Map
Projection
Peters and
Miller
Chris
Hester
A map is only as good as the projection that is used.
Maps are natural, inaccurate because the earth is a three-dimensional
object. It is impossible to project
three-dimensional objects onto a two-dimensional piece of paper without error.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the Peters’ and Millers’ map
projections. Peters map projection
is the first one that will be examined followed by Millers.
The history, use, and negatives of each map will be discussed.
Dr. Arno Peters developed the Peters projection in the early seventies.
It is without a doubt full of controversy.
“The Peters worldview is one of a class of map projections called rectangular because its parallels and meridians are straight lines intersecting at right angles to form a grid of rectangles” (MonMonier 1995 9) (Figure 1).
Dr. Arno Peters did not really come up with this particular map design by himself. There was a clergyman that developed this same map design over a hundred years ago. This projection was aptly named for him. It was called the Gall projection. Even today, the Peters projection is sometimes referred to as the Gall-Peters projection (MonMonier 1995 11). Dr. Peters was not a cartographer in the traditional definition of the word. “In The New Cartography, he called himself a ‘historian with geographical leanings’” (MonMonier 1995 27). The New Cartography was a book Peters published in 1983. It is likely that Peters was not familier with the Gall projection. Therefore, he was convinced that his projection was unique. According to Peters in (MonMonier, 1995),
“Every since the Mercator map has disfigured our geographic view of the world; cartographers have taken pains to overcome the Europe-centered view of the world” (1995, 27).
In my opinion, the whole concern of Peters could be summed up as the prosperous industrial nations have dictated incorrectly how the world should be viewed. Most distortions are not found in these areas, but in areas that are less developed, like Greenland and Africa.
The Peters projection is used in a couple of ways. First, it is great to show the projection of the earth. This map is used in comparison with Mercator to show the differences in perception that has been caused by the stretching along the poles. Greenland is a classic example because with the Mercator projection, the country is larger than the continent of Africa. The Peters projection corrects this error. The Mercator projection is accurate at the equator, but as one migrates toward the North Pole the accuracy diminishes. The Northern Hemisphere spreads out, while the Southern Hemisphere is pushed together. Secondly, the Peters projection is an equal area projection. This means that all areas on the earth are represented as their accurate size (Petersmap 2002).
The Peters projection has some negatives too. First, the shape of the continents is stretched in a severe way. South America and Africa, especially, look as if they are being pulled off the page. While the area is not distorted, the shape definitely has been comprised. Secondly, the Peters projection has not been accepted in the United States. It is all most a guarantee that there will not be a Peters’ projection in the public or private school systems across the country. School age students have been brought up thinking that the Mercator map projection is correct because that is what is in their classroom. They mistakenly think that Greenland is larger than Africa, which caused the controversy stated earlier. There are three reasons why the United States does not use the Peters projection. The first reason is because we have not make the transition to the metric system. The second reason is that American students have a low level of geography awareness. The third reason is “many professional cartographers have resented the ‘politicization’ of their field” (Petersmap 2002).
The second projection is the Miller projection. Osborn Maitland Miller presented this projection for the American Geographical Society in 1942. “A cylindrical projection can be imaged in its simplest form as a cylinder that has been wrapped around a globe at the equator” (Mulcahy). The Millers projection is not an equal area projection or equal distance projection. It is designed to reduce the error in the Mercator projection (Figure 2). Like the Mercator, the Miller projection is accurate near the equator, but becomes inaccurate as one travels away from the equator toward the poles. It is just not to the same extreme distortion as the Mercator projection. The Meridians of the Miller projection is evenly spaced and straight (Mathworks Miller).
The Miller projection is used in a couple of ways. First, it is found more frequently in an Atlas. This is because there is not as much error in this projection than with the Mercator. It is especially useful on World Maps. Secondly, the Miller projection is good for thematic maps, as well as, a reference map (Mathworks Miller).
There are several reasons why the Miller projection should not be used. First, the Miller projection is useful only for world maps. It would not be wise to project the state of Alabama in a Miller’s projection. Alabama would not be accurate is size or shape. Secondly, the map will only give correct distances along the equator. Size and shape are distorted as one leaves the equator. Thirdly, this projection distorts size, shape, and direction. While Greenland is not projected as large as with the Mercator projection, it is still too large to be accurate. “Shape is minimally distorted between the 45th parallels, increasingly toward the poles. Landmasses are stretched more east to west than they are north to south” (ArcView GIS 79).
The Millers projection is closer to the type of map that we are used too. None of the countries are falling off the map, like with the Peters projection. Greenland and Antarctica is extremely distorted. There is no way Greenland is larger than China, as this map suggest. The Peters projection is an equal area projection. This means that regardless of shape the area is accurate. The continents of Africa and South America appear to slide off the page. However, this is a good world projection because area is not distorted. It probably would go over better in the United States, if we were not trained to view the world through the eyes of the Mercator projection. Today, it appears that the Millers projection is slowly replacing the Mercator because it does not distort as severe.
Reference List
“Miller Cylindrical Projection Classification” <http:www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/toolbox/map/millercylindricalprojecti.sh…> (15 April 2002).
“Miller
Cylindrical” <ArcView GIS Help
p.79> (15 April 2002)
Monmonier,
Mark. 1995. Drawing The Line.
New York: Henery Holt and Company.
Mulcahy,
Karen. “Cylindrical Projections”
<http://www.everest.hunter.cunny.edu/mp/cylind.html>
(15 April 2002).
Peters
Map. “Table of Contents for the
Peter Projection” <http://www.petersmap.com/table.html> (15 April 2002).
Figure
1
Figure
2
