Every recorded meteorite strike on Earth since 2,300 BCE mapped

Re:Every recorded meteorite strike on Earth since 2,300 BCE ... by ghaff on Monday February 18, 2013 @06:50PM (#5241639)

It depends on the scale. For a world map, Mercator is, as you suggest, almost never a good choice. For many other situations where it's important to show the correct angular relationship between objects (such as streets), Mercator is the most faithful. And I can understand why there might be issues with using different projections at different scales.

I could equally well say it's lazy to use just use Google Maps or some other convenient mapping service that uses Mercator projections at the world level when those services are not really optimized for displaying at that scale.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Every recorded meteorite strike on Earth since 2,300 BCE ... by gilgoomesh on Monday February 18, 2013 @07:31PM (#5241790)

If you had a street that crossed the North Pole you wouldn't want a Mercator Projection. It would look thoroughly deformed.

Many orthogonal, North-aligned projections will look fairly similar same when zoomed into a street at least a couple degrees latitude away from the poles. Ideally, you would always use a 3D projection of that section of the sphere (e.g. Google Earth not Google Maps) or a local two-point equidistant projection since these are always the most accurate. An orthogonal projection only suffices in common usage because there is so little need for maps near the poles.

In any case, I should have qualified my original comment with: "for a whole-earth map or a map showing distributions". Mercator is always a bad projection for a map showing distributions because it seriously misrepresents area, undermining the effort to accurate portray distribution.

[ Parent | on HN ]