Many documentaries seem to agree that the world map we currently use is far from accurate, and it’s misrepresenting the size (and even shape) of many continents, islands and countries. It’s using an outdated projection technique called ” Mercator projection ” that was mainly used for sailing back in the 16th century. Why aren’t we using a map that’s more up to date? Can maps like “thetruesize” website be relied upon?
In: 2
We do use a map that is more up to date. The GPS mapping that you use is extremely accurate, and distorts nothing. However, it can’t be projected onto a flat piece of paper. For that, you need a projection, like….the mercator projection. We use that because of the limitations of traditional (paper) display tech, not because we’re afraid to move away from it.
In school I think it’s just to branching point for the younger student to get a feel for simple geography. But ik some people think it’s to purely put America as #1.
You can’t render a three dimensional sphere onto a flat surface without distortions of some sort. Mercator is certainly not the best, but it’s the one most people are familiar with, and none of them are much better, so we stick with it.
There is no 2D representation of the world that doesn’t employ some form of distortion because – spoiler alert – the world isn’t flat. It turns out it is mathematically impossible to represent something curved (like the world) on a flat space without distorting some aspect.
So the choice here isn’t between “distortion” and “no distortion” it’s about choosing what kind of distortion you want. The Mercator projection is old, but it’s not “out dated.” Yes, it does distort sizes, but it preserves angles and direction. In general the properties maps preserve or distort are:
* Direction
* Local shapes
* Areas
* Distances
* Shortest routes
Even if distorted, is accurate for the purpose it has. Teaching geography.
And in that note, i’m a bit worried of the lack of interest from young and older people in knowing that topic.
The main reason is that basically any map format has flaws. The only (almost) flawless way to project the earth is by using a globe, but that doesn’t really serve the same purpose as a map. The reason for this is that it is impossible to depict a round surface on a flat projection without changing at least some details like shape, size, and angles. The world map most commonly used is one in which the angles are preserved, but as a result the size and shape of things get distorted. This format was originally chosen because it is the easiest for navigation while sailing as you can exactly follow the path laid out on the map without having to convert the angles on the map into the true angles you would have to turn. This map sticked around because there is no real reason to change maps if the new maps wouldn’t be flawless but instead just have different flaws than the original map.
The earth is a very spherical ball. It’s not quite a sphere, but close enough.
Trying to put a sphere onto a plane is impossible without distortion or “holes”. There are ways to have less distortion, for example we could have lense-shaped cutouts along the longitudinal lines, but that would be even less readable than a map with distortion.
The only way to get no distortion is a third dimension
These documentaries are lying to you…the truth is more complex. Mercator isn’t as universal as they say it is and it isn’t ‘outdated’, just old. Like metalworking…
Different projections have different strengths and weaknesses (accurately representing lengths, areas, straight lines, simplicity,…) but there isn’t one that is perfect.
Mercator probably isn’t the right one for world maps in a class room though, but I haven’t visited one in a while, so don’t know if they still are.
When you try to make a flat representation of a round (or round-ish) object, there’s always going to be misrepresentation. Just try to cup a ball ou something else round you have and make it completely flat.
It can be probably less distorted if you do like peeling an orange, but a thin strip is probably not going to be very useful as a map.
Usually the part that gets less distorted in a map is the part in the center. The world map we usually use is centered on the equator. Everything close to the equator has a lower distortion and this far from the equator are more distorted.
There are some different maps created more recently, but they all have misrepresentations. It seems to me that it would be too much work to change the main one used 8n the world 8f the improvement is not that big.
Of course, not everyone that works with maps uses this one, if you need a map focused on a specific region, like the poles, you’re not going to use the same that somebody that studies African geography…
To be fair, I actually think that the globe is a fairly decent approximation. If we’re talking 2D maps of the surface of an ellipsoid, I double-dare you to find a map that one could call accurate. Projecting a 3D object onto a 2D surface cannot be done without concessions.
Latest Answers