Why all world maps are wrong

Transforming a globe into a flat map presents a unique challenge: to create a rectangular representation of a three-dimensional sphere, significant alterations are necessary. This process requires cutting the globe open and stretching it, resulting in countries that appear distorted and warped. Despite these efforts, achieving a perfectly flat surface is nearly impossible. This dilemma is at the heart of cartography, where the curvature of the Earth cannot be accurately represented on a flat surface without some form of distortion.

The mathematical foundation of this issue has been understood for centuries. Since the 1500s, mathematicians have developed various algorithms to translate the globe into flat representations, employing a technique known as projection. One of the most common methods is the cylindrical projection, which involves placing an imaginary cylinder around the globe and projecting points from the sphere onto the cylinder's surface. When the cylinder is unrolled, it reveals a flat, rectangular map. However, the choice of projection significantly influences the final appearance of the map, leading to a variety of styles and distortions.

Each type of map projection comes with its own set of trade-offs, particularly in terms of shape, distance, direction, and land area. Depending on the purpose of the map, certain projections may be more advantageous or misleading. A well-known example is the Mercator projection, often encountered in school and widely used by navigation tools like Google Maps. The Mercator projection retains the shape of countries relatively well—Brazil, for instance, looks much like its globe representation. However, its primary design purpose was for navigation, specifically to maintain direction. This is essential for maritime travel, as it ensures that a straight line drawn between two points translates into an accurate compass direction.

While the Mercator projection simplifies ocean navigation, it distorts the actual distances and sizes of landmasses, particularly near the poles. For example, it depicts Greenland and Africa as being similar in size, when in reality, Africa is about 14 times larger. When applying a Mercator projection to uniform circles on a globe, those circles maintain their shape but appear increasingly enlarged as they approach the poles, leading to misleading representations.

Critics argue that such distortions can perpetuate imperialist views, particularly regarding the southern hemisphere, asserting that the Mercator projection has fostered biases against less-developed nations. In contrast, the Gall-Peters projection provides a more accurate representation of land area, making it evident that Africa is significantly larger than Greenland. However, this projection comes with its own drawbacks, particularly in how it alters the shapes of countries, leading to a stretched and less recognizable appearance.

The advent of satellite technology in the late 1960s revolutionized mapping and navigation, as global positioning systems (GPS) eliminated the need for traditional paper maps. This shift changed the focus of map projections from navigation to aesthetics and design. While the Mercator projection was once indispensable for navigation, it has been criticized by modern cartographers who view it as misleading. Nevertheless, many online mapping services, including Google Maps, continue to use the Mercator projection for its ability to preserve shapes and angles in localized views—making urban navigation more intuitive.

Today, most cartographers prefer a variety of non-rectangular projections that strike a balance between shape and area accuracy. In 1998, the National Geographic Society adopted the Winkel Tripel projection, which offers a more aesthetically pleasing representation of the world while maintaining a reasonable degree of accuracy in both shape and size. Ultimately, there is no single “correct” map projection; the landscape of mapping includes a diverse array of options, each providing a unique perspective on our planet.

For the most authentic view of Earth, a globe remains the best option. However, as long as we rely on flat maps, we will encounter the inherent trade-offs and limitations of various projections. The key takeaway is that there is no definitive answer when it comes to mapping the world; each projection reflects different priorities and perspectives.