All all y’all know you can simply rotate the Mercator projection, right? You can have more than one chart…
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
I think this is the best projection I have ever seen. It preserves relative sizes, mostly preserves continental shapes, and doesn’t cram the northernmost lands into the top of the map.
The thing is, there are always going to be distortions. It’s all in how/where those distortions are, and what utility the map provides in spite of those distortions.
In the case of the Mercator, it’s really useful for maritime navigation. It doesn’t look right. Other projections look more right, but aren’t nearly so useful.
But ultimately, this should have been something that was just done by the UN cartographic bureau or secretariat, or whatever. The whole making it a big political deal is silly, and by doing so, lends credence to the nonsense that the map projection is anything more than a map projection or that Africa was somehow being put down by the choice of projection.
Please correct me if necessary but, isn’t any sphere going to be distorted in some way when you lay it out as a flat map? I saw a facebook post showing the “new & better” map and noticed that, if I enlarged the western hemisphere, Hawaii looked like it was @4,000 miles west of California instead of @2,000. So, something was obviously wrong right there.
At the time it was .
And the seafarers of the time who plotted a neat course along a parallel couldn’t tell with any precision save dead reckoning where they were along that course i.e. the longitude question.
The “Equal Earth” projection has the same fidelity of axis and so, to my understanding is equally useful for maritime navigation. So nowt has been lost, no?
That’s kind of my point; ANY projection by its nature is going to be distorted in some fashion, somewhere. You can’t take a sphere and depict it as a flat plane without doing so.
That’s why this is ultimately silly; the UN probably picked the Mercator projection back in the 1940s because it’s the “classic” map projection and easily recognizable as “the world”. At no point has there been any favoritism or preference for the global north because of it, and nor was that why it was picked.
But for some silly reasons, some African nations are wound up about it, as if the choice had anything to do with them whatsoever, or that ultimately anyone should care about the map projection. Certainly nobody with half a brain ascribes anything to the choice of the map projection and its inherent distortions, except for people with a political axe to grind. And that strikes me as something that shouldn’t be humored; making such a big deal out of this legitimizes this sort of silliness. I disagree with the US government that it’s a radical agenda or anything like that; I just think it’s the height of silly time, money, and effort wasting, just so some African nations feel like they’re somehow more important because the map looks different. Their actual importance does not change.
If it’s so silly to object to the Mercator, isn’t it equally silly to object to any alternative?
I’m not arguing that at all. It IS silly to argue about this, much less have it go all the way to the General Assembly for a vote. Some bureaucrat could have just changed this at any point in the last 80 years if it was actually important. But it’s not, and that’s why it wasn’t ever changed.
So why are you arguing about it?
Seeing as this is what the UN currently uses for its logo…
… as an African, I like the logo map! Bonus points, it shows the USA as much smaller than Africa.
Not really, nor is it designed as a navigational map for plotting courses.
Here is an old-school gnomonic chart with instructions:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Admiralty_Chart_No_132_Gnomonic_Chart_of_Indian_and_Southern_Oceans%2C_Published_1914.jpg
Before this thread, it never had occurred to me that there might be such a thing as an “official UN map”. What is the exact situation now?
I would not have expected a Mercator map to be used for a quick political view of the entire world, and I would not have expected an equal-area map to be used for, lets say, critical cease-fire lines in a peace treaty.
LOL, yes, that had occurred to me. So that is what is being phased out, the logo with the azimuthal projection or whatever it is? That one may have been deliberately designed to emphasize the USA, I am not actually sure.
Though, the version of the logo on Wikipedia looks like this:
Goes down to 60° South and centred on the North Pole, not on UN headquarters.
Not only that, but it’s centered on the North Pole, with the Prime Meridian being the vertical axis (or whatever that’s called). That makes sense from a cartographic perspective - it’s got 90 degrees north latitude and 0 degrees longitude as the main axes.
Well, gosh, I ought to have figured that out myself. 
So to fly from Washington DC to Australia you fly straight over Antarctica? Show that to the flatearthers and watch their minds explode.
They published the final parameters in their article, including the aesthetic criteria they used to eyeball it in the first place.
LOL… again, great-circle routes may be plotted as straight lines on e.g. a gnomonic chart.
You might want 5095, 5096, and 5099 in your case.
Then you transfer your course to a Mercator chart so you know how to steer.
It’s the scenic route!
It shows Antarctica as being far bigger than it actually is. It doesn’t distort area as much as Mercator does, but it definitely isn’t equal-area.
Kind of faint praise since Mercator reaches infinite area distortion