passed with the support of 164 nations, including France and the UK. The United States was the only nation to vote against it
me when I am america and an opportunity presents itself to be antagonistic for no reason
passed with the support of 164 nations, including France and the UK. The United States was the only nation to vote against it
me when I am america and an opportunity presents itself to be antagonistic for no reason
"make america the wrong scale again"
"There are more important issues in this world than changing the map of the world": from the creators of "gulf of america", "lake america", "strait of trump"...
He had the backing of the French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, who said his ministry was going to stop using the Mercator map.
Hmm, use it for what, exactly? In the present, nobody is using these maps for navigation, and hopefully not for any serious geography study beyond say the history of cartography... so I guess mostly lower-level education purposes? That's important, the way we teach children to think about the world certainly matters.
"Changing the map obviously doesn't change the world. But correcting a representation that distorts it is already an act of truth," he said.
The pedantic part of me wants to point out that every projection of a 3D object onto a 2D surface requires distortion, especially in a case like this where the entire surface area of the object is shown on a single unbroken plane. At some level, describing one projection as better than another is akin to saying that one way of drawing a cube on a sheet of paper is better than another. More important than picking a winner is having the discussion about the limitations of all forms of projection and how they affect our perceptions, in all subject areas.
If there is a real benefit to making a change like this, it's in provoking those discussions.
Besides, we all know the Waterman Butterfly is superior:
The pedantic part of me wants to point out that every projection of a 3D object onto a 2D surface requires distortion
They literally say that in the article.
The distortion of his map is a result of the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent the surface of a globe on a two-dimensional chart. Whenever a map of the world is drawn, compromises need to be made.
Right, so then why are they describing this as "correcting" the distortion, when in fact it is simply choosing a different version of distortion?
Did you read the article? I think your questions/complaints are answered there.
Tldr; the new map solves some distortions (to the tune of 14x) but also there’s a human element to this. It seems like an obvious and overdue improvement.
Retaining an inferior map because they won’t be used for navigation is an odd defence.
It's a classic dumb argument: "if it wont solve it 100%, lets just leave it completely broken"
These are the people most easily manipulated.
I think for some the issue is also that Africa gets fairer representation this way.
14 times more correct? Wow! So it's the correctest? Even though we've agreed that you have to make compromises to project the earth onto a plane and each one has tradeoffs?
Are you actually happy in your life? Have you ever done something that you are proud of outside of inane internet comments?
They literally say that too.
In February, the AU's 54 member states adopted it, and said it "more accurately represents the sizes of all continents, particularly Africa".
In the present, nobody is using these maps for navigation
Took a big whiff of the copium, did you?
What? I thought the proportions were geology and math based, are you telling I have been lied to all my life over something so petty?
You cannot map a 3D surface onto a 2D plane without either distorting the 2D plane or cutting it. There are various maps that go with the cutting it route, but honestly they look weird.
People who care about such things have complained for years about the current map projection because it's stretches northern regions so the country look bigger than the actually are. Although it doesn't really matter until you get in the Arctic circle.
Projections of the earth on a flat plane is one of those “theres more than one way to skin a cat” type of things
The mercator projection became the standard because its math makes all rhumb lines straight on the map, which is helpful for maritime navigation. But the sizes of countries are out of whack.
The UN logo is itself actually an alternate projection called the azimuthal equidistant projection, which is a projection where all the lines of longitude are straight instead and everything is accurately proportionally distant from the pole. It’s also favored by some due to it showing all the continents other than Antarctica without a split in the Pacific ocean. More of a global perspective rather than eastern vs western “hemispheres”
The new equal earth projection is similar to the mercator but does not make straight rhumb lines, so everything is proportional. When we decide how to represent the earth on a flat map there is always some kind of emphasis on one thing or another to make it most useful in some way. Given that most navigation is now done via GPS, this new standard map is one that has more political importance versus practical/functional importance in its design
I knew most of this except this is the first I have heard of a 'rhumb line'. Did someone misspell thumb line along the way?
Jokes aside, are they changing the type pf projection being used or are they just changing africa in isolation as a polical stunt?
all 15 comments