What Different World Maps Get Right and What They Get Wrong
There is something strangely powerful about a world map hanging on a classroom wall. At a glance, it appears to tell us exactly how big countries and continents are, where they sit in relation to one another and what the world looks like. But there is a problem hiding in plain sight: the Earth is not flat, and no flat map can show the entire planet without distorting something.
That distortion has suddenly become the centre of an international debate after the United Nations called for greater use of world maps that represent the relative size of continents more accurately, particularly Africa. The move has reignited an old cartographic argument over whether the world map many generations have grown up with gives a misleading impression of the planet.
The issue is not simply about replacing one picture with another. It is about understanding what every map sacrifices when the curved surface of Earth is transferred onto a flat sheet or screen.
The problem with putting a round Earth on a flat map
Imagine trying to peel an orange and flatten the skin without tearing, stretching or changing its shape. You quickly discover that it cannot be done perfectly.
Cartographers face essentially the same problem when creating a world map. The Earth is roughly spherical, while a conventional map is flat. Every projection therefore involves compromises.
Some projections preserve area, meaning continents maintain a more accurate relationship in size. Others preserve shape, direction or distance. There is no single projection that gets everything right.
The United Nations itself acknowledges that different projections are appropriate for different purposes. Its current guidance notes that world maps commonly use projections designed to balance distortions of area, direction and distance rather than eliminating distortion altogether.
This is where the famous Mercator projection enters the story.
Mercator: Brilliant for navigation, misleading for size
Created by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569, the Mercator projection became one of the most influential maps in history.
Its great strength is navigation. It preserves angles and makes lines of constant compass bearing appear as straight lines. For sailors navigating across oceans, that was enormously useful.
But the same mathematical characteristics that make the Mercator projection useful for navigation create a serious problem when people use it to compare the size of continents.
The distortion becomes increasingly severe as you move towards the poles. Greenland, for example, appears enormous compared with Africa, even though Africa's actual land area is many times greater. Countries in northern Europe and North America also appear considerably larger than they really are relative to countries near the equator.
Africa suffers particularly from this visual distortion because much of the continent lies relatively close to the equator.
The result is not that the Mercator map is "wrong" in every sense. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do. The problem comes when a map designed primarily for navigation is interpreted as an accurate representation of continental size.
That distinction matters.
Peters map: putting area back into the picture
The Peters projection, commonly known as the Gall-Peters projection, takes a very different approach.
Instead of trying to preserve the familiar shapes of countries, it prioritises equal area. Countries and continents are therefore represented in proportions that better reflect their actual land areas.
This makes Africa look dramatically larger compared with Europe than it does on a standard Mercator map.
South America, too, gains visual weight, while countries in the far north lose some of the inflated appearance associated with Mercator.
But there is a catch.
The Peters projection badly distorts the shapes of many countries. Land masses can appear stretched vertically or compressed horizontally. A country may have a more accurate area while looking nothing like its familiar geographical shape.
That has made the projection controversial among cartographers and educators.
Its supporters argue that accurately representing the relative size of continents is essential, particularly because maps can influence how people mentally understand the world. Critics counter that the Peters projection sacrifices too much shape accuracy to achieve its equal-area goal.
In other words, it solves one problem while creating another.
Equal Earth: a modern attempt at balance
The Equal Earth projection is one of the newer efforts to address the same problem in a more visually balanced way.
Introduced in 2018, Equal Earth is an equal-area projection, meaning it preserves the relative areas of land masses. Like the Peters projection, it therefore avoids making Africa appear dramatically smaller than it really is.
But Equal Earth was designed to make the shapes of continents look more natural and visually pleasing than some earlier equal-area projections.
Africa remains large, South America retains a recognisable shape and the continents are presented in a way that many people find easier to interpret.
This makes Equal Earth particularly interesting in the current debate. Rather than simply choosing between a map that preserves shape and one that preserves area, it represents an attempt to produce an aesthetically appealing global map while maintaining accurate relative areas.
It is not perfect, however. Shapes and distances are still distorted, particularly because the projection is still trying to fit a three-dimensional planet onto a two-dimensional surface.
Azimuthal Equidistant: distance from a chosen point
Then there is the Azimuthal Equidistant projection, which works differently again.
Rather than attempting to treat the entire world equally in every respect, it preserves distance and direction from a central point.
Imagine placing the centre of the map over the North Pole. Locations can then be plotted according to their direction and distance from that point. Move away from the centre and other types of distortion become increasingly noticeable.
The projection has practical uses in areas such as aviation, telecommunications and mapping around particular locations.
It is also famous because the United Nations emblem uses an Azimuthal Equidistant projection centred on the North Pole, extending to 60 degrees south latitude.
That makes it a striking reminder that even an organisation debating global map representation does not rely on one universal projection for every purpose.
So which map is the "correct" one?
The uncomfortable answer is: none of them and all of them.
A map is a tool. The best projection depends on what the map is supposed to accomplish.
If you are navigating across an ocean, the Mercator projection can be extremely useful. If you want to compare the actual sizes of continents, an equal-area projection such as Equal Earth is far more appropriate.
If your primary concern is accurately showing distances from a particular central point, an Azimuthal Equidistant projection may be the better choice.
This is why the debate surrounding the United Nations' call is bigger than simply deciding whether one map should replace another.
The UN's own geospatial guidance says there is no single prescribed projection for all its maps. Its world maps use different approaches depending on their purpose, while its emblem uses the Azimuthal Equidistant projection.
Why Africa's size matters
For Africa, the issue carries an especially powerful message.
Africa is the world's second-largest continent by both land area and population, yet the Mercator projection can make it appear visually smaller than its true size when compared with northern land masses.
That does not mean Mercator was created to deliberately diminish Africa. The distortion is a mathematical consequence of the projection.
But maps are not merely mathematical objects. They are educational tools, cultural symbols and visual shortcuts through which millions of people develop their first understanding of geography.
The United Nations said in September 2026 that its General Assembly had voted overwhelmingly to encourage governments, schools and technology companies to move away from maps that make Africa appear far smaller than it really is.
That decision reflects a growing recognition that the way the world is drawn can influence how the world is perceived.
A new era of looking at the world
The debate over world maps is unlikely to end with one projection becoming universally dominant.
Instead, the more valuable lesson may be that people should stop thinking of any single flat map as a perfect picture of Earth.
The Mercator projection teaches us about navigation. Peters reminds us about area. Equal Earth offers a modern attempt to combine accuracy of area with visually familiar shapes. Azimuthal Equidistant demonstrates how a map can prioritise distance and direction from a particular point.
Each tells part of the story.
Perhaps the most important change, therefore, is not simply putting a new map on classroom walls. It is teaching students and the wider public to ask a simple question whenever they look at a map: What does this map get right, and what does it distort?
Because the world itself has not changed.
Our picture of it has.
Comments
Post a Comment