Globes are correct, or close enough to it. What's not correct is any 2D representation. You have to distort the shape to make a 3d globe into a 2d map. How they choose to do that distortion is what's referred to as the projection. There's pros and cons to each projection type, but you basically have to choose between keeping the shape right and the size right. Check out the weird looking maps on here. You could technically still navigate with them, but it would be weird. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-area_projection
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
9 points (100.0% liked)
MapPorn
3110 readers
1 users here now
Discover Cartographic Marvels and Navigate New Worlds!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Also a total commoner. What do you mean a globe does not represent true size of an area? My understanding is that projections of a globe can lead to "errors" in representation of area or angles. But the globe itself is accurate.
I think that sentence was a mistake. A globe is accurate. Well, more or less. Never seen a microscopically-accurate globe before. :P
I might have used wrong term here, what i mean is that if you go to thetruesize.com which claims to be showing the real size of the area/country, you can see that australia for example will be almost as big as russia, but its not the case in a globe. I wonder if i misunderstand these wrongly
TheTrueSize.com still uses Mercator projection. You need to drag Australia and Russia to the equator to see their true size. The map around equator has the minimum amount of distortion. Also on a globe if you put a tape measure against those two countries you’d see that Australia is about as tall as Russia
I'm struggling to find a site that explains map projections simply. How they're produced, where they're inaccurate and why, etc.. Google of course is terrible at anything, and refuses to give me results with the word "simple" in quotes. Can anyone help?
Give GIS Geography a try. Seemed to answer the basics. 🤷🏻
That's not really "simple", and certainly doesn't give examples of different kinds of projections and their pros and cons. Yeah, I understand it. But most peoples' eyes will glaze over, and it seems to me that OP could use a simpler explanation. There are better ways to make this information accessible and digestible.
Simple is relative I guess. I thought the article touched on the basics and even provided links to more in depth explanations.
I responded with probably a similarly eyes glaze over massage to your above comment. To simplify it, make a cone with paper. Cut off the extra. Unroll your cone and draw something. Take a picture of it. Then go back to the cone shape with maybe some tape to hold it together. Take a picture from the pointy side. Take a picture from the side. Compare all three images. It should highlight the differences and should be a little more distorted than a globe but much easier.
My way of thinking is to think of a globe and unzip from the south and north pole all the way to the equator. This needs to happen at nearly infinite points to turn it into an undistorted 2D image. Because the poles start on opposite ends of the world with a distinct point, the further away you get from them, the more these sections grow as they near the equator and shrink as they get closer to ther opposite pole. That's how with limited lines, "sharp ovals" are created from unzipping this globe. The issue is that you will have massive gaps at the poles because you turned a single point into the unrolled width of the equator. A 2D map attempts to distort the poles into a map with no gaps but must still compensate for the massive expansion in areas near the equator. The very common world atlas with a mostly ovular shape with the widest side following the equater is one attempt of showing the distortion. The many ways of compensating for this unzipping and then removing blank spaces is to distort different latitudes in different ways. It can easily result in over representing landmass near poles which consequently underrepresents land near the equator. The best way to combat this distortion (in my experience) is to limit the focus to such a small area that turning it flat leads to negligible curve affect. That won't work for a globe so go 3D unfortunately. I'm not an expert, but I do have upper education in a related field that works with 3D models.
view more: next ›