I mean the problem with any projection of earth onto a 2d simplified shape surface is that it will be inherently distorted. The Mercator projection is scaled properly towards the equator but has to scale upwards more and more toward the poles to be able to fit the given area.

Even their own map, which for some reason isn’t shown in either the video or on the main page, isn’t accurate either. It’s better but is also warped in its own way, it would be nice if they had a little blurb that says something to that effect.

Here’s the actual map projection they are pushing for; https://equal-earth.com/equal-earth-projection.html

Since this article gave you everything except the one thing you want to see, here's what the Equal Earth projection looks like

still not as aesthetic as Waterman butterfly projection

(and relevant XKCD)

This will never happen as long as Big Greenland pulls the strings of power in the cartography world.

Faithfully projecting a globe onto a flat surface is impossible and all projections have to balance a number of compromises. Mercator retains compass directions and the shapes of land masses but entirely sacrifices relative scale between equatorial regions and polar regions. This makes it great for navigating a 17th century vessel. Other projections strike a different balance, like this one, and sacrifice compass direction and land mass shapes in order to perfectly retain scale. On this map, my little Arctic island looks like someone stepped on it.

IMO a balanced projection will compromise on all the nice properties a projection can have, and if that isn't acceptable, then get a globe.

By signing the petition you take a stand against a false narrative that downplays Africa’s vast size and diversity as the second-largest continent, reducing its perceived importance in global politics and economics. You can correct the narrative.

I'll be real here, I have no idea what these people are talking about. The way Africa looked on maps has never had any bearing on my or probably anyone's thinking of how important the continent is in global politics or economics. If someone thinks "country/continent looks small so they must be unimportant," they are either a child or a fool. Or both.

This is such a garbage take. There is no way to “show our world as it truly is” in two dimensions. I’m all about showing other projects and orientations. Classrooms should have “upside down” maps and Albert maps for example. But we should also teach that each projection has benefits and drawbacks. I was taught that decades ago. Have we stopped?

i think the best solution (besides globes which are impractical on screens/posters) is having no standard, expose kids in school to 3 or 4 different projections so they learn there's no standard and all protections are as valid and all with drawbacks and advantages.

The Mercator projection was great for navigating oceans, baring remain correct. There are thousands of other map projections that do a better job preserving size, shape, directions, and distances. Any projection will be a tradeoff between these.

As far as I know the Mercator projection has mostly fallen out of use in education, and I don’t think there’s any standard that requires it anywhere. So I’m not sure exactly what this is about.

It's a bit hard to find out where it actually originated from and who's behind it. Judjing by their social media handlers, it's a marketing agency Hello Makeda. Maybe it's just me, but I don't trust marketing agencies to be good judges on geographical projects.

Okay... but doesn't this just introduce the issue of flat maps distorting anything to the east or west of center in a different way?

DYMAXION MAP OR GTFO

EDIT: details

It has less distortion of relative size of areas, most notably when compared to the Mercator projection; and less distortion of shapes of areas, notably when compared to the Gall–Peters projection. Other compromise projections attempt a similar trade-off.

More unusually, the Dymaxion map does not have any "right way up". Fuller argued that in the universe there is no "up" and "down", or "north" and "south": only "in" and "out".[9] Gravitational forces of the stars and planets created "in", meaning "towards the gravitational center", and "out", meaning "away from the gravitational center". He attributed the north-up-superior/south-down-inferior presentation of most other world maps to cultural bias.

CMV: this movement only matters to stupid people, and does not qualify as something "I should know".

Firstly, I do think that projections which enlarge Europe and north America relative to the global south are a problem and every curriculum should include education about how this happens and what the world really looks like.

But also, kinda funny how this project is very specifically about fairness for Africa. Why not include south America in there too?

Why does the map on the website need that draggable divider when both versions show both types of projection?

Obligatory West Wing Gall-Peters Projection link

Just want to point out... their "equal" and "correct" map is missing New Zealand...

I'm in the one and only line of work where Mercator makes sense, and even I hate Mercator.

Mercator distorts landmass to fit the grid, so it is good for navigation, simply draw a straight line between two points and follow it. Also, the plea on that site is just...weird. Africa is not taken seriously because it is displayed too small on maps - what? It is a large, chunky continent that can be compressed without too much detail loss - Europe, not so much.

I kinda like the Winkel Triple or Kavrayskiy VII projections. They look a bit more natural compared to the Mercator.