This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Maps and
Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a
stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article had an importance automatically assigned to it. Once it has been checked by a human, please remove |autoi=yes.
Replace low-contrast images
I will be replacing images on the various map projection pages. Presently many are on a satellite composite image from NASA that, while realistic, poorly demonstrates the projections because of dark color and low contrast. I have created a stylization of the same data with much brighter water areas and a light graticule to contrast. See the thumbnail of the example from another article. Some images on some pages are acceptable but differ stylistically from most articles; I will replace these also.
The images will be high resolution and antialiased, with 15° graticules for world projections, red, translucent equator, red tropics, and blue polar circles.
The Werner projection is a
pseudoconic equal-area
map projection. This cordiform (
heart-shaped) projection originated in the 16th century. It is a limiting form of the
Bonne projection. Distances along each parallel and along the central meridian are correct, as are all distances from the North Pole.Map:
Strebe, using Geocart
I have read various sources, and have not reached a firm conclusion, but I am not yet convinced that all distances are true from the North pole. Some sources claim that preserving all distances from a prescribed point and preserving areas is impossible. Can someone who understands this investigate the matter? If it is true, is the Werner projection unique in preserving both of these?--
Leon (
talk)
19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Hello
Leon. It’s trivially true. The parallels are equally spaced circular arcs whose center is the north pole, which means they’re the correct distance from the north pole, which means anything from the north pole to any location on any parallel must be the right distance. What are “some sources”? I’ve never seen that, and if they exist, they’re wrong.
Strebe (
talk)
02:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Well
this is one such source. And an argument I've read, I cannot remember where, argues that if distances and areas are correct, scales are correct in both directions from the chosen centre and perpendicular to the chosen centre, which implies that there is no distortion and therefore the map is also conformal, which is impossible. What is the fallacy with this argument?
Back to the article, the combination of the two aforementioned properties sounds very distinguished. Are there any other projections combining these two properties?--
Leon (
talk)
08:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The learnnc.org article is a little confused. The four traits it lists are sort of arbitrary; there's no particular reason to delineate those four as "the four". Meanwhile "equidistant" does not have a formal definition. By one definition, Werner is equidistant, but by others it is not, and regardless of what definition you choose, there will be maps not usually considered to be equidistant that are, or vice versa. But no matter what definition you choose, the explanation they give for equidistant is wrong. Nothing has correct distances between all points, yet the article does not qualify its description of equidistant with that fact. The same problem lies in the other argument you give. You don't even have to throw in equal-area or conformal: Distances are never correct on a map in the general sense. The argument's use of two directions is not well motivated; "two" directions are irrelevant.
Sinusoidal projection, for example, is equal-area and has correct distances from the center along the equator and along the central meridian, but it's not equidistant by most definitions (although, it does have correct distances along all parallels, which could be argued is "equidistant", by some odd definition, though unrelated to the center point and axes from it).
As for Werner's place as (possibly) equidistant and also equal-area, no, it is not unique, since you could warp Werner by sliding the concentric arcs around the north pole in different amounts with respect to each other, neither destroying equivalence (the property of being equal-area), nor changing the distance any point is from center. There is an infinite amount of variations in sliding you could do, so this class is infinite. Other than this transformation, which always results in a more distorted map than Werner, I don't think there is another way to arrive at those two properties simultaneously. (Possibly there is some way if the point from which distances are correct is not a point when mapped, but stretched into an arc. I rather doubt that, though, for the same reasons it can't work if you stretch it into a straight line.)
Strebe (
talk)
17:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply