Final answer:
Map projections such as Mercator, Robinson, Conic, Azimuthal, and Mollweide each have their own advantages and disadvantages related to the portrayal of shape, area, distance, and direction on a two-dimensional map.
Step-by-step explanation:
There are numerous map projections used to represent the round Earth on flat maps, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Here are the common ones:
- Mercator projections use a cylindrical map projection method where the latitude lines are the same length as the equator. This is beneficial for navigation since it maintains accurate angles and directions, making it useful for marine charts. However, it greatly distorts the size and shape of landmasses as they get farther from the equator, as shown in figures and discussions about the Mercator projection's impact on perceptions of country sizes.
- The Robinson projection is a compromise map, attempting to minimize the errors of projection properties like conformality, distance, and equivalency. It represents the entire globe and provides a pleasing visual balance, though it slightly distorts all aspects of the map to achieve this.
- Conic projections are made by wrapping a cone over the Earth and projecting the surface onto the cone. These maps are good for representing mid-latitude regions with relatively minimal distortion but are not useful for global scales.
- Azimuthal projections project the Earth onto a plane. They can accurately represent area and shape for small portions of the Earth and can depict great circles as straight lines, but distortion occurs as one moves away from the center point of projection.
- The Mollweide projection is an equal-area projection that represents the entire Earth in an ellipse, maintaining accurate area portrayal but distorting angle and shape, especially at the edges.
Each of these map projections serves different purposes, from navigation to education, and their use often depends on the required trade-offs between distortions of size, shape, distance, and direction.