783
Today, the United Nations voted to adopt a new world map that reflects countries’ true relative sizes (programming.dev)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world
228 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/04/world/un-vote-new-world-map-intl-scli

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 2 months ago (42 children)

The Mercator projection is also a systemic legacy of colonialism, so doing away with it doesn't hurt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
    •
  • [–] 78 points 2 months ago* (20 children)

    The Mercator projection is a legacy of people needing a world map in which local regions preserve accurate directions and proportional distances (i.e., people who need a map for navigation instead of a global dick-measuring contest).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago* (10 children)

    In the times of GPS, global navigation isn't reliant on this specific map projection. On a local level (City or State/Province level), where most navigation for non-experts is taking place, the chosen map projection doesn't matter that much. The people who are navigating distances where these things become relevant (pilots and ship navigators) are also expert enough to deal with most map projections. But for global issues, a map projection that actually represents land masses as they are in reality matters a lot.

    Edit: I am aware about issues regarding GPS jamming. The latest tests regarding quantum navigation (which uses differences in earths gravity fiels) were working very well, so if jamming becomes a very common issue, these systems will proliferate quickly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    On a local level (City or State/Province level), where most navigation for non-experts is taking place, the chosen map projection doesn’t matter that much.

    Yes, it does, because on a local level you want real-world right angles to be right angles on the map, which Mercator does, but other projections might not…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

    Most navigation software doesn't show the map from the top, but from behind looking forward, and it communicates turns and lanes to choose regardless if your angles are 90° / 95° / 85° or what map projection is used. If you are still using paper maps in your own city - welcome to the future.

    Edit: And to top it off, the crossroads being 90° is a uniquely american thing - every city in europe has a naturally grown layout. Since the US doesn't give a fuck about anyone else (as seen in the vote and their renaming stuff into America) I also don't give a fuck about what maps they use.

    Edit 2: If you use your current position as the center of the projection, anything close enough to be relevant stays at 90° - or so close that i dare anyone to see the difference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Most navigation software doesn’t show the map from the top, but from behind looking forward

    only when navigating, not when looking at the map

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Do you really think that the distortion over the short distance shown while navigating matters? I don't know many drivers that actually use their geometry kit when using a navigation app.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    People use digital maps for all kinds of purposes, not just navigating while driving.

    For example I often look at digital maps as a pedestrian in order to know which direction to walk (even without actually entering navigation mode), or in order to find out where places of interest are around me, and there it definitely helps that the angles are the same in reality as on the map.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    I didn't know you live so close to the arctic that you can't identify the direction you need to go when looking at a paper map.

    With navigation software that simply uses your current position for the center of the projection all corners stay so close to reality that i dare you to see the difference (we are not living on a globe the size of a tangerine). There's also the hint you get from the small arrow pointing out the direction you are currently facing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I'm fairly sure the software care a great deal about projections and which chart datum is used. Just because it's abstracted and invisible for the user I'm fairly sure you would notice if google maps stopped accepting wgs-84 positions or if they changed into an inverted projection. So yes it matters a great deal even on local levels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I was making maps as an intern for the city government, and my biggest problem was that the Mercator made the city look much wider than it really was.

    I'm not sure about the 90 degree angle thing, but i wanted to point out that navigation is only one reason someone might use a map, and then agree with you that using a projection centered near the local area is probably going to be best 9/10 times.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    I seem to have upset some mercator afficionados. As you say, for everyday usage any type centered on you (or a bit in front of your position) will be close enough to reality that navigating will be fine. For city planning the true size of things also matter a lot, as you mentioned. Long distance navigation doesn't use paper maps anymore except when GPS is jammed (which is not the norm if you aren't near Iran or Ukraine currently), and we are already on the way to make quantum navigation for ships feasable. In the case of aircraft, if GPS is down, there are more than enough alternative ways to navigate (communication with flight control, ground based beacons and so on) and long distance road travel will in 99% of cases use high tier roads which tend to have signs indicating where they go, in addition to navigation software that could adjust map projection on the fly if needed (but it isn't really needed, what you need is accurate lane and turn information, which is independent of what you see on the display).

    I really don't understand the hive mind in this case. Anyone having some input here where the issue lies? I haven't touched a paper map where any of this stuff had mattered at least since the turn of the century.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    No one uses a world map for navigation. Even when paper maps were still used, you would use it on a much smaller scale like a grid system. Even maritime maps would at largest only need to show an ocean.

    It's much easier to accurately represent directions and proportional distances when you're not trying to fit the surface of a whole sphere onto one quadrilateral plane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    What? The projection matters on any scale and for navigational purposes will continue to use mercator projection on flat maps so there this decision doesn't change anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    It really doesn't. On a ball as large as the earth, if you take a tiny section of it, it's basically already flat. You don't need to transform it mathematically to make it fit on a grid system.

    Maybe you've never seen a map made for land navigation? They don't need to distort terrain feature size to make everything line up directionally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Maybe you've never seen a map made for land navigation?

    Can you share one or the name of the projection used? I am having an harf time searching for it

    Edit: i found that for air navigation they use Lambert Conformal Conic, for marine they use Mercator and for land i found nothing which makes sense (and probably it would be Mercator anyway)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    https://doc.esri.com/en/arcgis-pro/latest/help/mapping/properties/coordinate-systems-and-projections.html

    A local coordinate system uses a false origin (0, 0 or other values) in an arbitrary location anywhere on earth. Local coordinate systems are often used for large-scale (small area) mapping. The false origin may or may not be aligned to a known real-world coordinate, but for the purpose of data capture, bearings and distances can be measured using the local coordinate system rather than global coordinates. Local coordinate systems are usually expressed in meters or feet.

    Example:

    https://slcprdpublicrecords.blob.core.windows.net/0001sjradmin/PDF/CB_1877_15_10045793.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    I want to contradict you slightly: people don't use world maps for navigation, but most are still using a world map projection, just zoomed in. Most map services like Google maps, mapquest, etc use something called the Web Mercator at all levels of zoom, i think because of the challenge of needing to zoom in anywhere on the map. I am not an expert on why they use the web mercator though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I didn't say they don't use projections, I just said they don't use world maps. Localized maps are much easier to achieve accuracy of both distance and direction

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Every map projection has some inaccuracies and thing that they're good and bad at. The Mercator is good at preserving shape and distance, which used to be quite important for navigating around the world, which was important for colonization. Other maps have accurate size but inaccurate shapes. The Mercator projection isn't the worst, but less suited for the needs of today. We should all probably just use globes. The UN should also use globes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Good luck keeping a globe in the glove box.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    You still use paper maps while driving inside of your own country? Free navigation software is ubiquitous. Noone cares about the projection used there, as long as it signals turns and lanes correctly, and long distance most countries have something called "signs" which tell you where the road you are on goes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Imagine ridiculing the skill of reading a map instead of offloading your entire cognitive self to a phone app.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Imagine being proud of skills which have become obsolete in the last century for the vast majority of uses. Reminds me of the people whining about the loss of cursive writing skills, and cursive at least makes writing long texts more hand-friendly. I can read and use maps (if i ever again wanted to) but they neither update, don't fit neatly in my pocket, suffer from wear and tear (funnily enough they suffer from water damage a lot more than my smart phone, which i forgot i had in my swimwear - i was around 1 1/2 hours in the water, and after blowing some air in the USB-C port, everything was still working. Try that with a paper map, i dare you), don't deliver context or images of the surroundings, do not have turn or lane info, completely miss important data like construction work or road blockages and are unable to provide you with traffic data.

    Even for non-navigation stuff paper maps are wildly unpractical compared to the digital alternative. City planning, construction work and the likes all need easily updateable, versionable maps that do not distort the size of things like mercator.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

    Mercator projection was favoured because it was useful for navigation due to preserving rhumb lines, representing them as straight lines on the map, and has been around for like 400 years.

    Given that barely anyone does navigation like this any more it's not that important to keep it as the default view for world maps that aren't used for navigation such as a simple wall map. Web maps and the use of pseudomercator have definitely kept it relevant in modern times and as the most recognizable projection.

    There isn't much basis to say it's used to "make colonial countries look bigger and Africa look smaller" except for people virtue signaling in blog posts over the last decade. If anything then it's a psyop by Big Greenland.

    As this post explains, you can just look at a globe if you want accurate size representation, because all map projections are distorted and there is always a tradeoff.

    E: Oops I can see several people already explained this since refreshing the post.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    it's used to "make colonial countries look bigger and Africa look smaller"

    I dont disagree, but I think if the case was opposite and a useful projection made the countries in power look smaller they wouldn't have picked it as their favourite projection. The distortion is in favour of the (small) powerful countries, which may not have been the main reason but you can't call it a happy coincidence either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    It is a coincidence though, in the sense that the Mercator projection by necessity inflates things near the poles relative to the equator.

    The major powers at the time were countries like Britain, Spain, France, and Italy. Not Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and Canada, which are inflated far more than the former.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    The countries in power didn't change much in size, but the countries they controlled did. I stand by my point, if this was the other way around and a useful projections shrank everything near the poles (and Africa looked much bigger on the map than it already is), those people would likely dislike that projection. They would ask themselves why it was so skewed, while now it was no issue. It is a coincidence that Mercator works that way, but it is no coincidence they liked this one so much.

    Saying it was just handy is downplaying the strong sides of other projections. Take a look at maps from that period and see how many inaccuracies there are, because they had no satalite to check how right they were. Navigators weren't stupid and they would easily understand how to navigate another projection if Mercator was disregarded for some reason.

    Take a look at historic uniforms, the amount of jewelry etc; people have been vain since the beginning of time and have always cared about the looks of it. I honestly can't imagine they would have been fine with a map were they seemed smaller than they actually were, i can easily imagine they would be glad to use a map that showed them bigger then they are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    The countries in power didn’t change much in size, but the countries they controlled did.

    Sorry, but this is just a strange thing to say. The size of any place on a map can only be measured relative to other places on the map. "The countries in power didn't change much in size" just doesn't make any sense.

    At the time when the Mercator projection was invented, we already had plenty of maps that gave a more accurate picture of the size of different land masses. The countries in power were actively colonising a lot of the world, so you better bet they would want to amplify their achievements.

    The Mercator projection wasn't "just handy". It was literally the first widely used map projection that lat people sail across open seas and get where they wanted. That's a life/death matter. It's literally an integral part of the power of navigating the world seas.

    The fact that it compresses the equator is directly a result of where the magnetic poles of the earth are aligned relative to the geography of the continents.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    The countries in power didn’t change much in size, but the countries they controlled did.

    Sorry, but this is just a strange thing to say. The size of any place on a map can only be measured relative to other places on the map. "The countries in power didn't change much in size" just doesn't make any sense.

    What I meant with that is that the Mercator projection didn't blow up a country like Spain as much as a country like Norway. I was responding to you, dismissing your claim the change in size is irrelevant because the countries in power weren't close to the poles.

    The major powers at the time were countries like Britain, Spain, France, and Italy. Not Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and Canada, which are inflated far more than the former.

    Again, The countries in power didn’t change much in size, but the countries they controlled did. As you point out, the size of a country is only relevant in relation to that of others.

    People were sailing open waters long before the Mercator projection. What you're saying just isn't true. We're not going to agree, so i won't waste my time continuing this conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    This may or may not be true—in fact I'll just assume that it's true, fuck it—but I will say that it's kind of like being asked to have an opinion on whether this person or that gets top billing on the theater marquee: is it going to be Rose & Krants or Krants & Rose? Which do you think, morally, is the superior option? I really, really don't care.

    And it bothers me a smidge that people do only because I feel like they're being distracted by jangling keys. But oh well, whatever. Not my business, I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I, for one, thought Africa had a smaller footprint that it has because of the maps in school and it made me think that it was less signifiant than it is. It doesn't make sense, because a country could be very little but have billions of people in it for example. Nonetheless, I get the feeling. If I was from a country that suffered from colonialism and whatnot, I'd want a better projection of it on 2d maps. Simply because I know a chunk of people would better see my nation's place in the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    A country's, or a continent's, signifigance has nothing to do with it's size, though.

    I mean, if we wanted to make the nations of Africa or Greenland feel better, does it follow that we could make them appear bigger on the map than they actually are? Just move the mercator around such that Africa is along the top or bottom edge of the map where things are larger?

    I am absolutely not saying that people having a better understanding of Africa is bad. I just don't think that this is really how that happens.

    I remember thinking that Russia seemed pretty big on the map, and yet still, I've never had to take Russian culture as a class in high school.

    [edit] I'll add one thing, though. This decision has clearly pissed the US government off, which is based and incredibly funny. I'll support it to that end.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Depends what type of significance. Of course it's more significant when it's larger in size if you value things like farmland, natural resources, fishing, transportation, infrastructure, timezones, language, etc.

    If you think the US is similar in size to Africa, like I thought, and you compare the 51 states to the 54 countries, you might think each African country is similar in area to a state in the USA and extrapolate to other beliefs accordingly. Maybe you think there is a greater cultural cohesion in the entire continent because people are closer to each other and so on. Turns out, there is more than 1.5 billion people in Africa. That is way more than in the US, but the size is really skewed in the Mercator.

    I don't understand your point about wanting to make Greenland feel better. The Equal Earth Projection is more accurate when looking at land area, so it's not a question of making people feel better about the size of their country, more of a question of not having the Mercator projection contributing to people thinking less of our country, amongst other things, like just being more factual.

    And like the other commenter said, Russia doesn't really have this problem anyway, it's very large in all our popular projections.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Turns out, there is more than 1.5 billion people in Africa.

    But these are facts I can learn independently of its, you know, appearance on a map. And outside of this being a notable news story, I don't really see it prompting any such questions.

    so it's not a question of making people feel better about the size of their country

    It is, though. That's actually the only purpose this serves.

    I think you might read that as dismissive, but I see some value in making people feel better. Certainly in making the US feel worse.

    I don't, however, think that this will meaningfully improve anything.

    Russia doesn't really have this problem anyway, it's very large in all our popular projections.

    It's area should still be incorrect, though, yes? Which would mean we have incorrect ideas about its natural resources, its farmland, its cultural cohesion?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Oh yeah, we agree then. It won't do much (but I think the USA voting no is telling on themselves), and yes, the area of Russia is incorrect and we might have the wrong ideas about it. I didn't know it had that much "height" for example.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •