At first this map seemed perfectly fine to me, but the more I look the weirder it gets.
- The projection used (Mollweide?) distorts the hell out of Europe, Iceland is practically a smear.
- Thailand is gone.
- Crimea seems missing.
- Is Japan a bit shrunk?
- They must have screwed up mounting Africa because the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden are WAY too big
They also claim South Korea.
They included New Zealand.
They’re already leagues ahead of most US primary education text books
It makes sense they’d centre the Gulf Of Korea though.
Maps with New Zealand.
And Tasmania!
Most maps in Asia are like this. That’s why growing up I was confused why the US was called the west and East/Southeast Asia was called the far east.
edit: Oops, didn’t realize the credit wouldn’t be obvious. It’s xkcd #503.
I guess it kinda makes sense if you draw the line right down the middle of Germany. Weird, I wonder if there’s any historical precedent for that…
Its almost as if some country thinks they are the center of the world.
Well, specifically a couple of countries on either side of the Atlantic.
It’s more like most countries. Maps like the one shown in this post that place Asia as a central focus are common in Asia.
Maybe it’s not national narcissism, rather just focusing on what’s most relevant to any one people.
I think putting the line down the Pacific makes the most sense in most cases. But the national narcissism has historically been a defining characteristic of the UK and the US
That is common in east Asia in general, and I don’t see why not 🤷
What do you mean america is not the center of the universe?
Exactly, no one here played Street Fighter 2 on SNES?!
I’m no map understander, but I think the projection choice might have not been the best cause it seems to skew edges, while the part that it maintains has a lot of empty space (or maybe I’m just used to other maps). Though this is just a random map on a wall so 🤷
The solution is to create a new continent in the Pacific.
I’m trying but they keep cleaning up my plastic
You are used to other maps. Yours are skewed the same way, at least when referencing the versions with curved edges (Robinson), but you just see the same anglo-centric projections, being centered on the prime meridian from the northern hemisphere. The USA is a little bigger than shown on the “normal” map. Greenland is quite smaller than represented. South America/Africa/Australia are significantly undersized. And there’s no hope for understanding Antarctica in either version.
Yes, but the maps we’re more used to split in the middle of the Pacific, far from all land, more or less at Point Nemo. That minimizes the visual distortion since the land is further from the edges of the map.
Splitting through the Atlantic makes it trickier, because the ocean is significantly narrower, meaning that the land masses are all closer to the edges.
Positioning the map with North at the top is truly arbitrary, but splitting the map in the Pacific actually makes a lot of sense from a usability perspective.
Less land? Sure, but not away from all land. Less people, debatable. The Atlantic split makes it hard to notice Alaska and Russia are miles apart. It also makes it seems like hundreds of pacific islands are at the edge of the world, isolated. It presents the Americas and Asia as, literally, a world apart. No matter where you draw your centerline, the edges have greatly distorted distances. It’s not just continental mass that’s important, but aquatic distances as well.
I don’t think it’s particularly debatable that more people live in Europe and Africa and South America (the most notably distorted landmasses in the Pacific-centered map) than in Alaska, Eastern Russia, and the few Pacific isles that aren’t tucked right in next to Continental Asia and Australia. The most populous nation negatively affected by a Pacific split is probably New Zealand, and that only represents about five million people. The most populous nation negatively affected by an Atlantic split is probably Brazil, with over forty times as many people.
I like it, if only because it places Oceania at the center. They’re always pushed aside and it’s big sad.
It makes as much sense as any other 2D projection of the globe.
In this map’s defense, it really highlights the value of a northwest passage and all the canals.
I like this one
Maybe a little more than this one…
thank god I needed a map with an inverse relationship with population and size on the map
At least it has New Zealand.
Don’t the rest of the countries in the region use similar maps? South Korea, Australia, Japan…? I would expect that to be the case, it seems more natural.
They’ve not discovered Antarctica yet
Yes, and Australia even has it as upside down.
Projection aside, proportionally it’s a bit whack and Japan is a bit too far north. Taiwan also seems to be inexplicably MIA, which would be understandable if it were omitted due to size but there are several smaller islands still depicted.
Perhaps the real point of interest is that it seems to depict the North and South Koreas as united with the whole peninsula colored in red. As usual for the Juche Boys, this is probably a tacit threat rather than any indication of potential armistice or reconciliation.
They do this petty, embarrassing shit all the time on their maps. Made it look like Japan smaller while simultaneously peninsula bigger. And this is not just from north but south too lol
Sea of Thieves lookin’ map.
The oddest part for me is Greenland being split from the Americas
I mean politically speaking it’s Danish, so I suppose it makes sense to group it with Europe in some ways.
It does look a little odd though.
Seems odd to me to want to put the largest ocean in the world as the focus. Yes, let’s put most of the useful information around the edge of the map. Brilliant idea.
Let’s draw maps with Antarctica in the middle instead.
north korea is pretty lose to center on the map.
That’s just the back of the UN logo
Friar tuck with a splash of bird turd to the noggin
