Introduction to Navigation Lecture Notes

Introduction to Map Projections

Although Earth images and map data that you use are typically rendered onto flat
surfaces (such as your computer screen or a sheet of paper), the Earth’s surface
obviously is not flat. Because Earth has a curving, not-quite sphericial shape, planar
maps of all but the smallest areas contain significant geometric distortions of shapes,
areas, distances, or angles. In order to produce two-dimensional maps that preserve
eographic relationships and minimize particular types of distortion, several steps are
required. We must choose a geometric model (known as a geodetic datum) that
closely approximates the shape of the Earth, yet can be described in simple
mathematical terms. We must also adopt a coordinate system for referencing
geographic locations in the mapping plane. Finally we must choose an appropriate
mathematical method of transferring locations from the idealized Earth model to the
chosen planar coordinate system: a map projection. A coordinate system, datum, and
map projection are all components of the coordinate reference system for a spatial
object.

The Shape of the Earth

From our traditional human vantage point on the ground, the Earth’s surface appears
rough and irregular. But spacecraft images show that on a planetary scale, the Earth
has a regular geometric shape with a very smooth surface. Knowledge of this shape
is a prerequisite if we are to accurately transform geographic coordinates through a
map projection to a planar coordinate system.
Sir Isaac Newton was the first to suggest that the Earth, because it rotates on its polar
axis, is not quite spherical, but bulges outward slightly at the equator. The polar
radius is thus slightly shorter than the equatorial radius. If expressed as a fraction of
the equatorial radius, the difference according to current measurements is about 1/
298.257, a value known as polar flattening. The earth thus appears slightly elliptical
in a cross section through the poles. Rotating this ellipse about the polar axis results
in a three-dimensional shape known as an ellipsoid. It is this geometric shape that
cartographers use as the reference surface for creating large-scale maps (such as
topographic maps).
 While cartographers need a simple geometric representation of the Earth’s shape,
geodesists are also interested in defining a level surface to provide a basis for land
surveys. A level surface at any point is the plane perpendicular to the local direction
of gravity (the direction in which the surveyor’s plumb bob points). Because of local
topography and the irregular distribution of mass within the Earth, the local direction
of gravity may not be exactly perpendicular to the ideal ellipsoidal surface. Hence
the geoid (the level surface on which gravity is everywhere equal to its strength at
mean sea level) is not perfectly elipsoidal in shape. Instead it has smooth, irregular
undulations that depart from the ideal ellipsoid by as much as 100 meters.

Common Projections

There are several areas where maps are commonly used and a few projections
dominate these fields. An extensive list is given at the end of the Introduction
Chapter in Snyder. Here just a few will be given. Whole World Mercator Most
common world projection. Cylindrical Robinson Less distortion than Mercator.
Pseudocylindrical Goode Interrupted map. Common for thematic maps.

Navigation Charts
UTM Common for ocean charts. Part of military map system.
UPS For polar regions. Part of military map system.
Lambert Lambert Conformal Conic standard in Air Navigation Charts
Topographic Maps
Polyconic US Geological Survey Standard. UTM coordinates on margins.
Surveying / Land Use / General
Adlers Equal Area (Conic)
Transverse Mercator For areas mainly North-South
Lambert For areas mainly East-West

Projection Types
1. Azimuthal projections (sometimes called planar or zenithal projections). Imagine a
globe made up entirely of wires, wires representing various latitude and longitude
lines. Now imagine lighting up this round wire cage and placing a sheet of paper
against it, so that the paper is tangential at one spot on the cage. You'd turn on the
light and then trace the shadows of the wires onto the paper. Then, you would have
a grid on which you could draw in the continents and whatever you wanted to show.
This is the idea behind an azimuthal projection. It's called that because any straight
line drawn from the point of tangency (where the paper touched the cage) is a true
great circle. There are a few types of azimuthal projections, that differ from one
another in where you put that light bulb.
a. A gnomonic projection results when the light is placed in the center of the
wire cage. Usually the map is tangential to one of the poles. If so, this map shows
meridians as azimuths (true compass directions) and parallels as concentric circles
that are spaced farther and farther apart as you move away from the pole. This map
distorts area and shape, especially as you approach the margin. It does have the
interesting property that any straight line drawn on it happens to be a great circle
route.

b. A stereoscopic azimuthal projection results when the light is placed on the

antipode from the point of tangency. The point of tangency is usually one pole, so
the light would be placed at the other pole. This map looks a lot like the gnomonic
one, except the parallels stay the same distance apart as you move towards the
margin. Meridians are still azimuths, but you lose the great circle property of other
straight lines. A strength of this projection is that shape is true: This is a conformal
projection. Area, however, remains badly distorted (but at least the distortion is
concentric).

c. An orthographic azimuthal projection results from placing the light at

infinity (well, at least in your mind's eye!). The light rays, then, come to the wire
cage parallel to one another. This means that the concentric parallels are projected
as closer and closer to one another as you approach the perimeter, which creates an
image of the earth that looks a lot like it would if you were really in outer space
gazing at it. The maps look pretty cool, then, but they do distort both shape and
area:
They are neither equivalent nor conformal.
 2. Conic projections are created by placing a light in the center of the wire ball
and then setting one or more paper cones on one of the poles of the wire globe, as
though it were wearing a hat or dunce cap! The result is a semi-circular map.
Where azimuthal projections are tangent only at one point (commonly, though not
always, a pole), a conic projection is tangent all along a line, a parallel called its
"standard parallel." The standard parallel possesses true scale, shape, and area: The
map is equidistant, conformal, and equivalent along the standard parallel.
The lucky parallel is determined by the angle of the cone. If it's a low angle cone,
the projection is tangent at a high latitude; if it's a high angle cone (like a dunce cap
or witch's hat), the map is tangent at a lower latitude. These maps are best suited to
mapping the mid-latitudes.

Meridians show up as straight lines radiating from the middle of the top edge, while
parallels show up as concentric semi-circles spaced farther apart as you move away
from the standard parallel(s). This means scale, shape, and area become more and
more distorted away from the standard parallel(s). So, overall, these maps are
neither conformal nor equal area, but they're a sort of compromise between the two.
There are several variants on this basic idea.
a. A tangential conic projection is basically just what I got done describing:
There is one paper cone of one or another steepness and one standard parallel at
higher or lower mid-latitudes.

b. A secant conic projection takes a bit more imagination. It involved a

"paper" cone seated so that it passes "through" the wire globe along TWO standard
parallels. This way, you get two error-free parallels and the relatively small band in
between them has only minimal distortion. Raw secant projections are either
conformal nor equivalent, becoming more and more distorted as you move away to
the north and south from the two standard parallels. One of the problems is that the
meridians are pulled apart a bit more than they should be, because they are shown
converging on the tip of the cone, rather than the pole of the globe far below it.

It is possible to manipulate secant conic projections so that they become either

conformal (true shape) or equivalent (true area), and here are two examples:

i. Lambert's conformal conic projection pulls the parallels apart a bit to compensate
for the exaggerated separation of the meridians at higher latitudes as they approach
the tip of the cone (rather than the pole of the globe).

ii. Albers' equal area conic projection entails pushing the parallels closer in to one
another to compensate for the increased area created by those stretched-out
meridians.

c. A polyconic projection is another exercise in imagination. You imagine a

wire globe with several cones of paper on it, each one of a different steepness, and
all superimposed. The idea is to draw the map around each one's standard parallel
and then reconciling the various maps. It preserves true scale among the several
standard parallels, but never achieve conformality or area equivalence: Such maps
are a compromise between these two virtues and, like the other conic projections, are
best suited to the mid-latitudes.
 3. Cylindrical projections are based on the idea of wrapping a roll of paper
around the wire globe, putting a light in the center, and tracing the grid onto the
paper roll. Most versions of this kind of map are tangential along the equator,
though there are some newer versions tangential along meridians. This yields a nice,
rectilinear map. Parallels are straight lines and so are meridians, and they cross at
right angles. This kind of map typically shows the whole world, except those
latitudes very close to the poles. These maps are intuitive for most people to read,
but they do grossly distort size and shape of landmasses and water bodies. The
meridians are primarily at fault here: In the real world, they converge to the poles;
here they are parallel to one another and do not converge at all. The higher latitudes
are strongly distorted in shape in an east-west direction, and they are also grossly
bloated in area.
a. The most famous variation on this map is the Mercator projection. This
projection has artificially had the parallels pulled even further apart than the shadows
would indicate to compensate for the distortion in the meridians. So, this creates the
absurdity of seeing Greenland as larger than Africa or South America, when it is
much smaller. This is not an equal area map by a long shot! It is, however,
conformal and is incredibly useful to navigation, the purpose for which it was
published in 1569! Any straight line drawn on this map is a true compass heading
(or "loxodrome" or "rhumb line," if you want to get fancy, or line of constant
compass direction). That means, if you drew a straight line from Place A to Place B
and then measured the angle at which your line crosses the meridians, you could just
point your boat at that angle and sail on. This route will get you there with the least
navigational fuss, though it won't be the shortest path there (which is the great circle
route and using the great circle route requires adjusting your heading from time to
time). This property of giving you a single heading you can use for your trip is why
this map remains the most widely used global navigation chart.

b. An historian named Arno Peters developed a "perfect" map in a press

conference back in 1973, the Peters Projection. He claimed that the Mercator map
was "racist," because it made Africa and South America look small in comparison
with Europe, North America, and Greenland. Yes, the Mercator projection does do
that, but the purpose of the map never was to show equal area; it was to aid
navigation! Basically, this boils down to Peters saying that, if you're the captain of a
boat and you'd like an easy to interpret navigation map, you're racist. This whole
controversy was raised by an historian with less training in map projections than you
now possess, who was unaware that there are boodles of equal area map projections
out there and in common use! So, he came up with an equal area cylindrical
projection, which comically distorts shape pretty much everywhere on the map.
Africa, for example, in the real world is roughly as wide east-west as it is north-
south, but on the Peters map it comes out as being twice as long north-south as it
east-west.
In short, this is really an absurd controversy for any geographer or anyone else with
any exposure at all to map projections and cartography. There are many superior
equal area projections out there, and they should be used for any map showing
distributions of such things as population and wealth that are politically loaded. The
best thing we can come away with from this is that, apparently, a number of other
people, knowing as little about projections as Arno Peters, were themselves happily
plotting such distributions on a navigation map that is inappropriate to use for
showing distributions in which area is a key consideration.

4. Mathematical projections are not really projections in the sense of

"projecting" a shadow design from a wire cage onto a piece of paper. They are
arrived at with various mathematical functions and can even get thoroughly bizarre,
such as those oddball speculations on what the earth would look like as a cube, star,
dumbell, and such.
a. Non-projected cylindrical maps are produced by just specifying that
meridians and parallels will be exactly the same distance apart and cross one another
at right angles to form a perfect grid.

b. The Mollweide's homolographic projection is pretty simple: Draw

a straight horizontal line to stand for the Equator. Put a vertical line half its length
through the middle of the horizontal line and let it stand for the Prime Meridian. The
2:1 ratio is because the Equator is a full great circle and any meridian is half a great
circle. Connect both ends of the Equator line to both ends of the Prime Meridian line
with an ellipse, which stands for the antipodal meridian (180°) on either side of the
map. Now fill in the other meridians at equal distances from one another, creating
less and less extreme ellipses as you work back toward the Prime Meridian, making
sure they all touch at the North Pole and the South Pole. Fill in selected other
parallels as straight lines above and below the Equator, making them slightly closer
together as you approach the poles. You now have a framework on which you can
fill in the entire world and create an equal area map, which also preserves true scale
and shape along the Equator and Prime Meridian.

c. The Sanson-Flamsteed sinusoidal projection is exactly like the

Mollweide, except, instead of ellipses, you use sine curves. This one is also an equal
area projection, but it creates less distortion in the tropics at the expense of more
distortion in the polar regions than the Mollweide.
 d. Wouldn't it be nice to create an equal area map that has Mollweide's virtues
in the polar regions and Sanson-Flamsteed's in the tropics? Attempts have been
made to cut and paste the two together, and the most famous one, the basis of the
Goode's World Atlas maps, is copyrighted, so I won't show it directly here, but I'll
send you to a page that shows it. It's the Goode's interrupted homolosine projection.
It consists of a Mollweide projection above 40° N or S and a sinusoidal in the areas
from 40°N to 40°S. Also, Goode tore the earth into two gores in the Northern
Hemisphere, each with its own vertical central meridian. In the Southern
Hemisphere, there are four gores, again each centered on its own vertical meridian.
He went crazy with all these vertical "central" meridians, because he knew the shape
distortions were least along the Equator and central meridian of the parent
projections, so he decided to straighten out a few more and create more areas with
little distortion. Straightening out the selected central meridians meant the earth is
torn into this weird cut-out shape, but you can make the tears where they are least
disruptive to the purpose of the map (e.g., you can put them in the oceans for any
maps about distributions on land). This is probably the best of the equal area maps
in preserving equivalency while doing the least harm to conformality.
e. The Robinson Projection is a good compromise projection. It distorts all
areas and shapes a little bit, but overall distortion is minimal (except around the
edges). It is also a very attractive map without the weirdazoid torn gores of the
Goode's. It shows parallels and the central meridian as straight lines and then uses a
table of longitude coördinates put together by Arthur H. Robinson (folk hero in
cartography) in 1963 for every 5° of latitude. You look these up and put a dot on
that parallel in the right place and then interpolate between them to make the map. It
is very popular among atlas and mapping companies and the National Geographic
uses it beaucoup.

Now, I know you're all pretty bewildered by this extreme variety of map
projections and getting a little scared about how I would test you on them.
What's really scary is I've only given you the barest idea of the
possibilities here! I do not expect you to memorize all the attributes of
each projection type here.

What I want you to do is remember that there are several broad categories of
projection: azimuthal, conic, cylindrical, and mathematical.

You should remember how each of the basic types is created: a wire globe with
a paper tangent at one point (azimuthal); a wire globe with a paper cone or
cones sitting on it or actually cutting through it (conic); a wire globe with
a cylinder of paper wrapped around it (cylindrical); and various artificial
grids (mathematical).

You should also know in general which ones are best for showing areas in the
mid-latitudes (conic), the polar areas (azimuthal), the whole world
(cylindrical or mathematical).

Also, be aware of the construction and original purpose of the Mercator's

projection and the nature of the Peters projection critique and why the
Peters' projection controversy is so silly to geographers, cartographers, and
anyone else with elementary training in map projection.

You also need to focus on the basic properties of maps (equivalency,

conformality, equidistance, and true direction) and why the act of projecting
a round earth on a flat sheet of paper means that you can't preserve all
properties at once.

Of these, know that equivalency (equal area) and conformality (true shape) are
the most diametrically opposed map properties: It is impossible to have both
of these together.