Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Maps distort how we see the world

unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 351 posts

Re: Maps distort how we see the world

#151

Post by zztop44 »

m2fkxy wrote: post #141
zokier wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Agree. Most of the general-public wall maps I see out there use equal-area projs.

Really? 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.

Re: Maps distort how we see the world

#153

Post by cebsoto »

prepend wrote: post #73
eddythompson80 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> 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…

I read it as the post is simply pointing out something that a large percentage of the population was not even aware about. I don't think it goes any deeper than that.

Re: Maps distort how we see the world

#154

Post by prepend »

bluepod4 wrote: post #128
prepend wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But my thoughts about Europe definitely changed after seeing the other projection. That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? Did you ever check out how small Britain or Spain or Portugal or Netherlands were to the size of their empire. Do you now think that Indonesia is more important because of its size? I would expect that revelations about population would be more worldview adjusting (Nig…

You have a fixed and narrow definition of what important means. Importance should change depending on context. Sure, you are definitely allowed to say that a certain metric (i.e. population size or density) has more practical applications and provides better signal for “blah blah”. But I’m not discussing “blah blah”.

I’m curious why you think my definition of important is fixed and narrow. I didn’t define it and I agree that importance is a factor of context.

I commented that it was curious that someone would think size is so important that learning the true size of countries would change their world view. In that land mass isn’t usually very important for political or cultural significance (eg, Canada is huge and that doesn’t make it important, Russia is important not because of its size, etc etc).

Re: Maps distort how we see the world

#155

Post by m463 »

jgeada wrote: post #24

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! 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)…

Even those plastic vacuformed relief maps distorts things... otherwise you probably wouldn't notice the mountains.

Re: Maps distort how we see the world

#157

Post by netsharc »

ubermonkey wrote: post #148
netsharc wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This site shows the shortest path between 2 airports: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=IAH-DXB I'd imagine your flight would've avoided Russia, afaik even before the war they were obnoxious about who can fly over them/how much it would cost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U

I've no recollection about flying in Russian airspace, but I definitely did snap a phonecam pic of the seatback map showing us flying between the Elburz mountains and Tehran. This was in 2012, so 11 years ago (per the date of the pic I found). The path suggested by that position absolutely implies flight over Russian territory, but obviously I have no data beyond that. It seems unlikely that an airliner would, like,…

Well, zig-zags happen, almost all airlines avoided flying over Ukraine after the MH17 shootdown, and no flights fly straight from point to point like what gcmap.com would show, they follow "roads", e.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks . It's also possible they'd avoid Russia if the detour costs less than the overfly fee.

Yeah Emirates didn't join in the sanctions, so they can still fly to, and over Russia. A few weeks ago there was an Air India that was flying from India to the US over Russia, and had to make an emergency landing in Russia, there were concerns whether they'd be allowed to import a replacement engine into Russia because the sanctions.

Re: Maps distort how we see the world

#158

Post by prepend »

cebsoto wrote: post #153
prepend wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I read it as the post is simply pointing out something that a large percentage of the population was not even aware about. I don't think it goes any deeper than that.

Why is it important that poor people live near the equator? I expect that a large part of the population is aware of this fact.

So bringing it up doesn’t contribute to the article and is a bit off in the article. Why not mention that the days are longer in the summer away from the equator. Or they people near the equator have darker pigment. Or many other true but irrelevant facts.

Re: Maps distort how we see the world

#159

Post by IIAOPSW »

prepend wrote: post #77
bluepod4 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm constantly amazed at how hung up people are on apparent size of countries. If size is your thing, use some other projection! Hmm. That’s not usually how the discourse goes. It’s never “wow, Country X is actually smaller than Country Y. That’s terrible.” It usually goes something like “wow, Country X is actually smaller than Country Y. This distorts our worldview and makes us think things we shouldn’t have thoug…

> But my thoughts about Europe definitely changed after seeing the other projection. That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? Did you ever check out how small Britain or Spain or Portugal or Netherlands were to the size of their empire. Do you now think that Indonesia is more important because of its size? I would expect that revelations about population would be more worldview adjusting (Nig…

>That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important?

If it wasn't, why was so much of history spent fighting over it?

Re: Maps distort how we see the world

#160

Post by triyambakam »

jgeada wrote: post #24

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! 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)…

Mercator just has an embedded momentum, it isn't somehow superior to other projections. Why do some people still use tech X when tech Y exists? Momentum, resistance to change, etc.
Post reply on HN