Gall–Peters or AuthaGraph. The end.

[Milo]

If this is a political move rather than stupidity, and especially one by a minority political group trying to pull a fast one over the majority, that's probably a good thing. It significantly increases the chances that the proposal will get defeated by rival political interests before becoming law.

Politicians aren't always the most scientifically-aware people... or the most ethical ones... but they do tend to know politics. They're going to spot someone trying to hoodwink them.

[daan]

It significantly increases the chances that the proposal will get defeated by rival political interests before becoming law.

The only thing between the bill and law is the governor’s signature. The legislature passed a massive sheaf of bills all at once, including this one, and tossed them at the governor. It all hangs on whether the governor’s office recognizes that there’s anything amiss here: the topic is so obscure to the average person that it barely means anything. I started up a Reddit thread in the Nebraska group about this. A lot of people express annoyance, but I have no idea if they’ll actually do anything about it.

— daan

[daan]

Update: The omnibus bill that landed on the governor’s desk was amended to allow other cylindrical equal-area projections “similar” to Gall–Peters, and not to require replacing older materials. This is the amended text:

Sec. 90.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, beginning in school year 2024-25, a public school shall not allow the use of a Mercator projection map in school. A public school shall only use the Gall-Peters projection map or a similar cylindrical equal-area projection map or the AuthaGraph projection map for display or use in the classroom.

(2) A Mercator projection map may be used in a classroom if such map is:
(a) Used in conjunction with other projection maps in a teaching exercise to demonstrate that all maps are flawed in some way and different map projections serve different functions and may affect how an individual views the world; or
(b)(i) Part of any (A) book or material obtained prior to the effective date of this act, (B) geographic information system, or (C) computer program that renders a three-dimensional representation of Earth based primarily on satellite imagery, such as Google Earth or similar software; and (ii) A Gall-Peters projection map or a similar cylindrical equal-area projection map or an AuthaGraph projection map is displayed in the classroom or shown to students during the lesson in which a Mercator projection map is used.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a school to dispose of or replace any book or material used in the classroom or obtained prior to the effective date of this act.

(4) The school board of each public school district shall adopt a policy to implement the requirements of this section.

Link: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDo ... f#page=102

[justlikeoldtimes]

I prefer if they just not reference Peters at all. The clear implication is that it's still the most preferable.

I just don't want it institutionalized one bit. The other cylindrical equal-area projections are fine.

[daan]

I just don't want it institutionalized one bit.

I agree. The truism that everything is political doesn’t justify making something maximally political.

All rubbish.

— daan

[Milo]

Well, at least that allows more sensible choices of standard parallel.

But seriously, if they just removed the word "cylindrical" and made the law to encourage the use of equal-area projections in general, I might actually get behind this. Sure, there are uses for non-equal-area projections, but in a school setting? Probably not that valuable, unless you're specifically giving a lesson about map projections, and that's already covered by clause 2.

Well, and remove any mention of the AuthaGraph projection, of course. A projection that literally cannot be used because its inventor refuses to share its formula does not even deserve to be discussed.

[PeteD]

But seriously, if they just removed the word "cylindrical" and made the law to encourage the use of equal-area projections in general, I might actually get behind this.

I certainly wouldn't. I'm generally against censorship unless there's a compelling reason for it.

Sure, there are uses for non-equal-area projections, but in a school setting? Probably not that valuable, unless you're specifically giving a lesson about map projections, and that's already covered by clause 2.

While there are specific purposes for which equal-area projections are most appropriate, if it's just a general-purpose world map, no equal-area projection provides as good an impression of what the world looks like as a good compromise projection like the Winkel Tripel does (or better yet Canters W13, danseiji N or Tobias's Wagner IX autobiographical or F13 copycat, but let's face it – these are unfortunately not likely to make it into atlases or textbooks any time soon).

For regional maps, yes, equal-area projections can work great, but so can the transverse Mercator. I see no reason to ban the latter.

[Milo]

While there are specific purposes for which equal-area projections are most appropriate, if it's just a general-purpose world map, no equal-area projection provides as good an impression of what the world looks like as a good compromise projection like the Winkel Tripel does (or better yet Canters W13, danseiji N or Tobias's Wagner IX autobiographical or F13 copycat, but let's face it – these are unfortunately not likely to make it into atlases or textbooks any time soon).

A quick search of Tobias's site turns up several lenticular equal-area projections (Danseiji I, Wagner VII, and a bunch of others that on closer inspection are described as Wagner VII variants) that do not show appreciably more shape distortion than the ones you mention.

[PeteD]

Yes, danseiji I, Wagner VII and some of its variants such as Francula V and XIV and Tobias's Wagner BCW-E are the best of the equal-area projections (only considering those that are interrupted along one meridian). However, while they're far better than the Gall-Peters, they do show appreciably more angular distortion than the best compromise projections. I can provide distortion plots if you like.

[quadibloc]

But seriously, if they just removed the word "cylindrical" and made the law to encourage the use of equal-area projections in general, I might actually get behind this.

I certainly wouldn't. I'm generally against censorship unless there's a compelling reason for it.

I can understand legislators making use of a blanket prohibition because they feel any attempt at a nuanced approach would be ineffective.
Requiring wall maps to be equal-area instead of the pervasive Mercator may be censorship, but it is not outrageous.
However, while the Peters projection isn't the worst equal area projection possible, it still comes too close to that to be a good choice.
My own personal preference is an interrupted Sinusoidal in normal aspect, as I've made an argument that, while it distorts shapes, it does so in a way that is, in a sense, not deceptive.
As for compromise projections, while the Winkel Tripel, or the Robinson are reasonable, another one that is readily available is the Van der Grinten, which basically perpetuates the flaws of the Mercator.