Cartographic Science

Fenna, Donald

doi:10.1201/b15876

Cited by 18 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, he is right when he says that the aspect depends on the class to which the observed projection belongs. In references on map projections, the aspect is sometimes defined according to the area represented in the central part of a map (Snyder 1987, Grafarend and Krumm 2006, Fenna 2007, Kessler 2018. According to this definition, the aspect can be polar, equatorial or oblique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polar and Equatorial Aspects of Map Projections?

Lapaine

Frančula

2019

Proc. Int. Cartogr. Assoc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> There is no standard or generally accepted terminology of aspect in the theory of map projections. The term is probably derived from the concept that a graticule is produced by perspective projection of the meridians and parallels on a sphere onto a developable surface. Developable surfaces are widely accepted, and it is almost impossible to find a publication that deals with map projections in general and without developable surfaces story. If found, it usually classifies projections as cylindrical, conical and azimuthal, and applies developable surfaces to define the projection aspect. This paper explains why applying developable surfaces in the interpretation of map projections is not recommended, nor defining the aspect of all projections by the position of a midpoint as polar, equatorial, or oblique. In fact, defining a projection aspect this way is invalid in general, and obscures the fact that the aspect depends on the class to which a particular map projection belongs.</p>

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%