This is super neat, but it is missing my favorite projection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Mercator_projection. To think that Mercator has the same error profile as Transverse Mercator, but we generally accept the former because of ubiquity, is very disturbing to me.
Weirdly these missing islands persist into the lower projections, unless you first select a higher projection on the list and then proceed with the lower ones (skipping Mercator)
"Denmark opted out of paying the mapping API license fee to Miller Cylindrical LLC, and so Greenland has been omitted from the data product for your convenience."
I've heard that all map projections are a compromise. Is this a leftover of printed maps?
If you take a photo of the earth, you can't argue that it's inaccurate, as it's literally a photo. When you use something like Google Earth, it's the same deal. You can rotate the map and everything is rendered fairly accurately for any given perspective. Aren't they an accurate representation?
It's a fact of projecting the surface of a sphere onto a 2D plane. You can't see every side of the earth at once in Google Earth. Even the globe you look at in Google Earth is distorted since it's still a 3D projection into 2D. Looking at it from the equator, countries at the equator will appear larger relative to countries near the poles.
Anyway! This site is really cool.
I think 'Natural Earth' is most satisfying to me subjectively. Looks close enough to what we're all raised with, and seems to have a good balance of various types of distortion.
