There is no correct map

"And that is precisely where my problem lies. I am the first to argue that, in education, in newspapers and magazines, and in general, the cartographic projections used to represent the world map should be a good compromise. I think the Equal Earth projection is an excellent compromise. But as a cartography enthusiast, it pains me deeply every time someone talks about the "true" map, the "correct" map, or that the Mercator projection is "wrong.""

"Speaking of the Correct the Map campaign, Miguel García Álvarez reminds that there is no such thing as the correct map, because all maps are a compromise to show a three-dimensional space in two dimensions. And that is precisely where my problem lies. I am the first to argue that, in education, in newspapers and magazines, and in general, the cartographic projections used to represent the world map should be a good compromise."

All maps are compromises designed to represent three-dimensional space on two-dimensional surfaces. Good educational and media practice selects projections that balance distortions; the Equal Earth projection is an effective compromise. Declaring any projection the 'true' or 'correct' map misrepresents the inherent trade-offs of projection choice. The Mercator projection possesses practical uses despite its distortions and should not be dismissed solely as 'wrong.' The analogy with statistics emphasizes that models simplify reality and can be useful even if imperfect. Probability functions as a conceptual tool rather than an absolute entity. Understanding projection trade-offs supports informed, context-driven map selection.

Read at FlowingData