Goode homolosine projection, which enjoyed some popularity in the "Space Age", deserves a mention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goode_homolosine_projection
Really should be the default institutional projection.
The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
231–240 of 324 posts
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#232The comments overwhelmingly say: mercator isn't really in use. So what is this weird "decolonization" push then? Virtue signalling? I see it a lot from US-based people nowadays. Seems like a weird fetish as a European.
US angry US no big US biggest! US #1!
US no change size much when switching from Marcator to any of the others. So no. US cavemen not it.
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
US angry US no big US biggest! US #1!
US no change size much when switching from Marcator to any of the others. So no. US cavemen not it.
It actually shrank a bit in size (especially Alaska).
This is side by side comparison (old vs new map):
newworldsize.com/old-vs-new/united-states/
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
US angry US no big US biggest! US #1!
US no change size much when switching from Marcator to any of the others. So no. US cavemen not it.
It may not have changed size, but other countries have gotten bigger. Especially "shithole countries". If other countries get bigger and the US does not, by virtue of US thought processes, the US has gotten smaller because it could have gotten bigger and it did not. USA #1 means USA gets all the things first, regardless of their value.
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#235The comments overwhelmingly say: mercator isn't really in use. So what is this weird "decolonization" push then? Virtue signalling? I see it a lot from US-based people nowadays. Seems like a weird fetish as a European.
Web Mercator is easily the most used projection, now and in all of history.
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#236Weird title. Cargography constantly challenged itself. Look at some of the possible projections at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projections They all compromise on something to enhance something else. You simply can't map the surface of a 3d shere (approximation of the earths globe) onto a 2d flat surface. And so we have projections galore. And anyway was (and is) always free to use whatever fits best.
It is insane how the big mistake lasted.
After seeing each country before and after side by side on a website, it's insane how big the difference in false sizes of countries compared.
Like Greenland vs Africa, come on man!! This must be a joke (and still lasted 457 years).
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#237Decades ago, when I was a child, I viewed the Mercator projection as old fashioned and stupid. In fact, I rarely saw it. Most maps were Robinson's projection ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_projection ). It baffles me that anyone still uses Mercator projection for any serious purpose.
> It baffles me that anyone still uses Mercator projection for any serious purpose.
Tell me you've never done any serious navigation off a map or chart without telling me...
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#238Weird title. Cargography constantly challenged itself. Look at some of the possible projections at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projections They all compromise on something to enhance something else. You simply can't map the surface of a 3d shere (approximation of the earths globe) onto a 2d flat surface. And so we have projections galore. And anyway was (and is) always free to use whatever fits best.
I agree cartography has always been challenging itself, it is possible the size of most nations have been miscalculated.
> it is possible the size of most nations have been miscalculated
Huh? Are you a Flat Earth believer? We can literally see the countries from space. The problem wasn't that we don't know how big they are but that, as your parent explains, it is not possible to have a flat map which accurately depicts a (roughly) spherical terrain. A flat map has to be "wrong" in some sense and this change picks a map which made a trade off that favours accurate size (e.g. ratio between size of Greenland and Africa)
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#239The comments overwhelmingly say: mercator isn't really in use. So what is this weird "decolonization" push then? Virtue signalling? I see it a lot from US-based people nowadays. Seems like a weird fetish as a European.
The article actually maps out the history pretty well. This is basically a recrudescence of the Gall-Peters debate from the 70s, triggered by Boston Public Schools adopting Gall-Peters in 2017. The current wave has taken up the old fight with a less-ugly equiareal map.
It’s silly that the UN chose to prioritize equal area over all other aspects of a map projection, but if we must use an equal‐area projection, I’m glad they chose this one. Gall–Peters is just hideous and it’s awful that it’s as widely adopted as it is. I hope Equal Earth replaces Gall–Peters everywhere.
Re: The UN challenges five centuries of cartography
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just use KM? We should reduce the number of units of measure in 2026.
Because nautical miles is an angle measurement which then happens to be 1852 meters when you break it down.
And only 1852m at sea level; since it's an angular distance it's a bit longer in the air and a bit shorter underwater (~ 29 cm per km of elevation change).