![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thought I'd add wikiproject outlines as this 'list' article has almost become a new article Outline of Map Projection and I wasn't sure where one drew the line between list and outline. EdwardLane ( talk) 18:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that a good number of these can share images. Some of these projections of subsets of other projections, such as Continuous American polyconic projection being a specific version of Polyconic projection. Both are using the same image right now. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 08:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Should all polyhedral map projections be included in the list of "equal area map projections"? In principle the "other projection" used to map from the globe to each facet of any polyhedron *could* be some equal-area mapping [1], and in practice the facets of the polyhedron are often small enough that it is difficult to tell whether the cartographer actually used an equal-area mapping or not. -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I will be replacing images on the various map projection pages. Presently many are on a satellite composite image from NASA that, while realistic, poorly demonstrates the projections because of dark color and low contrast. I have created a stylization of the same data with much brighter water areas and a light graticule to contrast. See the thumbnail of the example from another article. Some images on some pages are acceptable but differ stylistically from most articles; I will replace these also.
The images will be high resolution and antialiased, with 15° graticules for world projections, red, translucent equator, red tropics, and blue polar circles.
Please discuss agreement or objections over here (not this page). I intend to start these replacements on 13 August. Thank you. Strebe ( talk) 22:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I just had a look at this and thought that all the different map projections could do with being nicely interconnected using soemthing like this Wikipedia:Navigation_templates.
It would need to go at the bottom of each map projection - but then you might be able to quickly just around all the area distance compromise etc maps - dunno if it's possible to fit them all in the one template ? EdwardLane ( talk) 15:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I leave it to regulars here to decide. But I think this picture of the map from the page on Mercator has enormous importance here, even if only historical. It looks like a "conformal" stereographic projection. Lucy Skywalker ( talk) 09:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
If some person have a paper "world map" in hand, I think this article should help that person quickly figure out which map projection best fits that map, by finding which illustration most closely matches the map in hand.
Perhaps this article would be more useful if people scanning through this list, holding one of the many paper world maps with "two disks that touch", could find some entry in this list that looks like that. Then the notes to the right of that entry would point out that it's not really a single "map projection", but two separate projections in this particular arrangement. (Should that entry use the illustration of a "(conformal) stereographic double hemisphere" or a "(equal-area) Lambert azimuthal double hemisphere", or perhaps both?)
p.s.: Strebe, thank you for doing so much work illustrating this article.
Into "List of whole world map projections". Yug (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me it would be a good idea to consoldiate this list as one, with added columns for type and properties. At the moment it is rather confusing and overlaps with the main map projection article - it is not really a list. There are also quite a few omissions/inconsistencies. I have been working on version of this - see my sandbox - will if no objection bring it in when adequately finished. Marqaz ( talk) 18:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I've put the new page up. I dare say there are some typos and erros.
hope other find this a useful upgrade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqaz ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
When i try to order to year by ascending/descending order th BC and AD gets all messed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindrop11 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I am bothered that this wiki topic only covers Western projections. Why are we ignoring other cartographers of the world; such as: Kunyu Wanguo Quantu ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunyu_Wanguo_Quantu). I apologize for not logging in and not providing more details. Just something to consider and I'll let you others discuss before pursuing this [or not] further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.45.122 ( talk) 11:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
this article is hard to understand. which map is more realistic? 193.239.254.247 ( talk) 13:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Where does Tom Patterson's Natural Earth projection fall in the list? Considering it was featured on The West Wing, I think it merits inclusion, or at least mention. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Would a globe count as a projection? If so, which categories would they fall under? Symon of Carthage ( talk) 05:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The following link you should DON'T visit, leads to a 21-page-pdf article containing relevant information, showing on "Cartographic projection Procedures" (Rel.4)Second Interin Report by Gerald Evenden, 1st Jan 2003 at (Nat-Geo-Society's ? of WA?). This seems to be the final draft and version for this section and lists the new index for "PseudoCylindrical Projections" after and according with specs on Upgrade's implementation manual.
CONSIDERING: Most documentation on this matter (mostly dated on 1950's and grouping since 1900's aprox) the was no standard protocol; guideline or alike so each individual-author could vary the particular focus to base on for each work's case or descriptin - variable - criteria. (such "equal-area" or "conformal" and others). Therefore should be considered to implement that hierarchy on related pages while updating contents and links.
I'll only include here the short proper definition for Pseudo-Cylindrical Projections(the only one clear enough, concise and on plain language but also format-convert-generated typo-errors) I´ve founded, followed by a resumed list for show top + first sub-levels/sub-categories on "Pseudocylindrical" including total number of sub-entries/projections for/on each one.
Def. "Pseudo-cylindrical projections" are result of efforts to minimize the distortion of the polar regions of the cylindrical projections by bending the meridians toward the center of the map as a funtion of longitude while maintaining the cylindrical characteristic of parallel parallels.
Personal comment/request:
(no joking at all)
b) If nothing of that works: Vanity approach: Could be tempted by the idea of have a contributor's page for him as a token of gratitude" and as any other user but with more userboxes (lol) c) IM CONSIDER, based on the referenced article's "definition/description" for map proyections and all what it shows, I consider that author should be recluted someway to contribute around. Basically, for actually suceed on put on a small phrase all the basic info that is not included nor clear enough or to be founded even on other authors on this theme, and for showing at same time what we are blinded-for, as we do nothing about a plain definition or definition at all but copy-pasting some extreme-technical text (rephrased) for "make the page" or fix it under our working criterias as reference, common sense, notability, etc. I've didn't enjoy the punch in my dragon's fang for make me notice that we are became more concerned about the criterias mentioned above and relaxed on other, (for me) far most important such TRUTH, FAIR, and IMPERSONAL contents added here... as all we have seen sometime a fake/lie, unfair a/o selfish contribution and very few of them remains as there was no consensus for make a decition. I've was distracted but already shaked and focused. Apologies to all for not-being-me" as I am for be "thinking" about un-real concepts that affected me generating the worst "sin" on my book: guilty for do-nothing" when you can. "I was... I've believed... " "bold-shift- excuses" that can dare to consider to explain but truth. And that, on this level and theme, means correct stucture, clear definitions and bold-edited contents "better than anyone/anything"... and that was what moved me to post this from the moment I've crossed data and noticed. and last, but not least: d)As wikidragons attract too much attentions making massive bold edits anywhere, I've asked to other editors to post this case on my behalf to not let any chance of distraction/diversion to be based on my boldness and lousy contribs. Calling all the formerly-called wiki-knights vermin (if that exists) to give support and to "man-this-suggest", as you also love near-losted causes and considering they also wants the best this our Wiki home, to BE the best, and that should include: "SPECIALLY and DESPITE OURSELVES".
"Bold funny quote of the month": " Anyone "free of flaws, so good to not see the truth on this and so brave to show openly and tired of this mean incarnation you are imprisioned": Throw the first stone." Personal treatment guarantee.
That is the end of the quote to be added. As I've said, I'm confident on my fellow editors will see the truth on this instead of think otherwise.
Fair and bold edited by TienShenLong @ 05:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
(Is the old hidden cat check still operational to bring attention on that mword was placed?)
The article gives 1885 for the date of Gall's Stereographic. But pretty much all sources say that Gall introduced his Stereographic, Orthographic and Isographic cylindrical projections in 1855.
-- MichaelOssipoff ( talk) 13:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff
Is the projection seen on right one that has been catalogued by this article? Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 18:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be useful if the map projects would be in an .SVG format rather then .jpg format. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Place the 'pole' anywhere on the Equator, define a new longitude and latitude scheme, with the new 'Equator' passing through the North and South poles. This makes Africa look tiny and the Arctic more reasonable!
Darcourse ( talk) 09:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What do people think about adding a column to this table with an image of Tissot Indicatrices for each projection? Format-wise it should be feasible, as the rightmost Notes column takes up a lot of horizontal space and (on my monitor) rarely uses all the vertical space in each row, so its width could be reduced. Tissot Indicatrices images are already available on WP for many of the projections, and this awesome site has such images for most if not all of the rest, under a CC-BY-SA license, so the images could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Jbening ( talk) 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I see the argument to be made that "rectangular polyconic" be lowercase, since neither of those words are proper nouns. However, it seems to me that being alone in a cell mandates that the first word be capitalised, as the first word of a sentence. At the very least, it looks very odd if "rectangular polyconic" is the only non-capitalised entry in the list. IMO, it looks like a typo. In any case, if "rectangular polyconic" is all lowercase, then by the same logic should the same not apply to "Equirectangular", "Web Mercator", "Central Cylindrical", "Flat-polar quartic", "Equidistant conic projection" (now that I'm looking at it, that one definitely needs the word "projection" removed), "Latitudinally equal-differential polyconic", "Azimuthal equidistant", "Vertical perspective", and "Two-point equidistant"? Justin Kunimune ( talk) 04:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
So... are you saying it should or shouldn't be capitalised? Justin Kunimune ( talk) 08:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Justin Kunimune ( talk) 05:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
What is the significance of the reference to the Azimuthal Equidistant projection being "Used by the USGS in the National Atlas of the United States of America."? It sounds like this needs a reference to understand the significance. From the only reference I could find ( https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1532/report.pdf), the USGS uses many projections, and there's nothing particularly significant about their use of this particular one. Yet this particular reference is (strangely) used as a proof that the USGS believes in the flat earth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VpWYpAWxrM. Richard.a.russell ( talk) 13:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion map is not on this list?
I'm not a cartographer, so I hesitate to add this myself, especially without asking first. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The Journal of Biogeography News blog cited this page in their Figures: the Art of Science piece of news, published on 15 July 2020. The same piece of news has been recommended by Nature Briefing on 17 July, and sent to possibly thousands of scientists and researchers across the world. That's Wikipedia in the media for you. Mateussf ( talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Oscujic: This edit should be reverted. 1. Formulæ are too much detail to fit the purpose of a list. 2. Most projections require nuances and explanation that can’t fit in this context. 3. The table becomes far too wide for good viewing on many common devices. 4. Many projections’ generating formulæ are far too complicated for this page and will never appear on it, making the structure inconsistent. Strebe ( talk) 16:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this one is a link, instead of a thumbnail? - TimDWilliamson speak 00:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_map_projections&oldid=1132794544#Type_of_projection
Euro2023 ( talk) 17:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's from 1769, so it shouldn't be either the Van der Grinten or Lambert AEA projections. It also looks different (and better) than either one. — LlywelynII 02:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thought I'd add wikiproject outlines as this 'list' article has almost become a new article Outline of Map Projection and I wasn't sure where one drew the line between list and outline. EdwardLane ( talk) 18:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that a good number of these can share images. Some of these projections of subsets of other projections, such as Continuous American polyconic projection being a specific version of Polyconic projection. Both are using the same image right now. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 08:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Should all polyhedral map projections be included in the list of "equal area map projections"? In principle the "other projection" used to map from the globe to each facet of any polyhedron *could* be some equal-area mapping [1], and in practice the facets of the polyhedron are often small enough that it is difficult to tell whether the cartographer actually used an equal-area mapping or not. -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I will be replacing images on the various map projection pages. Presently many are on a satellite composite image from NASA that, while realistic, poorly demonstrates the projections because of dark color and low contrast. I have created a stylization of the same data with much brighter water areas and a light graticule to contrast. See the thumbnail of the example from another article. Some images on some pages are acceptable but differ stylistically from most articles; I will replace these also.
The images will be high resolution and antialiased, with 15° graticules for world projections, red, translucent equator, red tropics, and blue polar circles.
Please discuss agreement or objections over here (not this page). I intend to start these replacements on 13 August. Thank you. Strebe ( talk) 22:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I just had a look at this and thought that all the different map projections could do with being nicely interconnected using soemthing like this Wikipedia:Navigation_templates.
It would need to go at the bottom of each map projection - but then you might be able to quickly just around all the area distance compromise etc maps - dunno if it's possible to fit them all in the one template ? EdwardLane ( talk) 15:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I leave it to regulars here to decide. But I think this picture of the map from the page on Mercator has enormous importance here, even if only historical. It looks like a "conformal" stereographic projection. Lucy Skywalker ( talk) 09:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
If some person have a paper "world map" in hand, I think this article should help that person quickly figure out which map projection best fits that map, by finding which illustration most closely matches the map in hand.
Perhaps this article would be more useful if people scanning through this list, holding one of the many paper world maps with "two disks that touch", could find some entry in this list that looks like that. Then the notes to the right of that entry would point out that it's not really a single "map projection", but two separate projections in this particular arrangement. (Should that entry use the illustration of a "(conformal) stereographic double hemisphere" or a "(equal-area) Lambert azimuthal double hemisphere", or perhaps both?)
p.s.: Strebe, thank you for doing so much work illustrating this article.
Into "List of whole world map projections". Yug (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me it would be a good idea to consoldiate this list as one, with added columns for type and properties. At the moment it is rather confusing and overlaps with the main map projection article - it is not really a list. There are also quite a few omissions/inconsistencies. I have been working on version of this - see my sandbox - will if no objection bring it in when adequately finished. Marqaz ( talk) 18:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I've put the new page up. I dare say there are some typos and erros.
hope other find this a useful upgrade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqaz ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
When i try to order to year by ascending/descending order th BC and AD gets all messed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindrop11 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I am bothered that this wiki topic only covers Western projections. Why are we ignoring other cartographers of the world; such as: Kunyu Wanguo Quantu ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunyu_Wanguo_Quantu). I apologize for not logging in and not providing more details. Just something to consider and I'll let you others discuss before pursuing this [or not] further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.45.122 ( talk) 11:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
this article is hard to understand. which map is more realistic? 193.239.254.247 ( talk) 13:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Where does Tom Patterson's Natural Earth projection fall in the list? Considering it was featured on The West Wing, I think it merits inclusion, or at least mention. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Would a globe count as a projection? If so, which categories would they fall under? Symon of Carthage ( talk) 05:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The following link you should DON'T visit, leads to a 21-page-pdf article containing relevant information, showing on "Cartographic projection Procedures" (Rel.4)Second Interin Report by Gerald Evenden, 1st Jan 2003 at (Nat-Geo-Society's ? of WA?). This seems to be the final draft and version for this section and lists the new index for "PseudoCylindrical Projections" after and according with specs on Upgrade's implementation manual.
CONSIDERING: Most documentation on this matter (mostly dated on 1950's and grouping since 1900's aprox) the was no standard protocol; guideline or alike so each individual-author could vary the particular focus to base on for each work's case or descriptin - variable - criteria. (such "equal-area" or "conformal" and others). Therefore should be considered to implement that hierarchy on related pages while updating contents and links.
I'll only include here the short proper definition for Pseudo-Cylindrical Projections(the only one clear enough, concise and on plain language but also format-convert-generated typo-errors) I´ve founded, followed by a resumed list for show top + first sub-levels/sub-categories on "Pseudocylindrical" including total number of sub-entries/projections for/on each one.
Def. "Pseudo-cylindrical projections" are result of efforts to minimize the distortion of the polar regions of the cylindrical projections by bending the meridians toward the center of the map as a funtion of longitude while maintaining the cylindrical characteristic of parallel parallels.
Personal comment/request:
(no joking at all)
b) If nothing of that works: Vanity approach: Could be tempted by the idea of have a contributor's page for him as a token of gratitude" and as any other user but with more userboxes (lol) c) IM CONSIDER, based on the referenced article's "definition/description" for map proyections and all what it shows, I consider that author should be recluted someway to contribute around. Basically, for actually suceed on put on a small phrase all the basic info that is not included nor clear enough or to be founded even on other authors on this theme, and for showing at same time what we are blinded-for, as we do nothing about a plain definition or definition at all but copy-pasting some extreme-technical text (rephrased) for "make the page" or fix it under our working criterias as reference, common sense, notability, etc. I've didn't enjoy the punch in my dragon's fang for make me notice that we are became more concerned about the criterias mentioned above and relaxed on other, (for me) far most important such TRUTH, FAIR, and IMPERSONAL contents added here... as all we have seen sometime a fake/lie, unfair a/o selfish contribution and very few of them remains as there was no consensus for make a decition. I've was distracted but already shaked and focused. Apologies to all for not-being-me" as I am for be "thinking" about un-real concepts that affected me generating the worst "sin" on my book: guilty for do-nothing" when you can. "I was... I've believed... " "bold-shift- excuses" that can dare to consider to explain but truth. And that, on this level and theme, means correct stucture, clear definitions and bold-edited contents "better than anyone/anything"... and that was what moved me to post this from the moment I've crossed data and noticed. and last, but not least: d)As wikidragons attract too much attentions making massive bold edits anywhere, I've asked to other editors to post this case on my behalf to not let any chance of distraction/diversion to be based on my boldness and lousy contribs. Calling all the formerly-called wiki-knights vermin (if that exists) to give support and to "man-this-suggest", as you also love near-losted causes and considering they also wants the best this our Wiki home, to BE the best, and that should include: "SPECIALLY and DESPITE OURSELVES".
"Bold funny quote of the month": " Anyone "free of flaws, so good to not see the truth on this and so brave to show openly and tired of this mean incarnation you are imprisioned": Throw the first stone." Personal treatment guarantee.
That is the end of the quote to be added. As I've said, I'm confident on my fellow editors will see the truth on this instead of think otherwise.
Fair and bold edited by TienShenLong @ 05:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
(Is the old hidden cat check still operational to bring attention on that mword was placed?)
The article gives 1885 for the date of Gall's Stereographic. But pretty much all sources say that Gall introduced his Stereographic, Orthographic and Isographic cylindrical projections in 1855.
-- MichaelOssipoff ( talk) 13:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff
Is the projection seen on right one that has been catalogued by this article? Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 18:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be useful if the map projects would be in an .SVG format rather then .jpg format. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Place the 'pole' anywhere on the Equator, define a new longitude and latitude scheme, with the new 'Equator' passing through the North and South poles. This makes Africa look tiny and the Arctic more reasonable!
Darcourse ( talk) 09:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What do people think about adding a column to this table with an image of Tissot Indicatrices for each projection? Format-wise it should be feasible, as the rightmost Notes column takes up a lot of horizontal space and (on my monitor) rarely uses all the vertical space in each row, so its width could be reduced. Tissot Indicatrices images are already available on WP for many of the projections, and this awesome site has such images for most if not all of the rest, under a CC-BY-SA license, so the images could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Jbening ( talk) 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I see the argument to be made that "rectangular polyconic" be lowercase, since neither of those words are proper nouns. However, it seems to me that being alone in a cell mandates that the first word be capitalised, as the first word of a sentence. At the very least, it looks very odd if "rectangular polyconic" is the only non-capitalised entry in the list. IMO, it looks like a typo. In any case, if "rectangular polyconic" is all lowercase, then by the same logic should the same not apply to "Equirectangular", "Web Mercator", "Central Cylindrical", "Flat-polar quartic", "Equidistant conic projection" (now that I'm looking at it, that one definitely needs the word "projection" removed), "Latitudinally equal-differential polyconic", "Azimuthal equidistant", "Vertical perspective", and "Two-point equidistant"? Justin Kunimune ( talk) 04:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
So... are you saying it should or shouldn't be capitalised? Justin Kunimune ( talk) 08:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Justin Kunimune ( talk) 05:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
What is the significance of the reference to the Azimuthal Equidistant projection being "Used by the USGS in the National Atlas of the United States of America."? It sounds like this needs a reference to understand the significance. From the only reference I could find ( https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1532/report.pdf), the USGS uses many projections, and there's nothing particularly significant about their use of this particular one. Yet this particular reference is (strangely) used as a proof that the USGS believes in the flat earth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VpWYpAWxrM. Richard.a.russell ( talk) 13:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion map is not on this list?
I'm not a cartographer, so I hesitate to add this myself, especially without asking first. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The Journal of Biogeography News blog cited this page in their Figures: the Art of Science piece of news, published on 15 July 2020. The same piece of news has been recommended by Nature Briefing on 17 July, and sent to possibly thousands of scientists and researchers across the world. That's Wikipedia in the media for you. Mateussf ( talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Oscujic: This edit should be reverted. 1. Formulæ are too much detail to fit the purpose of a list. 2. Most projections require nuances and explanation that can’t fit in this context. 3. The table becomes far too wide for good viewing on many common devices. 4. Many projections’ generating formulæ are far too complicated for this page and will never appear on it, making the structure inconsistent. Strebe ( talk) 16:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this one is a link, instead of a thumbnail? - TimDWilliamson speak 00:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_map_projections&oldid=1132794544#Type_of_projection
Euro2023 ( talk) 17:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's from 1769, so it shouldn't be either the Van der Grinten or Lambert AEA projections. It also looks different (and better) than either one. — LlywelynII 02:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)