I have a Van der Grinten projection map as my dining room table, which is close to the Mercator. Russia dwarfs it by quite a lot, and Canada and USA are both larger as well. I suspect on the mercator that Russia would still be largest and Canada still bigger, largely due to them being fairly close in latitude. Greenland/Denmark probably come in third?
I think the percentage here must be positive only. Because when we do Mercartor projection, wrapping a cylinder around Earth's equator, things on the Equator retain their sizes (growth = 0%), and for things away from Equator growth > 0%.
How so? I think it does a pretty good job at representing relative shape. And if you think about it, in schools, you are mostly talking about your own country, so it makes sense to know what shape your country is. It sacrifices size, but honestly there is no good option, other than a plain old globe
Was it really? It mostly enlarges Canada and Russia. Most of Europe is at a similar latitude as Kazakhstan and Mongolia, which are already smaller on the Mercator projection. European colonialism can be blamed for many things, but I think with the maps, sticking with the unperfect system we still use today was a matter of convenience rather than malice.
It's a great map if you use it for what it was intended to be used for. It was made so explorers could go from one place to another in a straight line on a map, rather than a curved one, because such a course is much easier to follow on sea. Anyone using the projection for anything else just knows nothing about geography.
The evil of all maps? It wasn't invented to give emphasis to some parts of the world over others on purpose: it was invented long before the European empires were a thing, in the early days of European exploration, and it was used to aid navigation. Where's the evil in that? It quickly became the most used projection in Europe, the default if you will. If Europeans had really wanted to use a projection to maximize the size of their empires, the French would have used something that emphasized Africa, and the British might have wanted to use something that emphasized India, Australia and Africa - so NOT Mercator.
For anyone wondering why so many red countries appear on the list, the numbers would be changed a lot depending on where the map was cut off near the poles. Because the true Mercator projection is infinitely tall, and all countries occupy a finite space on it, every country would shrink by 100% if the projection was cut off at 90° N/S.
It's surprisingly uncommon! As it is, the country's so long (and so many people live in the south) that quite a lot of maps even split the country into two, mercator makes the problem even worse. It's certainly not unheard of to see maps in mercator, but I don't observe any special fondness of the projection :)
I didn't read the title and assumed it was a quiz about which countries size changed the most based on the projection. That would be a fun quiz though.
I was surprised by the place of Norway. Had Sweden first and as Sweden is so much bigger than Norway, but on the same latitude, it took some time to try Norway (probably Svalbard - which has a special status - makes the difference)
Are you using different scalings for the equal area map and the mercator projection? If you had a sinusoidal projection (which maintains area) and a mercator projection that had the same scaling at the equator, then every country would be strictly larger on the mercator prrojection.
Almost every country, except for those in the far north, appears smaller in the Mercator Projection than on an equal area map.
Antarctica, on the other hand, is more than 6 times larger on the Mercator Projection.
If we counted Greenland, it would appear as the 3rd largest country, ahead of the United States.
Would it take first place?
19/20