Every few years this comes up again, and every time some nonsense about colonialism or whatever is brought up.
There is no “true” size or “true” shape on a 2D projection of Earth’s very 3D surface. We used the one projection for so long because of how coastal shapes don’t get bent way out of proportion, but like with any projection, messes with the other aspects.
Rather than making spicy click bait titles every so often about the “true” projection of the Earth, how about we teach kids at school what it takes to project something 3D on a 2D surface?
Isn’t this incorrect though? As far as I am aware it is possible to represent true size (equal-area) or true shape (conformal), but not both at the same time
Think of opening the earth up onto a cylinder and stretching it out and over its surface, then flattening that cylinder out.
It will be equal in the centre, but distorted at the ends.
The projection we use is the Reverse Mercator, as its ‘cylinder’ sits vertical so to speak, distorting the poles. Horizontally, it would distort across the Equator in a couple places, which wouldn’t be useable.
As a neurodivergent map person, I’m over-aware of the difficulties of map projection. And I agree that simply calling this new projection ‘accurate’ is misleading
But at the same time, the use of the Mercator as the standard default map in situations that have nothing to do with ocean navigation for literally hundreds of years is absolutely a reflection of the relative power of the Global North, and can’t be dismissed as ‘nonsense about colonialism’
In what way? It inflates the size of areas as they get further away from the equator, resulting in Africa being portrayed as relatively much smaller than it is compared to Europe and North America
Now I’m imagining a dick measuring contest where the men care more about whose is measured most accurately for some reason, rather than showing off how long their dick is
so coming from you pleasr tell us what would be the best way to project an as accurate as possible world map? I mena both in 3D version and as a 2D version
If you’re not using it to engage in navigation, Equal Earth is a sensible default.
Tools like Google maps are a bit thornier. They’re used for navigation, but generally not in a way where angles matter. I could see someone getting themselves into trouble because the angles are screwy. But then again if Google cared about that sort of case, we wouldn’t have the recent story of the Gemini hikers.
yeah, i tried to figure out the angle between two points off google maps the other day. it fucking sucked. i ended up using another website that was basically a frontend for doing it.
i’m still not sure if it was right. if i go orienteering again, i’m bringing paper maps. precharted routes and angles drawn in so i don’t have to look anything up out in the field. orienteering off your phone is stupid.
A 3D version would be a globe. A 2D version is inherently inaccurate because it’s 2D and the earth is not. You are free to pick your poison in the manner of your projection but you will always loose something.
If you’re asking me to tell you the best way to navigate 500 years ago, I can’t help you because I’m not a historian. The point is that really has absolutely no bearing on how we should use maps today in the present.
Every few years this comes up again, and every time some nonsense about colonialism or whatever is brought up.
There is no “true” size or “true” shape on a 2D projection of Earth’s very 3D surface. We used the one projection for so long because of how coastal shapes don’t get bent way out of proportion, but like with any projection, messes with the other aspects.
Rather than making spicy click bait titles every so often about the “true” projection of the Earth, how about we teach kids at school what it takes to project something 3D on a 2D surface?
And just use a fucking globe!
Isn’t this incorrect though? As far as I am aware it is possible to represent true size (equal-area) or true shape (conformal), but not both at the same time
Yeah, isn’t that what I said?
I read it as neither one is possible, but maybe it’s on me.
Well, I meant is when projecting something in 2D, you’re making a sacrifice somewhere.
I don’t really understand the difference, but Greenland is not bigger than Australia right?
wait. is yo mamma fatter in greenland or NZ? what if we remove NZ from the map?
No
Think of opening the earth up onto a cylinder and stretching it out and over its surface, then flattening that cylinder out.
It will be equal in the centre, but distorted at the ends.
The projection we use is the Reverse Mercator, as its ‘cylinder’ sits vertical so to speak, distorting the poles. Horizontally, it would distort across the Equator in a couple places, which wouldn’t be useable.
As a neurodivergent map person, I’m over-aware of the difficulties of map projection. And I agree that simply calling this new projection ‘accurate’ is misleading
But at the same time, the use of the Mercator as the standard default map in situations that have nothing to do with ocean navigation for literally hundreds of years is absolutely a reflection of the relative power of the Global North, and can’t be dismissed as ‘nonsense about colonialism’
You know it’s the Reverse Mercator right?
It’s been the best way to transform a curved surface to a plane surface in a way that people understand.
The Mercator projection really seems to be Africa-centric if anything
In what way? It inflates the size of areas as they get further away from the equator, resulting in Africa being portrayed as relatively much smaller than it is compared to Europe and North America
Africa is by far the most accurately portrayed part of the map, and it’s right in the center.
Now I’m imagining a dick measuring contest where the men care more about whose is measured most accurately for some reason, rather than showing off how long their dick is
it’s in the center?
Exactly. It’s easy to brush off the idea of soft power but it has real consequences.
so coming from you pleasr tell us what would be the best way to project an as accurate as possible world map? I mena both in 3D version and as a 2D version
Pick one that suits your application.
If you’re not using it to engage in navigation, Equal Earth is a sensible default.
Tools like Google maps are a bit thornier. They’re used for navigation, but generally not in a way where angles matter. I could see someone getting themselves into trouble because the angles are screwy. But then again if Google cared about that sort of case, we wouldn’t have the recent story of the Gemini hikers.
yeah, i tried to figure out the angle between two points off google maps the other day. it fucking sucked. i ended up using another website that was basically a frontend for doing it.
i’m still not sure if it was right. if i go orienteering again, i’m bringing paper maps. precharted routes and angles drawn in so i don’t have to look anything up out in the field. orienteering off your phone is stupid.
A 3D version would be a globe. A 2D version is inherently inaccurate because it’s 2D and the earth is not. You are free to pick your poison in the manner of your projection but you will always loose something.
It is complete nonsense. Use makes something standard, and maps have most been used in navigation. So it naturally becomes the default.
This is how ALL defaults become defaults, even when they’re wrong.
What better alternative projection they could use at the time for navigation?
I don’t know? That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the UN using it not for navigation in 2026
You might note that the present is, in fact, not 500 years ago.
Is that the answer to my question?
If you’re asking me to tell you the best way to navigate 500 years ago, I can’t help you because I’m not a historian. The point is that really has absolutely no bearing on how we should use maps today in the present.
And the present doesn’t affect the past.
from the perspective of an art conservationist i’m not entirely sure i agree.
For political uses new projection is better. UN body are not going to use that to navigate.