← Back to context

Comment by einpoklum

9 hours ago

I would not use such strong rhetoric as the GP, but I believe they probably mean we should lean towards using the Gall/Peters projection, which maintains lengths and areas, but not angles.

(There are of course other projections with other interesting features; or you could take the same projection but center the world differently etc.)

Why? Why is lengths and areas more important than angles? You have to choose one, its essentially arbitrary. Personally I find it more useful to know what is parallel to what and what is at which angles from what, than some size. We have globes, so we know what the "real size" of Greenland looks like... this has always been a silly argument from the overzealous online looking for right wrongs that don't exist.