User talk:Peter Mercator/Draft for cylindrical projections

Please add your comments on the proposed page.
I think this is a reasonable start on a reasonable project.

Concerning the page name: Normally the second word would not be capitalized. Also, the ICA Commission on Map Projections will be recommending "cylindric" over "cylindrical". The literature generally uses the latter, but the inconsistent use of "-al" in "conic/conical" and "cylindric/cylindrical" is an annoyance. "-al" forms also lack etymological legitimacy, having typically sprung up simply to sound more important. And finally, using "cylindric" gives more of a feel of "having to do with cylinders" than "having the shape of a cylinder". Easy enough to rename the page when the recommendation goes live, of course.

Classification: Add triaxial ellipsoid and irregular bodies, both of which have literature attached to them.

Angle transformations in the basic CP: I would advise not using "bearing" in that context. It's not clear to me what you mean by it, but whatever you mean would not be standard usage. Do you mean the protractor angle on the map of an azimuth on the sphere?

Scale factors in the basic CP: Should at least point out in the introductory text that the maximum/minimum scale factors at a point always coincide with h and k in normal aspect on cylindric projections. However, since that is not true in other aspects, you might want to include those values as well.

Secant Projections: Which Gall?

Transverse projections: Concerning Stress that these are not suitable for world maps... I'm not sure I'd stress that. While they are rarely used as world maps, it's not clear to me why they would not be "suitable". Also see comment on transverse Mercator below.

Ellipsoid forms: Not necessary for world maps since order e squared corrections only significant for large scale maps. True, but transverse Mercator is finite in ellipsoidal form, while infinite in spherical form. It's not such a bad world map at that.

Strebe (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This outline looks good. Go ahead and create the article at cylindrical projection.

I didn't know the term "cylindric" when I created the cylindrical equal-area projection article. Feel free to use the "move" tab to rename it "cylindric equal-area projection" if you think that is an improvement. --DavidCary (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)