This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
See meta:Spacetime DTD and meta:Ecoregion DTD
Is Dymaxion Map the same as the Peters Projection map of the world? quercus robur
saving links needed to work on this map
move your eyes at the top of this page. This article is part of a wikiproject. As such, a little bit more information is required.
Neutrality here? How about some negatives, like the fact that it confuses navigation (North is in the center, rather than at an extreme).
"There is no one 'correct' view of the Dymaxion map. Peeling the triangular faces of the icosahedron apart in one way results in an icosahedral net that shows an almost contiguous land mass comprising all of earth's continents - not groups of continents divided by oceans. Peeling the solid apart in a different way presents a view of the world dominated by connected oceans surrounded by land."
Would it be possible for someone to make an example of the second view,where oceans dominate?
So... if I have the some coordinates of a point on a surface, how would I transform those points to find the coordinates of the corresponding position on a dymaxion map? (Pick one, though I am specifically interested in polyhedral dymaxion maps – let's say a dymaxion map based on a regular octohedron.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.169.10 ( talk) 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I know this was 10 years ago, but if anyone is curious, the only mention of the exact equations I could find was
Robert Gray. According to him, it comes down to conserving distances along the icosohedron edges and then interpolating using a three-way geodesic grid. The math gets pretty complicated.
Justin Kunimune (
talk) 03:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
An icosohedron has 20 faces. 20 separate stereographic projections—one for each of the 20 faces—would seem to be what's going on. That would make it conformal except at the 12 vertices. Can someone with experience with these maps comment on this? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
...Wait!... maybe it would be conformal except on the edges.
If so, that raises the question of whether there is some other way to do it that would make it conformal except at the vertices. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The radial projection (from the south hemisphere S+ to C, seen as the tangent plane at the south pole) is not conformal. Reason : if it were conformal, we could compose the inverse of the radial projection, C → S+, with the standard stereographic projection S → C; the result would be a radial holomorphic map C →C, that is, of the form f(reit)=φ(r)eit, which can be holomorphic only if f(z)=az, which is not the case here. Alternatively, it would be a bounded holomorphic map on C, hence constant by Liouville theorem, again not the case here. (moved from RD/M) -- pma ( talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"that raises the question of whether there is some other way to do it" Yes. Whatever particular projection the standard Dymaxion map uses, we can imagine developing some other map that is almost identical to the Dymaxion map, except it uses some other projection:
-- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dymaxion 2003 animation small1.gif will be appearing as picture of the day on June 5, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Esperanto41 is attempting to inject his opinion piece as an external link. His rationale for reverting my deletion was, “Restored link to Web's most extensively detailed history, analysis, and critique of Fuller's map.” The article he links is just a personal opinion piece, violating WP:RELY and WP:USERG. It’s his own work, violating WP:COI and WP:SELFPUBLISH. It is a mass of rhetoric, devoid of science, data, reliable external references to it, and meanwhile having the tendentious purpose of disparaging the Fuller projection and directing the reader’s attention to the Cahill projection, which he has a vested interest in.
Gene, if you revert this again, I will revert your reversion and request a page lock. There is no question about these policies you are violating. Strebe ( talk)
Daan Strebe is a commercial cartography software producer, who feels he can become Wikipedia's self-appointed dictator of approved projections, and disparage or delete those which are not included in his mindset or his proprietary program. Talk about conflict of interest! He waged a vendetta to delete and suppress the octahedral Waterman projection page in Wikipedia. Strebe's commercial program does not include Cahill or Fuller or Waterman, but it does include Strebe's own projections. Again, COI.
Unlike Strebe, I am not a vendor. I do not have a so-called "vested interest" in B.J.S. Cahill, nor in my own revisions to Cahill. My map designs and programs are freely downloadable on the Web, open source and in Creative Commons. I do not object to Strebe's cartographic expertise, and projections, and private enterprise, but I do object to him bringing his prejudices and conflict of interest into a public venue such as Wikipedia, while presuming that he can delete alternative projections on his say-so, then lock out anyone else.
As for my critique of the Fuller map, I cannot believe that daan has done more than glance at it, and then hurl unsubstantiated invective. (Let him address some of its analyses, such as how one should scale a Dymaxion map.) My piece details the history and evolution and shortcomings of Bucky's map, which of course I would not post as a WP article. But as an external link, it belongs in a WP article on the Dymaxion. Readers are entitled to judge for themselves if the article is germane and worthwhile, and not be subject to Strebe's censorship, and lockout threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esperanto41 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This file doesn't load at all, there's just the broken image icon 151.227.93.223 ( talk) 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Supposedly the Buckminster Fuller Institute has said: "Thank you for your interest in the Fuller Projection Map™. BFI owns the rights to the projection, and yes, it requires a licensing agreement for use." (bold mine)
Does anyone know what the heck they are talking about? AFAIK their patent ran out a while ago. They have trademarks for the words "Fuller Projection Map" but nothing more. Is this correct? Maybe they are trying to say the entire projection is a trademark? -- 147.147.121.40 ( talk) 06:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It's probably worth mentioning that this map projection does see some use in the sciences, whenever the continents and their connections (including across Bering Strait) need to be shown and the oceans are not relevant; apart from the genetics map in the article, compare the map in the infobox of Woolly mammoth. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See meta:Spacetime DTD and meta:Ecoregion DTD
Is Dymaxion Map the same as the Peters Projection map of the world? quercus robur
saving links needed to work on this map
move your eyes at the top of this page. This article is part of a wikiproject. As such, a little bit more information is required.
Neutrality here? How about some negatives, like the fact that it confuses navigation (North is in the center, rather than at an extreme).
"There is no one 'correct' view of the Dymaxion map. Peeling the triangular faces of the icosahedron apart in one way results in an icosahedral net that shows an almost contiguous land mass comprising all of earth's continents - not groups of continents divided by oceans. Peeling the solid apart in a different way presents a view of the world dominated by connected oceans surrounded by land."
Would it be possible for someone to make an example of the second view,where oceans dominate?
So... if I have the some coordinates of a point on a surface, how would I transform those points to find the coordinates of the corresponding position on a dymaxion map? (Pick one, though I am specifically interested in polyhedral dymaxion maps – let's say a dymaxion map based on a regular octohedron.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.169.10 ( talk) 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I know this was 10 years ago, but if anyone is curious, the only mention of the exact equations I could find was
Robert Gray. According to him, it comes down to conserving distances along the icosohedron edges and then interpolating using a three-way geodesic grid. The math gets pretty complicated.
Justin Kunimune (
talk) 03:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
An icosohedron has 20 faces. 20 separate stereographic projections—one for each of the 20 faces—would seem to be what's going on. That would make it conformal except at the 12 vertices. Can someone with experience with these maps comment on this? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
...Wait!... maybe it would be conformal except on the edges.
If so, that raises the question of whether there is some other way to do it that would make it conformal except at the vertices. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The radial projection (from the south hemisphere S+ to C, seen as the tangent plane at the south pole) is not conformal. Reason : if it were conformal, we could compose the inverse of the radial projection, C → S+, with the standard stereographic projection S → C; the result would be a radial holomorphic map C →C, that is, of the form f(reit)=φ(r)eit, which can be holomorphic only if f(z)=az, which is not the case here. Alternatively, it would be a bounded holomorphic map on C, hence constant by Liouville theorem, again not the case here. (moved from RD/M) -- pma ( talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"that raises the question of whether there is some other way to do it" Yes. Whatever particular projection the standard Dymaxion map uses, we can imagine developing some other map that is almost identical to the Dymaxion map, except it uses some other projection:
-- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dymaxion 2003 animation small1.gif will be appearing as picture of the day on June 5, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Esperanto41 is attempting to inject his opinion piece as an external link. His rationale for reverting my deletion was, “Restored link to Web's most extensively detailed history, analysis, and critique of Fuller's map.” The article he links is just a personal opinion piece, violating WP:RELY and WP:USERG. It’s his own work, violating WP:COI and WP:SELFPUBLISH. It is a mass of rhetoric, devoid of science, data, reliable external references to it, and meanwhile having the tendentious purpose of disparaging the Fuller projection and directing the reader’s attention to the Cahill projection, which he has a vested interest in.
Gene, if you revert this again, I will revert your reversion and request a page lock. There is no question about these policies you are violating. Strebe ( talk)
Daan Strebe is a commercial cartography software producer, who feels he can become Wikipedia's self-appointed dictator of approved projections, and disparage or delete those which are not included in his mindset or his proprietary program. Talk about conflict of interest! He waged a vendetta to delete and suppress the octahedral Waterman projection page in Wikipedia. Strebe's commercial program does not include Cahill or Fuller or Waterman, but it does include Strebe's own projections. Again, COI.
Unlike Strebe, I am not a vendor. I do not have a so-called "vested interest" in B.J.S. Cahill, nor in my own revisions to Cahill. My map designs and programs are freely downloadable on the Web, open source and in Creative Commons. I do not object to Strebe's cartographic expertise, and projections, and private enterprise, but I do object to him bringing his prejudices and conflict of interest into a public venue such as Wikipedia, while presuming that he can delete alternative projections on his say-so, then lock out anyone else.
As for my critique of the Fuller map, I cannot believe that daan has done more than glance at it, and then hurl unsubstantiated invective. (Let him address some of its analyses, such as how one should scale a Dymaxion map.) My piece details the history and evolution and shortcomings of Bucky's map, which of course I would not post as a WP article. But as an external link, it belongs in a WP article on the Dymaxion. Readers are entitled to judge for themselves if the article is germane and worthwhile, and not be subject to Strebe's censorship, and lockout threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esperanto41 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This file doesn't load at all, there's just the broken image icon 151.227.93.223 ( talk) 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Supposedly the Buckminster Fuller Institute has said: "Thank you for your interest in the Fuller Projection Map™. BFI owns the rights to the projection, and yes, it requires a licensing agreement for use." (bold mine)
Does anyone know what the heck they are talking about? AFAIK their patent ran out a while ago. They have trademarks for the words "Fuller Projection Map" but nothing more. Is this correct? Maybe they are trying to say the entire projection is a trademark? -- 147.147.121.40 ( talk) 06:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It's probably worth mentioning that this map projection does see some use in the sciences, whenever the continents and their connections (including across Bering Strait) need to be shown and the oceans are not relevant; apart from the genetics map in the article, compare the map in the infobox of Woolly mammoth. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)