpolling to communicate with the backend instead of a websocket. Same as I don't need to know or care why the carpenter who made my desk used oak instead of pear or rosewood. And seeing countries as smaller or bigger than they are isn't a problem in my eyes. I can reasonably expect an educated person to know that maps are 3D->2D projections and are thus distorted. If I want to know the exact size, I can always look it up. I don't have a more or less favourable view of a country or its people based on the countries apparent size on a map.
- sicariusnoctis 3y agoThe issue isn't possible bias on the part of educated cartographers and differential geometers. It's the bias of the majority, i.e. everyone else, that matters. A vast majority of people in the "Western world" perceive their countries as being bigger than they are. Thus from a primal, tribal perspective this further inflates their perception of "their peoples" being more important than the peoples of other areas.
- bentley 3y ago> A vast majority of people in the "Western world" perceive their countries as being bigger than they are. Thus from a primal, tribal perspective this further inflates their perception of "their peoples" being more important than the peoples of other areas. That’s a fun hypothesis, but is there actually data supporting (1) that “a vast majority” of westerners misperceive country size in this way, and (2) that specifically such a perception causes them to consider foreigners to be unimportant? Although implicit bias exists, studies show its impact on the real world is much smaller than commonly believed.