<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This reminds me of something someone
famous once said: “That depends on what your definition of "is"
is” -- Bill Clinton</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mike Finn</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Michael Ossipoff"
<mikeo2106@msn.com></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: proj-bounces@lists.maptools.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">08/12/2007 07:35 AM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
"PROJ.4 and general Projections Discussions"
<proj@lists.maptools.org></font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">proj@lists.maptools.org</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[Proj] Concluding comments</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt><br>
Daan--<br>
<br>
This is my last posting here. I’m not continuing the argument about maps.
<br>
But I have a right to reply to some of your mis-statements and mis-quotes
of <br>
me. They’ve been the constant theme of your postings, but, for brevity
I’m <br>
mostly commenting on those in your most recent posting. You should <br>
understand that you are not asked or expected to reply to this.<br>
<br>
I’d said:<br>
<br>
Accurate directly-measured lat/long positions are a “metric criterion”
no <br>
less than is equal-area.<br>
<br>
You said:<br>
<br>
Equal-area is a rigorous concept. "Giving accurate and easy <br>
directly-measured lat/long coordinates" is not<br>
<br>
I comment now:<br>
<br>
First, the word “easy” was not in “accurate directly-measured lat/long
<br>
positions”, the phrase by which I referred to a metric criterion.<br>
<br>
Definitions should be precise, but I didn’t say that “accurate <br>
directly-measured lat/long positions” was a definition. It was a brief
<br>
description referring to an obvious, and obviously precisely-definable,
<br>
property of the sinusoidal.<br>
<br>
Yes, you could say I was out of line when I referred to a property that
I <br>
hadn’t defined, but, as I said, the property was obvious. But apparently
not <br>
obvious enough, and so I spelled it out for you and walked you through
it, <br>
when I defined the linearly interpolable positions property.<br>
<br>
Though I’ve already replied to “Your analysis of the issues surrounding
your <br>
thesis seems to evolve as we talk”, and “You’ve now evolved to an <br>
interrupted sinusoidal”, I want to mention those false statements again,
as <br>
examples of your overall tendency toward falsity in these postings. You
said <br>
that I’d “evolved to” the sinusoidal, though I’d been suggesting it
from my <br>
first posting here, for when equal-area is desired. My position has been
<br>
consistent in my postings here.<br>
<br>
You said:<br>
<br>
But more importantly, and back to your thesis, it's not clear to me how
<br>
often the cartographer shares your priorities.<br>
<br>
I reply:<br>
<br>
Hello? If cartographers shared my priorities, about making data maps <br>
genuinely usable for their stated purpose, I wouldn’t have had reason
to <br>
post my first message here. Cartographers apparently are conditioned to
<br>
minimize distortion, often to the detriment of a map’s stated purpose.<br>
<br>
But, then, cartographers don’t share your priorities either. You said
that <br>
data maps should be equal area, but if you look at some atlases you’ll
find <br>
many data maps that are not equal area. You said that data maps should
<br>
minimize the inaccuracy of directly-measured distances, but if you look
at <br>
some atlases you’ll find many data maps on projections that would definitely
<br>
not be chosen for that purpose. Oh, and did I mention that those two <br>
requirements of yours are mutually incompatible?<br>
<br>
You continued:<br>
<br>
You may want to think of a map as one that fits your notion of a "data
map"<br>
<br>
I reply:<br>
<br>
Wrong. It’s not how I “want to think of a map”. The maps to which I
referred <br>
_are_ data maps, by which I said that I mean spatial distribution maps.
<br>
They’re that whether or not someone wants to think of them as such.<br>
<br>
You continued:<br>
<br>
, but people may be using it for many other purposes as well.<br>
<br>
I reply:<br>
<br>
By definition, spatial distribution maps tell where certain species ranges,
<br>
temperature zones, etc., are. For those interested, they also show their
<br>
relative areas. But you’re speculating that maybe there may be many other
<br>
unspecified purposes for which people use them. Let me underscore your
word <br>
“may”, and the fact that you’re talking pure unsupported speculation,
and <br>
that you don’t even specify the purposes to which you refer.<br>
<br>
Oh yes, you did mention distance. “Hey Joe, our seven and a half minute
USGS <br>
topographic map fell out of my backpack somewhere. Could you toss me that
<br>
bird book, the one with the North America maps showing where the <br>
bird-species live? We’ll use that to find our way back to the car, and
to <br>
find out how far it is.” It’s good to have a bird book or a rainfall
<br>
distribution map that shows accurate distances! :^)<br>
<br>
You said:<br>
<br>
What, then, is your thesis?<br>
<br>
You added [after describing three theses, A, B, and C, and labeling thesis
D <br>
as “something else”]:<br>
<br>
If (D), then I am completely lost, and I must apologize for not following
<br>
your arguments<br>
<br>
I reply:<br>
<br>
Then you’re completely lost, because it’s D. It’s D, because none of
your <br>
theses A, B, and C accurately quote what I’d been saying. If those represent
<br>
your best effort to quote what I’d been consistently saying, then you
indeed <br>
are completely lost.<br>
<br>
You said:<br>
<br>
your jargon is idiosyncratic<br>
<br>
I reply:<br>
<br>
Definition of jargon:<br>
<br>
1. Specialized language used when specialized language isn’t needed, and
<br>
used in order to obfuscate a topic or to impress one or more listeners.<br>
<br>
2. Specialized language used by someone against whose statements the speaker
<br>
wants to argue.<br>
<br>
To a large extent you probably meant that I _wasn’t_ using jargon, but
was <br>
instead using English, the kind in standard dictionaries. Saying that <br>
someone isn’t using the right jargon serves the same purpose as saying
that <br>
someone isn’t using the correct secret handshake or password. As I said,
I <br>
tried to find an ica glossary of map projection terminology.<br>
<br>
We’ve discussed how I mis-guessed the officially correct meaning of <br>
“equidistant”. Instead of a definition of “equidistant”, I’d only
run across <br>
definitions of three equidistant projections. Their definitions mentioned
<br>
equally-spaced parallels. So my guess was a good one, even if, unknown
to <br>
me, the official types have said that the meridians must be straight.<br>
<br>
The projection that I called “equidistant elliptical” has something <br>
important in common with equidistant cylindrical and equidistant conic:
<br>
Equally spaced parallels. Equally spaced parallels are probably the most
<br>
important and useful property of an equidistant cylindrical that makes
it <br>
different from an equal-area cylindrical. And “equidistant elliptical”
has <br>
that property in common with the officially-named equidistant projections.
<br>
With both projections, the equally spaced parallels greatly facilitate
<br>
determination of latitude. Maybe that means that it would be more useful
to <br>
not limit “equidistant” to uniform scale along straight meridians.<br>
<br>
Maybe “equidistant” could be meaningfully and usefully defined in terms
of <br>
equally spaced parallels, and maybe it should be. But I’m only saying
that <br>
my guess was well justified.<br>
<br>
If, officially, equidistant maps must have straight meridians, then I have
<br>
to give the name “equally-spaced elliptical” to the projection that I’d
<br>
previously called “equidistant<br>
elliptical”.<br>
<br>
Michael Ossipoff<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Proj mailing list<br>
Proj@lists.maptools.org<br>
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj<br>
</tt></font>
<br>