It’s 2023 and we have computers at our fingertips everyday, use a virtual globe.
Flat maps are cool and work well on paper, but you’re not likely going to need a map of a country on paper for travel.
251–260 of 351 posts
It’s 2023 and we have computers at our fingertips everyday, use a virtual globe.
Flat maps are cool and work well on paper, but you’re not likely going to need a map of a country on paper for travel.
This article doesn't touch on the actual reasons why Mercator is still in widespread use: * It was the first widespread projection because of its practical use for nautical navigation (where it is still the best projection available), so it was easy for map makers to sell for non-nautical uses, even after "better" projections became available. And inertia is a hard thing to overcome for something considered somewhat…
Stereographic projection(of the half sphere where the origin and destination lies on) solves the geodesic issue, and it's different from the Meractor
This article doesn't touch on the actual reasons why Mercator is still in widespread use: * It was the first widespread projection because of its practical use for nautical navigation (where it is still the best projection available), so it was easy for map makers to sell for non-nautical uses, even after "better" projections became available. And inertia is a hard thing to overcome for something considered somewhat…
No map shown to a driver at the detail level of navigating intersections should have to care about projections much. At that small a scale earth is approximately flat, and any half decent projection should have minimal distortions of any kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it’s not. Nobody cares about Greenland despite it being larger than all of Europe on the projection.
[flagged]
Consider saying "If you want to learn more about it".
Saying only "if you want to learn" is condescending and patronizing and is a thing those imperialists living in the northern hemisphere do.
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)…
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe more accurate is that there wasn’t some nefarious bias that was meant to oppress people. Europe was at the center because they made the maps. It’s a simple reason. If some other culture has been dominant we’d be using a projection that makes it more useful for them.
>Europe was at the center because they made the maps. It’s a simple reason. If some other culture has been dominant we’d be using a projection that makes it more useful for them. IMO Simply moving the Mercator projection to be centered on China is far more meaningful than changing the projection. The entire world revolved around China and trading with it for thousands of years, and you much more immediately understan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? Yes. That and population. Generally, the larger and more populous countries tend to be the most powerful and influential. > Did you ever check out how small Britain or Spain or Portugal or Netherlands were to the size of their empire. Ever wonder why britain, spain, portugal and netherlands expanded their landmass by creating their empires? Ever wond…
> Generally, the larger and more populous countries tend to be the most powerful and influential. But this is obviously not true. Just look at the list of top 10 by GDP and check out how many of them are relatively small. I mean you have to have natural resources and can’t be tiny, but it’s not like Germany and Japan are powerful because of their landmass. I think judging countries by their size is a mistake in ratio…
There absolutely is a correlation between land mass and nominal GDP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably seen that clip a dozen times and this was the first time I noticed Whitford manspreading in the middle of the clip and Janney batting his leg back. By the look on his face, it seems improvised to get a laugh out of her.
it’s a huge stretch to claim there was no bias involved. the biais is in putting europe front and center and at the top. Have you seen maps that place the americas in the center? How about maps with north and south swapped?