Argh. Misnegation from earlier version. "As you point out, the importance of rhumb lines comes from the fact that..." -- there shouldnt' be a not there.
You are (it seems intentionally) ignoring the point that Mercator's area distortion doesn't dangerously mislead in navigation, quite the contrary. Or, if that isn't true, please name some cases where navigators were messed up because they thought Greenland looked bigger than it was in area.
Unless you use a globe, every projection onto a flat rectangular surface distorts.
Now how does that make more plausible the claim that world map makers are inflating the area of Taiwan on purpose?
Really? Seemed like he was simply pointing out an error on my part. Don't see where Taiwan enters that at all.
More to the point, there's a big difference between distorting scale in a way that's mathematically consistent throughout the projection (i.e. one in which you preserve shape or position at scale's expense), and simply fudging the scale in a particular spot.
Comments
Argh. Misnegation from earlier version. "As you point out, the importance of rhumb lines comes from the fact that..." -- there shouldnt' be a not there.
You are (it seems intentionally) ignoring the point that Mercator's area distortion doesn't dangerously mislead in navigation, quite the contrary. Or, if that isn't true, please name some cases where navigators were messed up because they thought Greenland looked bigger than it was in area.
Unless you use a globe, every projection onto a flat rectangular surface distorts.
Now how does that make more plausible the claim that world map makers are inflating the area of Taiwan on purpose?
Really? Seemed like he was simply pointing out an error on my part. Don't see where Taiwan enters that at all.
More to the point, there's a big difference between distorting scale in a way that's mathematically consistent throughout the projection (i.e. one in which you preserve shape or position at scale's expense), and simply fudging the scale in a particular spot.