Is this projection better or worse than the Robinson projection?

  • Better.

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • Worse.

    Votes: 19 59.4%
  • The same.

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Varies, depending on situation.

    Votes: 8 25.0%
  • I have no opinion but like voting in polls.

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Total voters
    32
Currently, most world maps on this site use the Robinson projection. Here's a blank map of the Earth, followed by a completely blank map with only lines of latitude and longitude.



I don't think that this projection is ideal, for several reasons.
  • Distances vary between different parts of the map.
  • On the edges of the map, there are large amounts of skewing.
  • It is difficult to work out exactly which direction is north, especially if the gridlines are removed.
  • It's impossible to use it for a map centered on the Pacific.
  • Areas very close to the poles are grotesquely stretched and impossible to map accurately.

Of course no map projection is perfect; it is impossible to perfectly map a globe onto a 2D surface. However, I think that the following projection, which I have just made, is significantly better.
Map7.png


Advantages of this projection:
  • Distances are much easier to calculate. Vertical distances are *always* 27.777 kilometers per pixel; horizontal distances are (33.3333*cos y) kilometers, where y is the latitude of the location in question. (For locations further north than 60 degrees north or further south than 60 degrees south - i.e., in one of those triangles near the poles - use y=60.)
  • No more skewing. New Zealand and Alaska are now no longer horribly contorted.
  • The poles are much less distorted and can be mapped accurately.
  • You can easily move the center and change it into a Pacific-centered map.
  • While one disadvantage is that the landmasses at the poles are non-contiguous, this is not a big issue, for the only landmasses that are divided are very sparsely-populated anyway.
  • Even when the gridlines are removed, it's easy to tell which direction is north. (For most of the map, north is straight upwards; in the triangles near the poles, north is towards the apex of the triangle).

So, questions. Is this better than the Robinson projection for general use on the site, and if so, should we start a collaborative effort to create a world map in this new projection? Any suggested improvements?
 
I can't judge until I actually see some continents on that map really. My gut instinct is that it's a lot less of a 'neat' looking map and the Robinson is above all the projection designed to produce the most aesthetic balance of distortions.
 
I can't judge until I actually see some continents on that map really. My gut instinct is that it's a lot less of a 'neat' looking map and the Robinson is above all the projection designed to produce the most aesthetic balance of distortions.
That's reasonable; I'll try to create the map with continents on it :)
 
Right, here is what a map looks like in my new projection. Roughly.

There are obviously lots of inaccuracies here due to imperfect joining, and the fact that I used a basemap of the pole that's in a slightly different projection, not to mention that I haven't added Antarctica, but the important thing is that it gives you a decent idea of what the new projection looks like. :)

 
Nothing against the work you've put in (it probably takes a lot), but there's something that I can't stand about map projections that aren't contiguous.
 
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Interruptions in the McKenzie River basin and Baffin Bay? I shudder to think of how you'd manage to draw the Yukon Territory with those distortions.
 
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Interruptions in the McKenzie River basin and Baffin Bay? I shudder to think of how you'd manage to draw the Yukon Territory with those distortions.
It looks like I accidentally put those boundaries slightly too far west; these red lines show where the divides should be.

Map10.png


Here is what the Mackenzie river basin should look like (roughly).

Map11.png


The maximum distortion is a 30% skew -- not ideal, but no worse than Alaska or New Zealand on a worlda.

Essentially, my map is an equirectangular projection, squashed horizontally a bit, and then with modifications to avoid extreme distorion near the poles. The main problem is the interruptions, as you say. I intentionally put them as far out-of-the-way as possible, but still, it is probably a bigger issue than I initially thought. Oh well.
 

SRBO

Banned
Why not simply use normal Equirectangular. It's like Mercator with less distortion. Yes, North and South areas get stretched but who cares
 
Top