The US, which voted against the resolution, slammed the text as an ideological exercise that it said undermined the UN’s credibility.
“This initiative is presented as an anodyne effort to update cartographic proportions,” said Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the UN. “The United States clearly sees it cannot be separated from the much larger and more radical ideological project it belongs to.”
Today, the United Nations voted to adopt a new world map that reflects countries’ true relative sizes
Haters, probably:
let's still make this about us hating Israel - in comparison to how we hate the US
GJ for the UN. I hope it'll make good progress in the long run for all of us. More accurate representation of the world - for more adequate and fair decisions and actions.
It's a common pattern for the General Assembly that essentially all of the world votes together, and then the United States, Israel plus some tiny island nations votes together. This vote struck me as deviating from that pattern because the United States literally stands alone on this issue. Even the number of Abstentions is unusually low.
Wow, the US government is so paranoid, because how the fuck in your right mind can you find a reason to think “everyone’s out to get me” because others want to edit a map? It’s also funny how they never specify what this “radical ideology” is, despite constantly complaining about it like a child would about their mother not getting them an ice cream.
I can't make heads or tails of what point this word salad is actually intending to convey. It sounds like a toddler trying to argue because hes afraid try a new food on his plate.
Guess they will soon not only have their own system of measuring distance, weight and temperature; but also their own system of displaying Earth. They want to live in their own version of reality i guess.
"Nooo, don't change the mirror to one that reflects things accurately! I like this one better because it makes me look taller, more muscular, and better-endowed!"
It isn't more accurate than Mercator, it just preserves different features.
When flattening a map, there are 4 competing aspects of the globe you can try to preserve: shape, direction, area, and distance. You can't preserve all 4 at once. You can try to min-max on 1 or 2 (e.g. Mercator preserves direction and shape since that's what's needed for sailing), or you can accept some distortions of all 4 in a compromise projection.
The Mercator map, which has been in common use since the 16th Century, has come in for criticism as it shows Africa as similar in size to Greenland, even though it is 14 times larger.
Critics say this leads to the development needs and potential for countries near the equator to be minimised.
I think that’s got more to do with the systemic legacy of colonialism than with which world maps people look at.
Let’s say you’re trying to convince a populace of an unpopular war to invade, I dunno, Greenland. You want to convince the country of its massive land & untapped riches.
We practically already give away all of our natural resources. Hell, we actually PAY for big companies to take it and sell it overseas, tax free. Because be are playing 5D chess
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).
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure that Google will quickly change their map projections from Pseudo-Mercator to Equal Earth projection as quickly as they changed the names of the bodies of water because President orange cheeto said so... right?... Riiiight?
Web Mercator is a special kind of abomination, even down to the way the map is cropped to be exactly square. But it is probably the most suitable for navigation, as Mercator itself was designed specifically for it.
Buildings, streets and map features would be more distorted under Equal Earth projection than they already are with Web Mercator. Web Mercator also has the benefit that the cardinal directions are always straight respective to the XY grid, even though the Y direction is non linear.
There is no perfect way of flattening a 3D spheroid into a 2D map, sadly.
The most noticeable visual distortion of a map projection at street level isn't actually size and area, but angle. While Mercator and Web Mercator distort both size and area, angle remains the same. But projections like Equal Earth distort angle to keep area and size the same.
In practice, what this means is that with Web Mercator, you will see an intersection as 2 perpendicular lines crossing each other, leaving four 90° angles. But with Equal Earth, depending on the location, all those angles will be different, and the lines won't be perfectly perpendicular.
(of course, Web Mercator also has this issue, because it uses a perfect sphere instead of a spheroid for the projection, but the very slight difference isn't really noticeable, and using a spheroid is more compute-heavy)
Map navigation and satellite imagery are very specific cases where a Mercator or Mercator style projection are better suited, mainly because of the preservation of the angles. However, for any other case, Equal Earth is a very good projection, and I agree it should be used over Mercator. Especially in education.
Mercator is bad as a world map, but the reason why it's used on most online maps is that those online maps are usually used as local maps, where Mercator is a very good projection. It would be good if online maps switched projections if you zoomed out beyond a certain level.
Not on iOS anymore but when you zoomed out on Apple Maps it became a globe. Not sure if that's still true or I remember incorrectly and am confused with a 3rd party map, but that would be best on screens imo.
Nice, i didn't like Apple Maps for navigation but i did really appreciate the design of things. They had 3d maps quite early in the city I live in and I really liked that too. Props to Apple for that.
The web maps I create I use different projection systems for different zoom levels. Mercator is the best we got globally, that’s why it’s lasted since the 1540’s. Usually as you get closer you should be using a state plane PCS. It’s not survey level of course but most maps are based on close enough unless it’s a survey map done by a licensed professional.
You make maps? I've been looking for halfway decent maps.
But they all look like hot garbage on a purely aesthetic level. Maybe that is entirely subjective, but the best world map (that can be switched to 3D too) is this ArcGIS NatGEO one. Other maps also have problems like showing names of countries and cities in their original, completely indecipherable language making them useless. I'd absolutely love some kind of open streetmap based PRETTY world map in English and that can switch different projections. And show things like the fucking equator. I mean how hard can THAT be? But every time I want to look at a map or globe I have to wait for the images to download for the 100th time instead of being cached because there is no (open source) map app for windows.
Yeah I’m a GIS specialist I make maps both on the computer using a spatial database or web maps that are viewable to the public. You would have to use QGIS since ARC GIS is expensive as hell. But you could probably put together something similar to what you’re discussing here. Let me see if I can find something similar to what you’re talking about but most of the time we make maps to show things. You’re basically wanting just a base map which you can probably make yourself on mapbox.com and import it into qgis make labels English.
Apple maps (probably one of the most widely used digital maps, whether you like it or not) switches to a spherical projection as you zoom out. I'm actually surprised google maps doesn't do the same.
NOT TRUE. there's those stupid short folk on the falklands with the webbed feet and the orange noses, what smell awful and like bad fish who dress formal everywhere. they're pretty silly
Some critics of the Mercator projection suspect it has remained widely used because it enlarges and centers Europe, as well as other Western regions such as North America, perpetuating ideas of European superiority.
The UN resolution notes “with concern that this distortion contributes to minimizing the perceived sizes of Africa, Latin America and South Asia, and perpetuating an unbalanced view of the world.”
Exactly, which is why it really grinds my gears when people try to present the map as intentionally amplifying some countries at the expense of others. That's not the point, it's just a side effect of inventing the first map that could actually be used for long-distance navigation.
For the UN it makes complete sense to use a different projection.
The maps were very accurate in terms of latitude (north/south position) which meant ships could find a particular port or harbor even if they had only a rough idea of their longitude (east/west position) by sailing along the latitude lines until they hit land. How big it made a particular piece of land look was irrelevant.
It's not well known, but maps started to become super-accurate in terms of longitude as well in the 1670s or thereabouts. Astronomers had observed that Jupiter had eclipses of its moons about a thousand times a year, and thanks to Isaac Newton and others they were able to predict the exact times (in Greenwich England) of these eclipses a few years in advance and publish them. Observers around the world with good telescopes could view these eclipses and note the time differences between their observations and the published Greenwich times and use this to precisely calculate their longitude. It was not really possible to do this reliably on board a sailing ship because of the difficulty of keeping a high-powered telescope trained on Jupiter on a pitching and rolling deck (although many attempts were made) so this led to accurate maps but still not fully accurate navigation until the perfection of ship's clocks a century later.
The other thing is on the Mercator, if you measure from point A to point B, and it gives you a compass heading, this is the correct compass heading to use to navigate to point B from point A. This is not true unless a map is designed for this purpose.
It won't necessarily be the shortest distance -- to plot that out, it is best to use a globe and chart the arc of a great circle path, which is a straight line on the curved surface of the earth. But that path will have the compass changing all the time.
If you are navigating by compass, which ships and airplanes had to do more often way back when, the mercator was great.
Posting for the benefit of @AAA@feddit.org and anyone else who didn't know.
Moral of the story: pretty much every decision is made for logical reasons. Sometimes the reasons are unclear, motivations are selfish, or circumstances later change such that the decision is no longer sound, but it's very rare that "they're just stupid" is the cause.
The map is extremely accurate in the sense that a course plotted on the map can be followed by following a compass course. The same does not apply for earlier maps, or by far most modern maps that are designed to match real-world sizes.
The reason the Mercator projection became the standard is that it was, for a long time, the only map you could use to safely navigate long distances, especially across oceans.
Mexico can take over Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas. Canada can take over Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri. Kansas City can be a Free City where Canadians and Mexicans mingle, spy on each other in cafes, kiss, etc.
I saw the US was against it an thought it had to be smth like this. Only americans can look at a problem like "you can't project a 3D sphere onto a 2D plane" and think "waow this is a little too political for me" (I know I'm oversimplifying but u get the gist)
Greenland is also much smaller in the new map. So in essence they shrunk his ambition down to the size of his little dingleberry and there was nothing he could do but whine.
They don't want Trump to see how small Greenland actually is. I think he reckons it's about half the size of the United States because he's an idiot. Not that this map projection is at all new, or has been a secret or anything, but trump isn't exactly the investigating type and so he probably hasn't seen it before, but if the information is shoved in his face he might become upset.
I'm just grateful they didn't go with the Gall-Peters, which often seems to be the favorite alternative, but always feels to me like it distorts almost every country.
Yeah, thankfully they went with a balanced projection. G-P makes my sub arctic island look like someone stepped on it. And Africa looks like Antarctica is trying to pull it apart.
For world maps I'd have picked one that projects onto some sort of ellipsoid.
Edit: Ah, they did. The only image I'd seen showed another projection.
The fuck? Why wouldn't the US want the actual sizes. Wouldn't having geographically correct maps help the planet and the people, oh wait.... The US government hates that kind of shit
I wonder if some people welcome trumps threats to leave nato and the UN. How many peices of logical legislation could pass without the US blocking them.
Well, NATO isn't about legislation so much as mutual defense. And the UN's resolutions have as much impact as individual countries permit, in many cases.
It's often said that the real point of the UN and the security council veto power was to offer the world's most powerful nations a way to come to a more permanent table and disagree, instead of war being the default threat.
And yeah, the UN resolutions don't mean much. But it would still feel a little better if they could pass things that are reasonable without interference.
It's such a tragedy that the Earth had to be a sphere. I mean, I know it was inevitable. But come on, universe. A sphere? Really? You had to have known about Gauss's Theorema Egregium, yet you chose sphere. Now we're all fighting over who gets to be squished or enlarged and in what directions.
the UN general assembly officially retired the 16th-century Mercator projection in favour of one based on the more accurate 2018 Equal Earth design
UN resolutions are non-enforceable, so I'm sure countries will implement it in different ways (some may not implement it at all). France has already said they will be using Eckert IV which is close to Equal Earth:
Eckert and Equal Earth are fine, but I much prefer Peirce Quincuncial as more representative of the globe. All of the land distortion is minimal and equal, and it's tileable to get a better image of distance across hemispheres
I don't think so, I think it accurately portrays what North is on our globe. Magnetic North is in the Arctic. By displaying the Earth this way, we're seeing a map that's oriented to the North.
The issue with New Zealand goes away with tessellation. This is from Wikipedia, I think that we should be tessellating around the the first part of the map instead but it gets the point across
This is a very interesting map to contemplate but entirely useless to actually orient oneself by. Which direction do you sail from Africa to get to upside down Africa?
Remember, the idea is to use this maps for teaching, the Peirce one would simply prevent people from actually learning about the world. I don't say it cannot be useful in some contexts, but for human readability is shit.
Because it is very hard to visualize correctly, when I look at it I need time to even understand what I am looking at. You can blame it on the fact that we used Mercator for centuries, but this does not feel natural.
The one selected keeps proportions while feeling natural to almost everyone alive today.
Maybe I am wrong about learning, maybe if everyone learns with this it would make sense, but this is the type of thing in which you have to compromise, no one alive (of course there are exceptions, but you know what I mean) prefers to look at yours instead of a map focused on the Ecuador/Atlantic.
I am not saying it is not a good map, I just don't think it is the right representation.
Think about it, what picture do you think shows you better? One from the top? Or one from the front?
Both show you, both miss information, but still one gives you way more to work with than the other.
Looking at things from "above" is not natural for humans.
Russia didn't use Mercator in textbooks even in Soviet times. As well many other countries I suspect (IDK about USA), it doesn't require a great mind to see how flawed is it.
While it's been a few decades since I was young enough to be in school and I only taught math in a school during covid, the maps that were used were Robinson hanging on the wall. The only time I remember Mercator maps were in text books. Probably because the fit the format better for showing things like trade routes.
India used to be a long thin Island and then it smashed into the rest of the continent to the North and sort of smushed out on the northern's edge. Eventually it will be completely flattened against the uppercontinent.
Every projection deforms either size ot shape. The projection that this resolution proposes stretches everything vertically (but preserves the sizes). You can see it by looking at intersections between meridians and circles. The spaces between them are supposed to be closer to squares.
I love this one for some reason, it's got the most distortion where there's nothing but open ocean. Also shows how remote NZ feels like in practice lol.
That map shafts Antarctica and NZ pretty hard to reduce the distortion on most of the world’s landmass. The emperor penguins will vote this one down for sure.
I mean, do not underestimate the size of Antarctica. It has the area of about two Australias (14.2 vs. 7.6 Mio. km²), and it's only somewhat smaller than South America (17.8 Mio. km²).
It does always look a bit larger as well, though, simply because it is unrolled at the bottom there.
(We're not gonna talk about Mercator, where it does look comically big...)
For the proper size, you'll have to look at a globe.
Wikipedia has little preview globes:
I understand the intention behind using equal earth projection, but personally I still find the Robinson projection more pleasant to look at. Or, of course, the wonderful Waterman Butterfly projection.
Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, and Georgia have actual problems to worry about.
I mean this is just UN navel gazing about the fairness of map projections. Countries that are staring down an increasingly unstable Russia probably aren't too worried about that.
Trying to suck up to the US without pissing off the rest of the world too much, presumably. Same for Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine. The one that actually surprised me is Serbia.
The Organization of Cartographers for Social Equality was a group of map-makers who favored the adoption of an inverted Peters Projection map as mandatory for all education within the United States. They felt strongly that traditional Mercator maps gave undue focus on the nations and peoples of the Northern Hemisphere.
New Zealand has also taken issue with the Mercator map, with a tourism ad back in 2018 – featuring then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern – joking that “New Zealand is disappearing off the world maps” due to its position in the bottom right-hand corner.
Mate, New Zealand isn't even real. Don't believe everything you see when watching lord of the rings. /jk
The Equal Earth projection, the one they voted for, kinda sucks IMO. It vertically stretches every country in order to make sure everyone gets equal area, but it's trading horizontal area for vertical area. Robinson is better.
244 Comments
capuccino@lemmy.world · 273 pts · 2d
you must be kidding
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 173 pts · 2d
And of course, nobody is surprised.
subarctictundra@lemmy.world · 73 pts · 2d
I'm more surprised that Russia voted Yes
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip · 75 pts · 2d
Russia doesn't care because they're big as fuck on any projection.
So is the US, but we voted no because we're contrarian little pissbabies.
TheBrideWoreCrimson@sopuli.xyz · 32 pts · 2d
Russia's been cozying up to Africa for a long time. And it was the AU which spearheaded this initiative.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
Since Russia is actually very large, they're probably thinking they'll look even bigger than they already do!
mabeledo@lemmy.world · 69 pts · 2d
Lmao the fucking irony:
mirshafie@europe.pub · 60 pts · 2d
Not even Israel voted with the US this time. Take this opportunity for reflection.
Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 2d
It's because they don't want the world to see it getting bigger as it starts annexing its neighbors' land.
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
The new map projection makes land close to equator bigger and land closer to the north and south poles smaller.
Anyone who is not living under a rock knows what is happening and those who still approve genocide don't give damn they are getting bigger.
nimisnimi@lemmy.ca · -11 pts · 2d
The title:
Haters, probably:
GJ for the UN. I hope it'll make good progress in the long run for all of us. More accurate representation of the world - for more adequate and fair decisions and actions.
mirshafie@europe.pub · 7 pts · 1d
It's a common pattern for the General Assembly that essentially all of the world votes together, and then the United States, Israel plus some tiny island nations votes together. This vote struck me as deviating from that pattern because the United States literally stands alone on this issue. Even the number of Abstentions is unusually low.
nimisnimi@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d
Ok, thanks for opening the prev.comment a bit more!
It is curious, indeed. 🖐️
biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works · 33 pts · 2d
Wow, the US government is so paranoid, because how the fuck in your right mind can you find a reason to think “everyone’s out to get me” because others want to edit a map? It’s also funny how they never specify what this “radical ideology” is, despite constantly complaining about it like a child would about their mother not getting them an ice cream.
Waffelmeister@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2d
The radical ideology is called the truth and America hates it. It undermines their precious lies.
APinkOrange@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
Editing maps is only allowed for one person, as we all know /s
thewebroach@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
I can't make heads or tails of what point this word salad is actually intending to convey. It sounds like a toddler trying to argue because hes afraid try a new food on his plate.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Sometimes people with really stupid beliefs will dance around saying it clearly because on some level they know how stupid it sounds.
ChristerMLB@piefed.social · 1 pts · 16h
the wokes like it, so it is per definition bad
some times I feel like informing these people that woke people really enjoy breathing air and drinking water :l
huppakee@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 2d
Guess they will soon not only have their own system of measuring distance, weight and temperature; but also their own system of displaying Earth. They want to live in their own version of reality i guess.
abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 2d
One where the United States is bigger than Russia.
VeganBtw@piefed.social · 4 pts · 2d
Pardon?
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 2d
When wereone whereArcane2077@sh.itjust.works · 30 pts · 2d
This might be the first time in history Israel voted differently than the United States of America
Mac@mander.xyz · 11 pts · 2d
I hate this fucking country
lemmygarden@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 2d
Who doesn't?
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 2d
"Nooo, don't change the mirror to one that reflects things accurately! I like this one better because it makes me look taller, more muscular, and better-endowed!"
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
It isn't more accurate than Mercator, it just preserves different features.
When flattening a map, there are 4 competing aspects of the globe you can try to preserve: shape, direction, area, and distance. You can't preserve all 4 at once. You can try to min-max on 1 or 2 (e.g. Mercator preserves direction and shape since that's what's needed for sailing), or you can accept some distortions of all 4 in a compromise projection.
It all depends on the purpose of the map.
abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 2d
My one question is why
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 2d
Because they're chauvinists on the way to fascism
defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 2d
Lmao "on the way".
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
Shows Greenland's real size?
trump thinks it's the same size as the entire US.
WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social · 0 pts · 2d
Biggest is best?
stumu415@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
They wanted to rename Africa to New America.
mrdown@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 2d
Abstentions are also no
capuccino@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
Abstentions means let the others decide.
lividweasel@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
Abstentions are explicitly neither yes nor no.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 92 pts · 2d
I think that’s got more to do with the systemic legacy of colonialism than with which world maps people look at.
Fandangalo@lemmy.world · 51 pts · 2d
It’s both/and.
Let’s say you’re trying to convince a populace of an unpopular war to invade, I dunno, Greenland. You want to convince the country of its massive land & untapped riches.
Which map would you use?
BlueEther@no.lastname.nz · 11 pts · 2d
but look at how large Australia looks in the second, maybe that is an alternative place to look to invade - and they have rearearth minerals
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 21 pts · 2d
You'd have to defeat the native emu population, though. Good luck with that
BlueEther@no.lastname.nz · 4 pts · 2d
on the up side to that is Emu taste real nice, and I hear that the US is having a problem with beef
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 2d
Kangaroo is good too. Very lean though, gotta add a little fat to it
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 3 pts · 2d
My money is on the Emus.
JustAPenguin@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
We practically already give away all of our natural resources. Hell, we actually PAY for big companies to take it and sell it overseas, tax free. Because be are playing 5D chess
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · 30 pts · 2d
The Mercator projection is also a systemic legacy of colonialism, so doing away with it doesn't hurt.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 78 pts · 2d
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).
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · -4 pts · 2d
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.
zpiritual@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 2d
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.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · -2 pts · 2d
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.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 0 pts · 2d
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)
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 1d
https://doc.esri.com/en/arcgis-pro/latest/help/mapping/properties/coordinate-systems-and-projections.html
Example:
https://slcprdpublicrecords.blob.core.windows.net/0001sjradmin/PDF/CB_1877_15_10045793.pdf
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 2d
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.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 1d
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
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Hence the clarification! They do use world map projections. I don't think they have to, but do for efficiency? Not an expert.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · -6 pts · 2d
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.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 21 pts · 2d
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…
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · -11 pts · 2d
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.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 8 pts · 2d
only when navigating, not when looking at the map
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · -1 pts · 2d
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.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 2d
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.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 1d
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.
FerretyFever0@fedia.io · 24 pts · 2d
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.
SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org · 8 pts · 2d
Good luck keeping a globe in the glove box.
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 2d
Just gotta inflate it...
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · -13 pts · 2d
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.
Soggy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Imagine ridiculing the skill of reading a map instead of offloading your entire cognitive self to a phone app.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 1d
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.
SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org · 2 pts · 19h
Imagine starting arguing over a joke.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 1 pts · 2d
A globe cannot always be used so it's best if we find a replacement for the Mercator projection, i do agree we need to use globes more often though
ratel@mander.xyz · 19 pts · 2d
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.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
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.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 2d
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.
VeganBtw@piefed.social · 2 pts · 2d
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.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 2d
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.
VeganBtw@piefed.social · 1 pts · 2d
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.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
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.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
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.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
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.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23h
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.
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.
jdr@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2d
No corresponding maximization of development needs and potential for Greenland either.
MoffKalast@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Now we can finally standardize on the one truly equal projection: the Gall-Peters.
If everyone absolutely hates it, it's a perfect compromise. :P
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · 77 pts · 2d
Why do we always have to vote the dumbest possible way in these things?
"UN vote on whether we should eat glass: 99% against, US stands alone as In Favor ."
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
IT GIVES MY HAIR A HEALTHY SHINE
notabot@piefed.social · 4 pts · 1d
Not eating glass is wOkE.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
"Welp, I'm convinced."
- GOP voters of 2026
DaGammla@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
"They're shrinking Greenland, so that I'm less interested in it." - Donald Trump, probably
inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world · 69 pts · 1d
Great to see the United States being humiliated internationally again.
Soulg@ani.social · 2 pts · 1d
I mean it's stupid but there's so much more humiliation going on rn
Noblesavage@lemmy.world · 54 pts · 2d
I'm sure that Google will quickly change their map projections from Pseudo-Mercator to Equal Earth projection as quickly as they changed the names of the bodies of water because President orange cheeto said so... right?... Riiiight?
black0ut@pawb.social · 23 pts · 2d
Web Mercator is a special kind of abomination, even down to the way the map is cropped to be exactly square. But it is probably the most suitable for navigation, as Mercator itself was designed specifically for it.
Buildings, streets and map features would be more distorted under Equal Earth projection than they already are with Web Mercator. Web Mercator also has the benefit that the cardinal directions are always straight respective to the XY grid, even though the Y direction is non linear.
There is no perfect way of flattening a 3D spheroid into a 2D map, sadly.
HereIAm@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
But at the scale of streets and building surely the type of map projections is such a mute point the earth might as well be flat.
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de · 10 pts · 1d
*moot point
HereIAm@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
I knew there was something amiss 😄
verifiedbyme@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Well, your initial comment made you quite the hute.
black0ut@pawb.social · 3 pts · 1d
Not actually, it depends on the projection.
The most noticeable visual distortion of a map projection at street level isn't actually size and area, but angle. While Mercator and Web Mercator distort both size and area, angle remains the same. But projections like Equal Earth distort angle to keep area and size the same.
In practice, what this means is that with Web Mercator, you will see an intersection as 2 perpendicular lines crossing each other, leaving four 90° angles. But with Equal Earth, depending on the location, all those angles will be different, and the lines won't be perfectly perpendicular.
(of course, Web Mercator also has this issue, because it uses a perfect sphere instead of a spheroid for the projection, but the very slight difference isn't really noticeable, and using a spheroid is more compute-heavy)
Map navigation and satellite imagery are very specific cases where a Mercator or Mercator style projection are better suited, mainly because of the preservation of the angles. However, for any other case, Equal Earth is a very good projection, and I agree it should be used over Mercator. Especially in education.
Doorbook@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
It would be funny if they built their entire system on one projection.
ytg@sopuli.xyz · 53 pts · 2d
Even Israel voted differently to the US, that's way funnier than it should be
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 2d
Oh, yeah, well Donald signed a new order changing every country’s name to America.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
From now on all adresses: America [house number], America, America, America.
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
all house numbers are 1776
StillAlive@piefed.world · 4 pts · 2d
That's a very Aladeen news.
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Cold America, Hot America, Desert America, Rude America, Posh America, Crowded America, Island America, etc.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 46 pts · 2d
Mercator is bad as a world map, but the reason why it's used on most online maps is that those online maps are usually used as local maps, where Mercator is a very good projection. It would be good if online maps switched projections if you zoomed out beyond a certain level.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2d
Not on iOS anymore but when you zoomed out on Apple Maps it became a globe. Not sure if that's still true or I remember incorrectly and am confused with a 3rd party map, but that would be best on screens imo.
MacAttak8@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2d
Just checked. Apple Maps still zooms out into the globe on iOS
huppakee@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
Nice, i didn't like Apple Maps for navigation but i did really appreciate the design of things. They had 3d maps quite early in the city I live in and I really liked that too. Props to Apple for that.
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 2d
Google Maps zooms out to Mars.
Why? I don’t know.
Soggy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Google does a ton of things that are kinda cool but mostly pointless and then they stop supporting it randomly.
redditmodssucks@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
The web maps I create I use different projection systems for different zoom levels. Mercator is the best we got globally, that’s why it’s lasted since the 1540’s. Usually as you get closer you should be using a state plane PCS. It’s not survey level of course but most maps are based on close enough unless it’s a survey map done by a licensed professional.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 2d
You make maps? I've been looking for halfway decent maps.
But they all look like hot garbage on a purely aesthetic level. Maybe that is entirely subjective, but the best world map (that can be switched to 3D too) is this ArcGIS NatGEO one. Other maps also have problems like showing names of countries and cities in their original, completely indecipherable language making them useless. I'd absolutely love some kind of open streetmap based PRETTY world map in English and that can switch different projections. And show things like the fucking equator. I mean how hard can THAT be? But every time I want to look at a map or globe I have to wait for the images to download for the 100th time instead of being cached because there is no (open source) map app for windows.
redditmodssucks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Yeah I’m a GIS specialist I make maps both on the computer using a spatial database or web maps that are viewable to the public. You would have to use QGIS since ARC GIS is expensive as hell. But you could probably put together something similar to what you’re discussing here. Let me see if I can find something similar to what you’re talking about but most of the time we make maps to show things. You’re basically wanting just a base map which you can probably make yourself on mapbox.com and import it into qgis make labels English.
CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
Don’t they? At least Google Maps has for a while.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 2d
Maybe, idk, I rarely use anything not based on OpenStreetMap. 😛
Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 2d
Feels like a fun math challenge to seamlessly convert between map projections based on zoom level.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Apple maps (probably one of the most widely used digital maps, whether you like it or not) switches to a spherical projection as you zoom out. I'm actually surprised google maps doesn't do the same.
otp@sh.itjust.works · 44 pts · 2d
Dumbass United Stat...
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 2d
Americans are probably the dumbest people on the planet.
Source: been here my whole life
DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org · 9 pts · 2d
There's plenty dumber, trust me, but Americans are proudest of their dumbness
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
NOT TRUE. there's those stupid short folk on the falklands with the webbed feet and the orange noses, what smell awful and like bad fish who dress formal everywhere. they're pretty silly
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 37 pts · 2d
WHY did the USA vote against it
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 2d
Racism and white supremacy. Typical.
ragepaw@lemmy.ca · 34 pts · 2d
Because it makes them look smaller. Because reality.
DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org · 2 pts · 2d
Trump no like feel small :((
lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com · 21 pts · 2d
Because it would make Greenland look far smaller and uninteresting for Trump.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 34 pts · 2d
I mean, the mercator map was meant for ship navigation, not as a geopolitical bat.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 2d
Exactly, which is why it really grinds my gears when people try to present the map as intentionally amplifying some countries at the expense of others. That's not the point, it's just a side effect of inventing the first map that could actually be used for long-distance navigation.
For the UN it makes complete sense to use a different projection.
AAA@feddit.org · -6 pts · 2d
How does an inaccurate map work in favor of long distance navigation? Genuinely curious because I fail to see any benefit.
The only advantage I see is you can read all the small countries on the map, which you may not be able to on more realistic maps.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 2d
The maps were very accurate in terms of latitude (north/south position) which meant ships could find a particular port or harbor even if they had only a rough idea of their longitude (east/west position) by sailing along the latitude lines until they hit land. How big it made a particular piece of land look was irrelevant.
It's not well known, but maps started to become super-accurate in terms of longitude as well in the 1670s or thereabouts. Astronomers had observed that Jupiter had eclipses of its moons about a thousand times a year, and thanks to Isaac Newton and others they were able to predict the exact times (in Greenwich England) of these eclipses a few years in advance and publish them. Observers around the world with good telescopes could view these eclipses and note the time differences between their observations and the published Greenwich times and use this to precisely calculate their longitude. It was not really possible to do this reliably on board a sailing ship because of the difficulty of keeping a high-powered telescope trained on Jupiter on a pitching and rolling deck (although many attempts were made) so this led to accurate maps but still not fully accurate navigation until the perfection of ship's clocks a century later.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 15 pts · 1d
The other thing is on the Mercator, if you measure from point A to point B, and it gives you a compass heading, this is the correct compass heading to use to navigate to point B from point A. This is not true unless a map is designed for this purpose.
It won't necessarily be the shortest distance -- to plot that out, it is best to use a globe and chart the arc of a great circle path, which is a straight line on the curved surface of the earth. But that path will have the compass changing all the time.
If you are navigating by compass, which ships and airplanes had to do more often way back when, the mercator was great.
Posting for the benefit of @AAA@feddit.org and anyone else who didn't know.
AAA@feddit.org · 7 pts · 1d
Thanks a lot for the explanation. I had no idea, but now with that knowledge it's quite obvious why and how it works with that kind of map.
Soggy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Moral of the story: pretty much every decision is made for logical reasons. Sometimes the reasons are unclear, motivations are selfish, or circumstances later change such that the decision is no longer sound, but it's very rare that "they're just stupid" is the cause.
AAA@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1d
Didn't think so, I just didn't knew the reason. Therefore I asked.
Now I'm annoyed that I got downvoted for asking at all. What's the moral there? Don't ask questions?
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
The map is extremely accurate in the sense that a course plotted on the map can be followed by following a compass course. The same does not apply for earlier maps, or by far most modern maps that are designed to match real-world sizes.
The reason the Mercator projection became the standard is that it was, for a long time, the only map you could use to safely navigate long distances, especially across oceans.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works · 33 pts · 1d
this is the difference btw
to
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
What we had in school in the U.S.
The Robinson projection:
What many U.S. texts moved to after I left school.
The Winkel Triple Projection:
Apparently the Mercador map is what digital maps seem to use because the lines are 90 degrees so it makes it easier.
fox2263@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 2d
I hope they make the map of USA really small and Canada and Mexico really big.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
@Canada government, please make this for us!
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
can we make canada and mexico kiss in the middle 👉👈😅
ODGreen@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 2d
Mexico can take over Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas. Canada can take over Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri. Kansas City can be a Free City where Canadians and Mexicans mingle, spy on each other in cafes, kiss, etc.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
i like the idea of kissin' kansas city
nao@sh.itjust.works · 29 pts · 2d
https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/09/1168284
InFerNo@lemmy.ml · 27 pts · 1d
"radical" lost all meaning in the US
JargonWagon@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
It has. I am just hoping that once cheeto man is out of office that life in the US can progress back to something more recognizable again.
wewbull@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 16h
You need to flush the system of all his acolytes too.
ThunderComplex@lemmy.today · 20 pts · 1d
I saw the US was against it an thought it had to be smth like this. Only americans can look at a problem like "you can't project a 3D sphere onto a 2D plane" and think "waow this is a little too political for me" (I know I'm oversimplifying but u get the gist)
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
In other words, the reasons and explanations were too difficult for the American envoy to grasp.
Lanske@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 2d
Did the US vote no, because they are smaller on new maps?
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 40 pts · 1d
Their stated reason boils down to "New map is woke".
I hate this timeline.
josephmbasile@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
Greenland is also much smaller in the new map. So in essence they shrunk his ambition down to the size of his little dingleberry and there was nothing he could do but whine.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 2d
Or because China looks bigger?
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 2d
As I heard it, Africa is smaller on map than it should be. "It would be woke to fix that"
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 1d
Magastan voted no.
Wispy2891@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 2d
Why the us voted against? In the new map they look bigger than Canada, it should appease the baby in command.
echodot@feddit.uk · 26 pts · 2d
They don't want Trump to see how small Greenland actually is. I think he reckons it's about half the size of the United States because he's an idiot. Not that this map projection is at all new, or has been a secret or anything, but trump isn't exactly the investigating type and so he probably hasn't seen it before, but if the information is shoved in his face he might become upset.
WanderWisley@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 1d
I guarantee you that Donny will make a freedom correct map of the world.
JargonWagon@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
Made out of "gold" and sold to the highest bidders!
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br · 16 pts · 2d
Rare US-Israel disagreement
luipaard0011@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 2d
Maybe Trump-Netanyahu were not voting here this time
los0220@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2d
Maybe the US has a broken voting button, they would want to click "yes", but it ends up as "no" every time.
/s
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2d
They, like clockwork, vote against everything. They were one of maybe 3 countries that voted no that water is a human right.
They're just a contrarian nation.
YouTalkinToMe@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2d
They probably tried to mail in their vote, but it got stuck at USPS because of a botched bar code.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 2d
The projection they went with is the Equal Earth. See a few comments below me for the projection itself.
A good choice, but tbh I feel the modified Dymaxion map would've been the best choice if only displaying land; or the Waterman butterfly.
If also water, then Tobler hyperelliptical., or Aitoff.
See here for a full list of map projections. I also like the Hao projection on there, but yeah.
egrets@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
I'm just grateful they didn't go with the Gall-Peters, which often seems to be the favorite alternative, but always feels to me like it distorts almost every country.
logi@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Yeah, thankfully they went with a balanced projection. G-P makes my sub arctic island look like someone stepped on it. And Africa looks like Antarctica is trying to pull it apart.
For world maps I'd have picked one that projects onto some sort of ellipsoid.
Edit: Ah, they did. The only image I'd seen showed another projection.
Deniz@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 1d
yeahh I know africa is a lot bigger than we tought but what suprised me as indonesia its very big compared to old map
mrdown@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2d
Fuck all those who abstained and voted against
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
The abstained could've been sick or at war that day.
mrdown@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
Nice use of sarcasm
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Why, is that not a thing? Do they have backups who can vote for them?
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2d
The fuck? Why wouldn't the US want the actual sizes. Wouldn't having geographically correct maps help the planet and the people, oh wait.... The US government hates that kind of shit
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
Because we worship ignorance here.
boonhet@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
Mercator is great for navigation in straight lines and makes countries far from the equator look big
The navigation thing is an actual advantage but it doesn't give you the shortest routes, just the easiest to follow
flightyhobler@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Because Mercator projection makes the USA look bigger.
TrippingBalls@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
And Africa smaller
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
I wonder if some people welcome trumps threats to leave nato and the UN. How many peices of logical legislation could pass without the US blocking them.
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1d
Well, NATO isn't about legislation so much as mutual defense. And the UN's resolutions have as much impact as individual countries permit, in many cases.
It's often said that the real point of the UN and the security council veto power was to offer the world's most powerful nations a way to come to a more permanent table and disagree, instead of war being the default threat.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 19h
I like that last paragraph.
And yeah, the UN resolutions don't mean much. But it would still feel a little better if they could pass things that are reasonable without interference.
eah@programming.dev · 11 pts · 2d
It's such a tragedy that the Earth had to be a sphere. I mean, I know it was inevitable. But come on, universe. A sphere? Really? You had to have known about Gauss's Theorema Egregium, yet you chose sphere. Now we're all fighting over who gets to be squished or enlarged and in what directions.
lemmysmash@piefed.social · 10 pts · 2d
They really have nothing else to worry about, do they? What a useless bunch of pricks...
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 2d
Does it say which projection they're actually going to use?
sp6@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 2d
According to this Guardian article:
UN resolutions are non-enforceable, so I'm sure countries will implement it in different ways (some may not implement it at all). France has already said they will be using Eckert IV which is close to Equal Earth:
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 14 pts · 2d
Eckert and Equal Earth are fine, but I much prefer Peirce Quincuncial as more representative of the globe. All of the land distortion is minimal and equal, and it's tileable to get a better image of distance across hemispheres
logi@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
But you completely discard the very concept of direction. And look at poor New Zealand.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 2d
I don't think so, I think it accurately portrays what North is on our globe. Magnetic North is in the Arctic. By displaying the Earth this way, we're seeing a map that's oriented to the North.
The issue with New Zealand goes away with tessellation. This is from Wikipedia, I think that we should be tessellating around the the first part of the map instead but it gets the point across
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
What a trippy representation of the world! I love it!
logi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
This is a very interesting map to contemplate but entirely useless to actually orient oneself by. Which direction do you sail from Africa to get to upside down Africa?
Dentzy@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Remember, the idea is to use this maps for teaching, the Peirce one would simply prevent people from actually learning about the world. I don't say it cannot be useful in some contexts, but for human readability is shit.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
How would it prevent learning about the world?
Dentzy@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Because it is very hard to visualize correctly, when I look at it I need time to even understand what I am looking at. You can blame it on the fact that we used Mercator for centuries, but this does not feel natural. The one selected keeps proportions while feeling natural to almost everyone alive today. Maybe I am wrong about learning, maybe if everyone learns with this it would make sense, but this is the type of thing in which you have to compromise, no one alive (of course there are exceptions, but you know what I mean) prefers to look at yours instead of a map focused on the Ecuador/Atlantic.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Here's a map with political borders, capitols, and large cities
Dentzy@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
I am not saying it is not a good map, I just don't think it is the right representation. Think about it, what picture do you think shows you better? One from the top? Or one from the front? Both show you, both miss information, but still one gives you way more to work with than the other. Looking at things from "above" is not natural for humans.
Klear@piefed.world · 7 pts · 2d
Waterman butterfly
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
i would've thought russia would be the one against it
deadcream@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 2d
Russia didn't use Mercator in textbooks even in Soviet times. As well many other countries I suspect (IDK about USA), it doesn't require a great mind to see how flawed is it.
Bluewing@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
While it's been a few decades since I was young enough to be in school and I only taught math in a school during covid, the maps that were used were Robinson hanging on the wall. The only time I remember Mercator maps were in text books. Probably because the fit the format better for showing things like trade routes.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I only remember Robinson maps in U.S. textbooks.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 2d
Where can one find a good (pretty) interactive web map with this?
EDIT: Apparently it's from equal-earth.com 2018 but it got hugged to death
onionsinmypores@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 2d
WOW. I did NOT know Africa was so long, America so small, and India so thin...
echodot@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 2d
India used to be a long thin Island and then it smashed into the rest of the continent to the North and sort of smushed out on the northern's edge. Eventually it will be completely flattened against the uppercontinent.
deadcream@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 2d
Every projection deforms either size ot shape. The projection that this resolution proposes stretches everything vertically (but preserves the sizes). You can see it by looking at intersections between meridians and circles. The spaces between them are supposed to be closer to squares.
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 2d
Or everyone can just do their own projection where their house is the centre of the Earth.
https://niy.ai/worldmap/
MoffKalast@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
That's just pierce quincuncial with extra steps!
I love this one for some reason, it's got the most distortion where there's nothing but open ocean. Also shows how remote NZ feels like in practice lol.
melfie@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
That map shafts Antarctica and NZ pretty hard to reduce the distortion on most of the world’s landmass. The emperor penguins will vote this one down for sure.
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 2d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 1d
Tickled that the article's default image is cropped and removes New Zealand.
But fear not, the full version of the map in the article body has New Zealand.
Zibitee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
I feel like these projections make Antartica looks significantly larger than it reality. Is this thought correct?
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2d
I mean, do not underestimate the size of Antarctica. It has the area of about two Australias (14.2 vs. 7.6 Mio. km²), and it's only somewhat smaller than South America (17.8 Mio. km²).
It does always look a bit larger as well, though, simply because it is unrolled at the bottom there.
(We're not gonna talk about Mercator, where it does look comically big...)
For the proper size, you'll have to look at a globe.
Wikipedia has little preview globes:
This webpage is also not too terrible for a 3D globe: https://www.webglearth.com/
FluidBeef@quokk.au · 7 pts · 2d
Does it matter what projection the UN uses? Of course the actual UN logo is a wacky projection.
CobraCommander@quokk.au · 7 pts · 2d
Why does the UN use LCARS?
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Even Russia's like: sure don't care.
Mikrochip@feddit.org · 5 pts · 2d
I understand the intention behind using equal earth projection, but personally I still find the Robinson projection more pleasant to look at. Or, of course, the wonderful Waterman Butterfly projection.
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
The Robinon projection makes Canada look nearly smaller than Australia.
Tiral@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
I'm glad with all the issues on the planet, we've tackled this one and solved it.
Stinky_Cheese@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
Literally thinking the same thing
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 2d
Moldova, the fuck do you care about this
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 2d
Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, and Georgia have actual problems to worry about.
I mean this is just UN navel gazing about the fairness of map projections. Countries that are staring down an increasingly unstable Russia probably aren't too worried about that.
khannie@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
I saw two of the Baltics, and fair point, but now I'm curious about why Latvia didn't go along with them.
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 2d
Trying to suck up to the US without pissing off the rest of the world too much, presumably. Same for Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine. The one that actually surprised me is Serbia.
What gives, Serbia?
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
They explicitly indicated that they don't, what are you talking about?
tordenflesk@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=west+wing+cartographers
huppakee@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
https://westwing.fandom.com/wiki/Organization_of_Cartographers_for_Social_Equality
twinnie@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 2d
Gotta admit, the old map looked more aesthetic.
logi@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
Thankfully that isn't the new UN map. This one is.
lambipapp@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
99.9% of the use cases of maps are digital anyway. Why do we not just adopt a globe as the official world map?
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 1d
Too many things need flat maps and UN logos, like websites, walls, paper...
They should have an official 3D representation as well as official 2D representation, and use the 3D where it makes sense.
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 4h
Why is the US against, most US citizens have never even seen the world map. A map of just the US is all they need.
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 3h
Mate, New Zealand isn't even real. Don't believe everything you see when watching lord of the rings. /jk
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 2d
The Equal Earth projection, the one they voted for, kinda sucks IMO. It vertically stretches every country in order to make sure everyone gets equal area, but it's trading horizontal area for vertical area. Robinson is better.
gergolippai@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
the UN, fighting the important fights /s
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Evidently it's more important to Africans than it is to us.
AdminBot@programming.dev · 1 pts · 2d
plyth@feddit.org · 0 pts · 2d
I thought Serbia was controlled by Russia and the students were protesting for freedom. What happened?
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
A big who cares, mapping a 3D surface onto a 2D surface always has distortions.