Think about our planet – it’s a sphere (well, technically an oblate spheroid, but let’s stick with sphere for simplicity). Now, imagine trying to take the peel off an orange and lay it perfectly flat on a table without stretching, tearing, or squashing any part of it. You can’t do it!
Cartographers face exactly the same impossible task when they try to represent our round Earth on a flat map. This process, called map projection, inevitably leads to distortions. Understanding these distortions is key to truly grasping the geography of our world.
The Un-Flattenable Earth: Why Distortion is Guaranteed
When you project a curved surface onto a flat one, something has to give. Mapmakers have developed hundreds of different projections, but each one is a compromise. They might manage to preserve one or two geographic properties accurately, but only at the expense of distorting others. The main properties that get twisted are:
Area (Size): Does the map show the relative sizes of landmasses correctly?
Shape: Do the shapes of countries look correct, or are they stretched or squashed?
Distance: Are distances between points accurately represented across the whole map?
Direction: Is the direction from one point to another shown correctly everywhere?
No flat map can get all of these right simultaneously.
The Usual Suspect: The Mercator Projection
Think back to that common world map, the one you see everywhere online and probably had in school – that’s usually the Mercator projection. As the original text says, its most famous quirk is how it distorts the size of things, making areas look bigger and bigger the farther north or south they are from the equator. That’s why Greenland looks like a giant, rivaling Africa in size on the map, even though Africa is actually 14 times larger!
Now, here’s the crucial part that often gets missed, as the text points out: The Mercator map was never designed to accurately show how big countries are relative to each other. Its inventor, Gerardus Mercator, had a completely different goal back in the 1500s: Navigation.
Imagine you’re a sailor crossing the Atlantic. What you need is a map where you can draw a straight line representing a constant compass direction (say, always heading southwest) and know that following that compass bearing will get you along that line on the map. On the curved surface of the Earth, a path of constant compass bearing (called a rhumb line or loxodrome) is actually a spiral.
Mercator’s genius was creating a flat map projection where these rhumb lines appear as perfectly straight lines. Because of its usefulness for plotting courses and how shapes look locally correct, variations like the Web Mercator became the standard for online map services like Google Maps and Bing Maps, where seamless panning and zooming are crucial.
But the Mercator projection has one massive flaw: it dramatically distorts area, especially as you move further away from the equator towards the poles. To keep shapes locally correct on a flat surface, the map has to stretch things out vertically near the poles.
This leads to some famous geographical misconceptions based purely on how things look on the map:
Greenland vs. Africa: This is the classic example. On a Mercator map, Greenland often appears enormous, looking similar in size to, if not larger than, Africa. The reality? Africa’s land area (approx. 30.4 million sq km) is about 14 times larger than Greenland’s (approx. 2.2 million sq km)! The Mercator map wildly inflates Greenland’s size because it’s so far north.
Alaska vs. Brazil: Alaska looks vast on a Mercator map, comparable perhaps to the contiguous US or Brazil. In truth, Brazil (approx. 8.5 million sq km) is nearly five times larger than Alaska (approx. 1.7 million sq km).
Russia: Russia, stretching across high northern latitudes, looks absolutely colossal and dominant on a Mercator map, appearing much larger relative to equatorial continents than it really is (though it is the largest country by area).
Europe vs. South America: Europe often looks quite substantial compared to South America. The reality is that South America (approx. 17.8 million sq km) is almost twice the size of Europe (approx. 10.2 million sq km).
Scandinavia vs. India: Norway, Sweden, and Finland appear quite large. India (approx. 3.3 million sq km) looks comparatively smaller but is actually more than four times larger than Norway, Sweden, and Denmark combined (approx. 0.8 million sq km).
Antarctica: On many Mercator maps, Antarctica appears as an infinitely wide icy continent stretched across the entire bottom edge.
Canada vs South America: On standard Mercator world maps, moving Canada from its far northern location down to South America’s position near the equator would make it appear dramatically smaller. This is because the Mercator projection increasingly exaggerates the size of landmasses as they get closer to the poles. Consequently, Canada’s familiar huge appearance on these maps is largely an effect of this distortion, not just its actual size relative to equatorial regions.
Trying to Fix It: Other Maps, Other Problems
Cartographers know about Mercator’s flaws and have developed alternative projections.
Equal-Area Projections: Maps like the Gall-Peters projection (which caused quite a stir when promoted for its “fairness” to equatorial nations) or the Mollweide projection accurately represent the relative area of landmasses. On these maps, Africa looks appropriately huge, and Greenland shrinks to its true proportional size. The downside? They achieve correct area by significantly distorting shapes. Countries, especially near the map’s edges, can look strangely elongated or squashed.
Compromise Projections: Projections like the Winkel Tripel (used by the National Geographic Society since 1998) or the Robinson projection don’t perfectly preserve area or shape, but they try to minimize both types of distortion to create a more visually balanced and “realistic” looking world map, often preferred for atlases and general reference.
Why We Still See Stretchy Maps
Despite its known area distortions, the Mercator (and its web variant) persists online mainly for functional reasons. Its ability to preserve local shapes and angles makes zooming and panning feel natural and consistent on interactive digital maps. Its historical significance in navigation also gives it inertia.
Does it Matter? How Distorted Maps Shape Our View
Does seeing Greenland blown up to the size of Africa actually affect how we think? It’s debated, but some argue that the Mercator projection historically reinforced a Eurocentric worldview by visually exaggerating the size and apparent importance of northern hemisphere nations. Conversely, it can make equatorial regions, like Africa and South America, seem smaller and potentially less significant than they truly are.
Regardless of intent, relying solely on one type of map, especially one with such dramatic area distortion, can lead to a skewed mental picture of the world. Understanding that all flat maps have limitations is a key part of map literacy.
Seeing the True Picture
How can you get a better sense of geographical reality?
- Use Interactive Tools: Websites like “The True Size Of…” (thetruesize.com) allow you to drag and drop outlines of countries onto different parts of a Mercator map. Seeing how a country’s apparent size changes as you move it from the equator to the poles is incredibly revealing. Try dragging Greenland down next to Brazil, or Russia next to Africa!
- Look at Different Projections: Compare a Mercator map with an equal-area map or a compromise projection like Winkel Tripel. Notice the differences in shape and relative size.
- Consult a Globe: The absolute best way to understand the true relative sizes, shapes, and spatial relationships of Earth’s landmasses is to look at a physical globe. It’s the only truly accurate representation of our spherical planet.
Read Maps with Healthy Skepticism
Flat maps are essential tools that allow us to visualize our world, plan journeys, and understand spatial data. But they are inherently imperfect representations. The common Mercator projection, while useful for navigation and web interfaces, dramatically inflates areas near the poles, creating widespread misconceptions about the relative sizes of continents and countries – Greenland is not bigger than Africa!
By understanding the basic problem of projection and being aware of the specific distortions in the maps we use most often, we can become more critical map readers. Seek out different projections, use online comparison tools, and, whenever possible, give a globe a spin to appreciate the true, fascinating geography of our round world. Sources and related content