List of recommended Comparisons
Of course, not all comparisons make sense: Why would you want to compare Strebe 1995 with Wagner VII? – Their distinctions are clearly obvious. On the other hand, there are projections which are very similar so you have to look twice to spot the differences.
So I put together a list of such pairs of projections.
Moreover, I’ve added a few pairings of projections that are not that much alike but, for one reason or another, quite interesting
to compare nonetheless.
| Projection 1 Image | Projection 1 Name | Projection 2 Image | Projection 2 Name | Compare | Why? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A4 Projection | Ciric I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| A4 Projection | Dedistort | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Dedistort is mixing the A4 projektion with Ciric I. |
|||||
| Airy Minimum-error Azimuthal | Breusing Harmonic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Aitoff | Hammer | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Aitoff | Natural Earth II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||
| August Epicycloidal | Eisenlohr | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Azimuthal equal-area (Hem.) | Ginzburg I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Azimuthal equal-area (Hem.) | Ginzburg II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (equatorial aspect) | Gott-Mugnolo Azimuthal (equat.) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (Hemispheres) | Breusing Harmonic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (Hemispheres) | Gott-Mugnolo Azimuthal (Hemispheres) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (Hemispheres) | Nicolosi Globular | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Baker Dinomic | Mercator | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Baker Dinomic is identical to Mercator between 45° North and 45° South. This is quite obvious in the scaled to same width comparisons. |
|||||
| Baranyi I | Kavraiskiy VII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Baranyi II | Fahey | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Baranyi III | Frančula VII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Behrmann | Hufnagel 12 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Hufnagel 12 is a variation of Behrmann which reduces distortions. |
|||||
| Braun Perspective | Mercator | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The Braun Perspective Cylindrical projection is a deliberate approximation towards Mercator. |
|||||
| Breusing Harmonic | Nicolosi Globular | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| BSAM Cylindrical | Tobler’s variant 1 of Miller Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| BSAM Cylindrical | Gall Stereographic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? BSAM is a modified Gall Stereographic, with standard parallels at 30°. |
|||||
| BSAM Cylindrical | Urmayev II Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Cahill Conformal Butterfly | Cahill Conformal M-shaped Projection | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The M-shaped variant is obtained by a simple re-arrangement of the butterfly map. |
|||||
| Cahill Conformal Butterfly | Waterman Butterfly (alternative arrangement) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Two butterfly projections – one being conformal (Cahill), the other one being a compromise projection (Waterman). |
|||||
| Cahill-Keyes | Waterman Butterfly (alternative arrangement) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two are actually more similar than it might seem at first glance. |
|||||
| CALM | Kunimune’s IMAGO | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? CALM is using the same arrangement as IMAGO, but while CALM is conformal, IMAGE is a compromise projection with comparatively low areal inflations. |
|||||
| Canters-Frančula | Frančula XIII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Canters-Frančula uses the southern hemisphere of Frančula XIII. |
|||||
| Canters-Frančula | Canters W09 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Canters-Frančula uses the northern hemisphere of Canters W09. |
|||||
| Canters W06 | Frančula XI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Canters W13 | Ginzburg VI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Not really similar, but both are polyconic projections with low distortions, so it’s worth the effort to compare them. |
|||||
| Canters W14 | Wagner-Böhm I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Böhm’s modification of Wagner VIII deliberately approximates Canters W14. |
|||||
| Canters W14 | Ginzburg V | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Not really similar, but both are polyconic projections with low distortions, so it’s worth the effort to compare them. |
|||||
| Canters W30 | Canters W30/UE (non-optimized) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? W30/UE is an umbezifferte variant of Canters W30. |
|||||
| Canters W30 | Canters W30/UA (non-optimized) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? W30/UA is an umbezifferte, aphylactic variant of Canters W30. |
|||||
| Canters W34 | Hufnagel 3 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Canters W30/UA (non-optimized) | Canters W30/UE (non-optimized) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Two variants of Canters W30; one being equal-area, the other being aphylactic. |
|||||
| Central Cylindrical | Mercator | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Contrary to what is sometimes claimed, the Mercator projection is not constructed perspectively. A perspective projection results in the Central Cylindrical instead. |
|||||
| Ciric I | Winkel Tripel | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Ciric I is based on the Winkel-Tripel. |
|||||
| Ciric I | Dedistort | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Dedistort is mixing the A4 projektion with Ciric I. |
|||||
| CM Equidistant Conic | Lambert Equal-Area Conic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Well… I just thought it’d be kinda nice to compare an equal-area conic projection to an equidistant one of similar configuration… |
|||||
| Craster’s parabolic | Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Craster’s parabolic | Putnins P6 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Denoyer Semi-Elliptical | Wagner-Denoyer I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Denoyer Semi-elliptical is one of the parent projections of Wagner-Denoyer. |
|||||
| Denoyer Semi-Elliptical | Wagner-Denoyer II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Denoyer Semi-elliptical is one of the parent projections of Wagner-Denoyer. |
|||||
| Dymaxion Map | Dymaxion-like conformal projection | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The Dymaxion-like projection is a conformal application of the original compromising arrangement. |
|||||
| Eckert I | Eckert II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? They are the only projections (here on this website) having the shape of a hexagon. |
|||||
| Eckert III | Wagner VI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Eckert IV | Hufnagel 9 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Eckert IV | Hufnagel 10 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Eckert IV | Wagner IV | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Eckert IV | Natural Earth II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||
| Eckert IV | Nell-Hammer modified | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Modified Nell-Hammer is intended to be an easier to calculate alternative to Eckert IV. |
|||||
| Eckert IV | Equal Earth | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Eckert V | Wagner III | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Eckert V | Putnins P′5 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Eckert V | Hölzel | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The Hölzel projection is a modification of Eckert V. |
|||||
| Eckert VI | Wagner I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Eckert VI | Putnins P′4 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Eckert VI | Putnins P′6 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Eckert-Greifendorff | Quartic Authalic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Eckert-Greifendorff | Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Entfernungsbezogene Weltkarte (distance-related map; approximation.) | Wagner VII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The entfernungsbezogene Weltkarte is a modification of Wagner VII. |
|||||
| Equal Earth | Robinson | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The Equal Earth projection was designed to visually resemble the Robinson while maintaining Equivalence. |
|||||
| Equal Earth | Wagner IV | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| F13 Copycat | Frančula XIII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The F13 Copycat deliberately approaches certain properties of the Frančula XIII (aspect ratio, length and curvature of the pole line) but the distribution of meridians and parallels is different. |
|||||
| Frančula XIII | Gott-Wagner | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Two optimizations of Wagner IX. |
|||||
| Frančula XIV | Wagner VII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Frančula XIV is a variation of the well-known Wagner VII. |
|||||
| Frančula VIII | Frančula IX | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Gall-Bomford | Gall Stereographic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Gall-Bomford is a modification of Gall Stereographic. |
|||||
| Gall-Bomford | Times | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Both are based on Gall Stereographic. |
|||||
| Gall Isographic | Equirectangular (35.6°) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? It’s the same projection, but using different standard parallels. |
|||||
| Gall Isographic | Equirectangular (0°) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? It’s the same projection, but using different standard parallels. |
|||||
| Gall-Peters | Strebe-Hammer 29°S | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Two equal-area projections that have almost the same aspect ratio, but a totally different distribution of distortions. |
|||||
| Gall Stereographic | Times | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The Times is a modification of Gall Stereographic. |
|||||
| Ginzburg I | Ginzburg II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Ginzburg VIII | Cropped Ginzburg VIII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Cropped is a modification of Ginzburg VIII. |
|||||
| Gott-Mugnolo Azimuthal (equat.) | Azimuthal equal-area (equat.) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Gringorten | Peirce Quincuncial | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Not similar to each other, they share the same unusual segmentation of the earth. |
|||||
| Guyou | Markley’s Tetrahedral Map | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Both show a conformal world map, arranged in a rectangle. Markley’s map was designed as an alternative to Guyou’s. |
|||||
| Hammer | Hammer-Cylindrical Mix | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Hammer Cylindrical is a modification of the Hammer projection. |
|||||
| Hobo-Dyer | Smyth equal-surface | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Hobo-Dyer | Trystan Edwards | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Hufnagel 2 | Hufnagel 3 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Hufnagel 2 | Tobler Hyperelliptical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. I recommend to compare usign Flat Ocean Mode |
|||||
| Hufnagel 3 | Tobler Hyperelliptical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. I recommend to compare usign Flat Ocean Mode |
|||||
| Hufnagel 4 | Tobler Hyperelliptical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. I recommend to compare usign Flat Ocean Mode |
|||||
| Hufnagel 9 | Hufnagel 10 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Kavraiskiy I | Mercator | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Between 70° North and South, Kavraisky I is identical to Mercator. |
|||||
| Kavraiskiy V | Mollweide | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Differences are quite obvious near the poles. Nonetheless, I thought that these two might be interesting to compare. |
|||||
| Kavraiskiy V | McBryde-Thomas #1 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Kavraiskiy V | Sinucyli [1] | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Kavraiskiy VII | Wagner VI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The projections are more or less identical, except for having a different aspect ratio. |
|||||
| Kharchenko-Shabanova | Tobler’s variant 2 of Miller Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| McBryde-Thomas #1 | Sinucyli [1] | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| McBryde-Thomas Flat-Polar Parabolic | McBryde-Thomas Flat-Polar Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Miller | Patterson Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? The Patterson projection derives from the Miller projection. |
|||||
| Miller | Compact Miller | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Compact Miller is… well, a compact derivation of the Miller projection. ;-) |
|||||
| Mollweide | Natural Earth II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||
| Natural Earth | Robinson | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Natural Earth | Natural Earth II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||
| Natural Earth II | Robinson | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||
| Natural Earth II | Winkel Tripel | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||
| Nell | Nell-Hammer | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Nell-Hammer is derived from Nell. |
|||||
| Patterson Cylindrical | Equirectangular (35.6°) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To clearly show how the Patterson projection »balances polar exaggeration against maintaining the familiar shape of continents«. |
|||||
| Patterson Cylindrical | Equirectangular (28°) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To clearly show how the Patterson projection »balances polar exaggeration against maintaining the familiar shape of continents«. |
|||||
| Putnins P′4 | Wagner I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Putnins P′4 | Putnins P′6 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Putnins P′5 | Wagner III | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Putnins P6 | Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Quartic Authalic | Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||
| Raisz Armadillo | Raisz Armadillo (Southern Hemisphere) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Just to have view of both northern and southern hemisphere. |
|||||
| Equirectangular (60°) | Tobler’s World in a Square | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To show the difference of a square equal-area projection and a projection with equally spaced parallels. |
|||||
| Robinson | Wagner V | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. Moreover, this is the pairing that started it all – see What’s this all about? |
|||||
| Smyth equal-surface | Trystan Edwards | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Strebe 1995 | Strebe Asymmetric 2011 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Strebe Asymmetric 2011 is a modification of Strebe 1995. |
|||||
| Tobler’s variant 1 of Miller Cylindrical | Urmayev II Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||
| Wagner I | Wagner II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||
| Wagner II | Wagner III | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||
| Wagner II | Wagner II Lenticular | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To compare the original with the lenticular variant. |
|||||
| Wagner III | Wagner III 40° | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To demonstrate the effect of choosing a standard parallel other than the equator. |
|||||
| Wagner IV | Wagner V | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||
| Wagner IV | Wagner-Denoyer II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Wagner IV is one of the parent projections of Wagner-Denoyer. |
|||||
| Wagner V | Wagner VI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||
| Wagner VII | Wagner VIII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||
| Wagner VII | Wagner-Denoyer I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Wagner VII is one of the parent projections of Wagner-Denoyer. |
|||||
| Wagner VIII | Wagner IX | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||
| Wagner VIII | Wagner-Böhm I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To clearly show Dr. Böhm’s modifications on Wagner VIII. |
|||||
| Wagner IX | Wagner IX.i | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To show the effect of Wagner’s own proposal to compress the projection to 88% of its original width. |
|||||
| Wagner IX | Winkel Tripel BOPC | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? There are obvious differences, but for the most part quite similar. |
|||||
| Wagner IX | Canters W09 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To compare the low-error optimization to the original. |
|||||
| Wagner IX.i | Winkel Tripel | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Wagner himself proposed to compress his IX projection to 88% of its original width to approximate Winkel Tripel’s outer shape. |
|||||
| Wagner-Denoyer I | Wagner-Denoyer II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To demonstrate the differences of the two variants. |
|||||
| Wagner-Denoyer I | Wagner vii@70-46-60-0-216 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Wagner vii@70-46-60-0-216 is supposed to approach the Wagner-Denoyer I (but maintaining equivalence). |
|||||
| Wagner-Denoyer I | Wagner vii@73-46-60-14-206 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Wagner vii@73-46-60-14-206 is supposed to approach the Wagner-Denoyer I. |
|||||
| Winkel Tripel | Winkel Tripel Bartholomew | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? To clearly show the effects of Bartholomew’s modification. |
|||||
| Winkel Tripel | Winkel Tripel BOPC | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? BOPC is a variant of the other one. |
|||||
| Winkel Tripel Bartholomew | Winkel Tripel BOPC | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||
|
Why is it a suggested pairing? Two variants of the same parenting projection. |
|||||
