41–45 of 45 posts
it's a good idea, but it uses the distorted Mercator projection, and then cuts it so that you can glue it back into a somewhat globe-like shape. it's distorted, twice.
Are you sure? Greenland looks quite small and in https://foldingglobes.com/ there is an option to print the borders with parallels and meridians and they are split and curved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure? Greenland looks quite small and in https://foldingglobes.com/ there is an option to print the borders with parallels and meridians and they are split and curved.
i didn't spend much time with it beyond noticing that africa was tiny.
Some photo from a satellite. https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/83403/view/africa-satelli... Note that Africa is quite similar to the image in a Mercator projection.
There is a lot of fuzz about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection but if you see the image in "Formulation" it shows that Africa (and all places near the Equator) are stretched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i didn't spend much time with it beyond noticing that africa was tiny.
Africa is fine in Mercator, the problem is that Europe is too big in Mercator! Some photo from a satellite. https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/83403/view/africa-satelli... Note that Africa is quite similar to the image in a Mercator projection. There is a lot of fuzz about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection but if you see the image in "Formulation" it shows that Africa (and all places near the Equat…
here's a reality check:
https://licensing.visualcapitalist.com/product/how-many-coun...
or just find a globe, or zoom out in google maps.
also, what you write doesn't make much sense. the problem is with the relative sizes, with the non-linear distortion. regardless of which zero point you pick.
Great! > Meteorite Landings There seem to be significantly more of those on the northern hemisphere. I wonder what might be the reason for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Africa is fine in Mercator, the problem is that Europe is too big in Mercator! Some photo from a satellite. https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/83403/view/africa-satelli... Note that Africa is quite similar to the image in a Mercator projection. There is a lot of fuzz about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection but if you see the image in "Formulation" it shows that Africa (and all places near the Equat…
> Africa is fine in Mercator here's a reality check: https://licensing.visualcapitalist.com/product/how-many-coun... or just find a globe, or zoom out in google maps. also, what you write doesn't make much sense. the problem is with the relative sizes, with the non-linear distortion. regardless of which zero point you pick.
If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Africa considering only the mainland that is easy to see in the map:
* from West to East covers 69°, i.e. 1/5.2 of 360°. In the maps of foldingglobes the width of Africa is close to 1/5 of the map. The same applies to the other maps, I don't see too much disagreement on the width.
* From South to North, coves 72°, i.e. 1/2.5 of 180°. In the maps of foldingglobes the width of Africa is close to 1/4 of the map. The same applies to the other maps, I don't see too much disagreement on the width.
Here I pasted a 4x2 grid of Africas over the map https://imgur.com/a/huMJgbG I hope it's clear there is room for one more copy on the side (like half on one side and half on the other) and half a copy at the bottom, so I consider it a 5x2.5 grid. So the size on the map is pretty close to the globe.
>> Africa is fine in Mercator
> here's a reality check:
I don't understand what you mean. Africa is near the Equator and is fine in the Mercator projection. A circle is mapped to almost a circle. The problem is that Europe and North America have a bigger scale. (I'd try to print the maps and make a collage later.)
An interesting comparison in the map you linked is Norway, that is very North and has a huge scale difference in the Mercator projection.
In the map you linked, if you move slowly Norway from the center of the Sahara to the North, when it reach the cost it goes approximately form the southest part of the gulf in Libya (near Rā's Lānūf) to the frontier between Morocco and Algleia (near Nador).
Using a plastic rule on the screen on the screen on my computer in whatever resolution I have now in Google Maps (Mercator), I get 5.5cm from Rā's Lānūf to Nador. But when I measure Norway with the same method I get 9.5cm form Sandnes to Berlevåg. That shows that the scale of Norway is like x2 the scale of the north cost of Africa, but I think we both strongly agree in that Mercator use different escales.
If I repeat the same measurement in the map in foldingglobes, I get 3cm for Norway. The cost of North Africa is hard to measure because it is split, but it looks like 4cm. Can I claim a 1 to 1 scale? I think the north cost of Africa that I'm measuring is slightly bigger in the map. I guess the cost is closer to the edges and then they have a slightly bigger escale.
Anyway, the conclusion is that the huge x2 difference of escale disappears.
For completeness:
If I use the distance measurement in Google Maps I get 1700km for Norway and 2000 for the part of the north cost of Africa. So close enough for me, not a huge x2 mistake in the comparison.
If I use a plastic ruler in the map you pasted I get I get 6cm for Norway and 6cm for the part of the north cost of Africa.