[Proj] Thanks, Mike Finn

[Michael Ossipoff]

Thanks for your suggestions, Mike Finn!

You said:

I suggest that if you have a new projection…

I comment:

The only possibly new ones that I’d recommend are the graduated equidistant 
projections. So far there’s no information that they aren’t new, but they 
probably are _not_ new. The graduated equidistant cylindrical is the only 
possibly new projection that I recommend for the purpose that we’ve been 
discussing.

You continued:

to contribute to the community, …

I reply:

Consider it contributed, by being posted here. If you think that it is 
“really great and new & improved”, then feel free to flock to it, Mike.

I may suggest it elsewhere, or may not, subject to available time.

A mailing list is an easy way to say something to a good number of people. 
For all I know, there may even be someone on his list who is at least 
indirectly associated with someone who makes decisions about putting 
together an atlas or nature guidebook. Or maybe not.

You continued:

publish it is a peer-reviewed journal.

I reply:

You know what, I’m going to pass on that one.

I doubt that communicating with academic cartographers would be a productive 
use of my time.

For one thing, I don’t know how much of a role, if any, academic 
cartographers have in the choice of projections for atlases and nature 
guidebooks.

For another thing, you flatter me, Mike--there’s no reason to believe that 
an academic cartographer is going to start taking an interest in what is 
useful to the map-using public just because of persuasion by me. 
Fortunately, it probably doesn’t matter, if that isn’t who makes the atlas 
and nature guidebook decisions.

You continued:

If it is really great

I reply:

Again you flatter me. Good, certainly useful, but great?? Let’s not try to 
set me alongside Alexander.

You continued:

and new

I reply:

It may well be new, the class of projections that I call the graduated 
equidistant projections. Probably not.

You continued:

& improved

I reply:

Without a doubt, for the special purpose of  spatial distribution maps in 
atlases and nature guidebooks.

You continued:

, people will flock to is and use it routinely.

I reply:

Flock away, Mike!

You continued:

If is not a new projection

I reply:

…which may very well be the case.

You continued:


and you are creating a new map

I reply:

Now you’re being silly. Did I say that I was creating a new map, or did I 
merely suggest that data maps (as I’ve narrowly defined them) are being 
published on projections that don’t make them very usable.

You continued:

, choose the projection that you want.

I reply:

You’re too generous.

You continued:

As daan said, a cartographer chooses a projection to meet a certain need (or 
a priority of needs).

I reply:

Don’t be offended, because I don’t mean any offense by this, but your 
statement quoted above is an inane, head-up-the-ass, truism.

Aside from that, maybe sometimes cartographers choose “to meet a certain 
need or priority of needs” that is incompatible with the map’s actual 
purpose and use. As I said, maybe cartographers are conditioned to minimize 
distortion, sometimes to the detriment of the map’s usefulness for its 
purpose.

But I don’t know that cartographers make the editorial decisions on what 
projections to use in nature guidebooks and atlas spatial distribution maps.

You continued:

I doubt that you are going to change the world of cartography

I reply:

Mike, you flatter me again! I didn’t set out to change the world of 
cartography--but merely to mention to this list a questionable 
projection-choice.

You continued:

by posting on one listServ.

I reply:

As I said, maybe there’s a chance that there’s someone on this list who is 
at least indirectly associated with someone who makes decisions about what 
goes into an atlas or nature guidebook.
.
But I said what I said because I wanted to, not because I expected to change 
the world of cartography.

Michael Ossipoff