Equal Earth – Political Wall Map (2018)

Also notable that in the centuries following Mercator projection, Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the northern parts of South America actually shrunk by the map were regarded as vast, unexplored wildernesses full of resources to plunder (and the northern realms expanded by the projection as inaccessible icy wasteland). Difficult to imagine the Gall-Peters projection making conquistadors and colonists from little European countries more respectful of the inhabitants of the equatorial realms, though I guess they might have got lost more using it...

Ironically it's by looking at a globe rather than even a map like this that Greenlands worth becomes more visible. We need to centre the globe on Greenland and see what it tells us.

Greenland has at least two reasons to be worth more then it is now: in the future when the north polar ice sheet melts. The arctic circle becomes a navigable ocean. It's a short way from USA and Europe to Asia (or Russia).

Secondly removing the ice means it's much easier to get the essential hydrocarbons underneath of which there are lots of and which many countries will want.

So the reasons for Greenland is geography, security, control, trade and economy. And by thinking long term. It can also explain some off handed and mocked comments about Canada too.

In my childhood I definitely thought Greenland was a much physically large place than it is, because of the mercator world map the hung on the wall in home room. Was dumbfounded when I learned it actually fits within the continental US.

Agreed - territorial area is only one measure of importance, and probably not a great one. What would be more useful on a wall, if we are interested in such things, are bubbles with size showing population, GDP, life expectancy, etc. (a la https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$chart-type=bubbles&url=v2 ), arranged to preserve, as much as possible, country positions on the projection of your choosing.

The Greenwich meridian is not actually 100% arbitrary. It is a convenient location that does not split into two any significant landmasses.

[flagged]

I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the brackets. The key says this means “dependency or area of special sovereignty”.

I see Amami, what is the error?

There is literally a huge and prominent link entitled "Equal Earth Projection" in the middle, at the top, that when clicked take you to a description of what the intent of the projection was:

    It was created to provide a visually pleasing alternative to the Gall-Peters projection, which some schools and socially concerned groups have adopted out of concern for fairness. Their priority is to show developing countries in the tropics and developed countries in the north with correctly proportioned sizes.

    In addition to being rigorously equal-area throughout, other Equal Earth projection features include:

    •  An overall shape similar to that of the Robinson projection. (The Robinson, although popular and pleasing to the eye, is not equal-area as is the Equal Earth projection).

    •  The curved sides of the projection suggest the spherical form of Earth.

    •  Straight parallels that make it easier to compare how far north or south places are from the equator.

Usually it all boils down to "aesthetics". I am pretty sure most would agree that Gall-Peters is atrocious looking!

mandatory Gall–Peters clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY

Mobile version

https://m.xkcd.com/977/

Living in the northern hemisphere, it bugs me that standard north-up, west-left maps don't match up with the sun and with our clocks. It's neat that both clock hands and the sun are "up" at noon. It would be even neater if that upward direction corresponded to south, since that's where the sun actually is at midday. With south-at-top, east-to-the-left, maps would sync with both our clocks and the sun's daily arc. But then we would lose the west-left rhyme.

As a European the "Oceania - South at Top" looks like some other planet. I like this very much - that there are ways of looking at something so singular and familiar, our shared planet, that make it look new and unfamiliar.

Why did you include OpenStreetMap in your list? OpenStreetMap already allows for disputed borders (and there are a lot of those). If you look at the border of Russia, you'll note that Crimea is included:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60189

And the border of Ukraine includes Crimea too:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199

This is pretty much the current state of affairs as far as surveyable boundaries go. Russia has a de facto claim on Crimea by brute presence, Ukraine by international recognition. When that changes, OpenStreetMap will reflect the new boundaries correctly.

Donbas and Luhansk are contested, obviously, but also lack a clearly defined border for Russia's claim, unlike Crimea. It is an active theatre of war, so any mapping of boundaries outside of Ukraine's original borders is out of scope for OpenStreetMap.

As a practical matter, the border would need to stop moving and become safe enough for surveyors to traverse in some way.