Quite a few different projections, none of which are exact. The Mercator map is not political.
Are people actually having problems with their public hairpieces? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Because, as has been pointed out several times- America uses many map projections, and the Mercator map is accurate and useful for many things.
The world maps I remember from my youth were Mercator projections with Asia cut in half so America could be in the middle.
Even if you download them in electronic format, the vast majority of nautical charts use the Mercator projection, for the aforementioned reason that it preserves angles. Also, popular apps like Google Maps and OpenStreetMap use a (pseudo-)Mercator projection. Hence why I suggested that anyone announcing that this projection is being “replaced” had better be clear as to what they mean.
I prepared an azimuthal equidistant map centered on my location once!
Sometimes, you might need a map that graphically emphasizes one feature, and then you might need a custom projection:
A good question is whether rectangular projections are a good choice for general-purpose world maps.
This would be even more fun if the population were considered on a county level (while still retaining the state boundaries). New York would expand in the south east and shrink elsewhere, PA would neck down in the middle considerably, etc.
From your site, the context of use of the Mercator projection is limited to circumstances where it is accurate
By using such narrow strips, and setting a scale factor of 0.9996 for the central meridian of each strip, UTM limits linear distortion to about 1 part in 1,000 within the bounds of each zone.
which is different than the classic wall map
Requisite XKCD. I looked this us the moment I read about the vote on the news.
For the record, Randall is not a fan of the Mercator projection, but despises Peters. The new map, IIRC, is actually based on the Robinson Projection, which he considers… reasonable.
I didn’t say it was inaccurate. I said no one uses it as an accurate map. As in, the Mercator map of the world is never presented as an accurate view of the actual sizes of things. The only time I was ever exposed to it was when I was being taught about various projections, and how much it distorts things to the point of absurdity.
I actually think mentioning the Mercator map as if it is the one most people think of was misleading in the articles given. Most people think of a vaguely elliptical map, similar to the one shown here, not Mercator. At least, I know I do, and that’s the map I actually see used anywhere.
And I am aware that neither projection isn’t actually elliptical. I just wanted to know the name of the usual map people see that has the similar shape, as I do not remember being called the “equal earth” map. I would like to compare it with this one. I think that would be more useful than comparing it to the Mercator projection, which again, no one treats like a remotely accurate representation of the size of the landmasses.
(This is why I so often write longer posts, because if I just talk conversationally, people assume I don’t know what I’m talking about.)
Edit: I’m not sure if I was referring to the Robinson or Winkle-Triple, given the very nice post by @Alessan. It seems the latter does a better job with Africa. I’d love to see a comparison between WT and this newly adopted UN map.
The “Equal Earth” is (supposed to be) a blend of Putnins P4’
and Eckert IV
This is a somewhat different sort of projection (note the parallels of latitude):
As you might expect from the name of their youtube channel, the Map Men guys did an episode on this topic:
Just for the sheer hell of it I did a brief SDMB search on the term and, before I got bored and stopped, found several hundred separate usages, the odd one being lexicologically correct but the overwhelming majority used by locals and furriners alike as a mildly disparaging term.
So as the topic seems to have caused your goodself pique, I’ll mark down another who might not approve of the domestic embuggerances of the merkin coiffure the collective elected but sure do appreciate his imperialistic tendencies.
Fun fact – the main difference between regular Mercator and Web Mercator (as used by Google Maps et al.) is that Web Mercator treats the Earth as a perfect sphere to make the math simpler. Real Mercator uses a reference ellipsoid that more accurately represents the slightly oblate shape of the Earth.
The big one is that compass bearings / rhumb lines are represented as straight lines on the Mercator projection. That was a big deal for maritime navigation when the projection was devised, and certainly why it became popular and stayed popular, despite the polar distortions.
But none of this was any sort of systematic attempt to belittle or somehow lessen Africa or South America. That’s what’s so silly about this; they’re being butthurt about a literal map projection that’s useful because you can draw straight lines for navigation, not because it misrepresents the size of anything closer to the poles. Just look at Antarctica for how badly it distorts stuff near the poles. Africa, if anything, is accurately represented on the Mercator projection.
He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.“What’s the good of Mercator’s North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?”
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply
"They are merely conventional signs!“Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank”
(So the crew would protest) “that he’s bought us the best—
A perfect and absolute blank!”
Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark
Well, yes, a continent that’s portrayed as infinite in size is definitely a bigger deal than the size of Africa.
I agree with that.
It certainly shows Africa as being very large, but it also shows Russia and Canada (and Greenland) as being enormous, which is misleading for reasons independent of the size of Africa. If a new map does a better job of representing areas, then in circumstances where preserving angles isn’t important, it might be helpful to use a map that is closer to correctly presenting sizes.
At this scale I can see no differences between the two. Could you explain what they are and how they are blended?
Today’s world - people and cultures in it, not the geography - can fairly be described as a field beset by a swarm of locusts, the locusts being stuff that wasn’t intended to be malicious but has been used that way, explicitly or implicitly, by succeeding generations. I don’t think anyone in history has ever been placated by the cry “but it wasn’t intended that way.”
@Smapti You better check your surroundings for spy devices. I posted this over in the cluster thread.
They are both equal-area pseudocylindrical map projections with a 2:1 aspect ratio, but the shape of the meridians are ellipses in the Eckert projection, versus parabolas in the Putnins/Craster projection. To blend them, they did something like: first the Putnins projection is applied, then scaled by 0.87, then inversely project back onto a sphere, then forward project by Eckert IV, then apply a stretch factor of 1.02. You should be able to reproduce this procedure, and see the effects of the parameters, in Flex Projector.
The final projection is supposed to look like the Robinson projection, but be equal-area, is what they were going for.