596
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
596 points (95.8% liked)
interestingasfuck
9757 readers
772 users here now
For exceptionally interesting content
Rules:
- Posts must be interesting
- Posts must be based in reality
- No hateful content
- No harmful content
- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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!
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'
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.
I'd missed that story.
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-gemini-mountain-trip-hikers-rescue-3708165/
That is not really an answer.
What is the best general world map to teach kids about the world, that we can put in a book or as a poster on the wall, without having to switch to different maps for each lessen, confusing everyone?
If it is not Mercator, then which one is?
For teaching kids Equal Earth is a reasonable choice. Scale and relative global position are conveyed better.
A side effect of Mercator massively distorting size near the poles, neither Europe nor Canada don't feel as North as they actually are.
Kids don't have much of a reason to care about specific angles.
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.
So when it comes to picking a 2D poison which ome would be currently best? The new UN map ? or ....
Or would a better solution for 2D be a 'collection' of pictures of the Earth from numerous different angles? And we just look at each of the angles seperately as their own seperate 2D picture of different parts of the Earth? So Im talking we supposedly take 14 or 20 or more different pictures of the Earth from 14 or 20 or more different angles of the Earth then we just lay out each of those pictures and it is up to the viewer to look at each picture of each angles of the Earth and to do what they can in their head with those pictures. Bad idea, good idea?
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
The center - east to west - is 0 degrees longitude, defined as the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England. This does also go through West Africa
The center - north to south - is 0 degrees latitude, defined as the equator.
Because of this, Africa is central on the vast majority of world map projections including the Mercator and the Equal Earth.
Accuracy is relative. The Mercator distorts areas bigger the further away they are from the equator. This exaggerates the size of the USA, Europe etc compared to Africa.
The big advantage is that the 180th meridian ends up in a very unpopulated part of the world. It is Chukotka Oblast and more importantly Fiji. For the current 0meridian style maps, that is two edges being without much population and not cutting too many continents.
it's in the center?
Exactly. It's easy to brush off the idea of soft power but it has real consequences.
You know it’s the ~~Reverse~~ Transverse Mercator right?
It’s been the best way to transform a curved surface to a plane surface in a way that people understand.
It's not the Reverse Mercator... I'm not sure what that is
Do you mean Transverse Mercator? Although it's not that either
Yeah I did, thank you
Edit: and yeah we definitely use the transverse
We do not
(Well, we do sometimes but it's not the map in question)
The link you provide says we use the Transverse Mercator projection
I screwed up with ‘reverse’ but it was transverse I meant and it’s what’s popularly used.
It says it is used. But it's not the map this thread is talking about. It's not the map the UN is replacing. It's not the map in the thumbnail. It's not the original Mercator map. Its not the most widely used map projection.
It's used in specific situations yes
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
My question continues that thread.
And my point (subtle it may be) is that when something is wildly useful, it sticks.
Despite not being universally good.
And to change from it you need more than just a slight advantage.
That's why the UN didn't think about changing map projection.
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.
I mean, before the advent of GPS, ships at sea got a "fix" of their position by taking two measurements: north/south latitude (via a sextant when the sun was visible) and east/west longitude (via a set of very accurate clocks that showed the time in Greenwich England, which could be easily compared to the time aboard ship). Mercator maps are just a grid showing where all the land is as a function of these two measurements on the X and Y axes. Any other projection would have just meant a lot more work figuring out where shit was, which is why Mercator became "the" map. It had absolutely nothing to do with any attempt to make Europe appear dominant -- Europe's dominance when these maps came into existence was too obvious and unquestioned to need any parlor tricks.
How do you use a globe on paper tho?
Clearly we need to invent globe shaped books.
For political uses new projection is better. UN body are not going to use that to navigate.
The only reason to have a default map is political.
People actually using maps and GIS pick whatever projection suits their needs - which is not Mercantor most of the time to begin with. I work with GIS a lot and never use it, unless forced by some API. But even then, reprojecting is trivial.
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~~ Transverse 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.
The projection we use is just the Mercator. Horizontally, it's called a Transverse Mercator
That’s right, transverse
Can't use a globe, the Earth is flat! I did my research
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.
Wow imagine believing this nonsense. Privileged "or whatever" AF. Why do you think USA voted against this? Ofc it's racist and colonial.
The Americans will turn literally everything into some sort of pissing contest. I don't give a fuck about their reasons for voting against the change, they'll always have some dumb reason to do dumb American things.
Doesn't change simple historical facts, no matter how much you try to redefine them with a modern lense.