Difference between revisions of "Talk:977: Map Projections"
(Technical correction to Peirce Quincuncial) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Peirce Quincuncial has 4 non-conformal points, but not the 4 corners, which are the south pole, but instead are the 4 midpoints of the sides. These are on the equator and seem to be 90 degrees apart.--DrMath 06:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | Peirce Quincuncial has 4 non-conformal points, but not the 4 corners, which are the south pole, but instead are the 4 midpoints of the sides. These are on the equator and seem to be 90 degrees apart.--DrMath 06:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | In actual fact, the Waterman butterfly map used a truncated octahedron based upon the mathematics of close packing of spheres and is not at all based upon any of CaHill's work/math. | ||
| + | -- steve waterman | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 20 September 2013
I have a Plate Carrée hanging on my wall myself. Never failed me yet. Davidy22[talk] 07:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Dymaxion is clearly the best. There's nothing like a map made out of an unfolded d20. Alpha (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Makes you wonder what if a dodecahedron had been used instead of an icosahedron. --Quicksilver (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Peirce Quincuncial has 4 non-conformal points, but not the 4 corners, which are the south pole, but instead are the 4 midpoints of the sides. These are on the equator and seem to be 90 degrees apart.--DrMath 06:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In actual fact, the Waterman butterfly map used a truncated octahedron based upon the mathematics of close packing of spheres and is not at all based upon any of CaHill's work/math. -- steve waterman
