World Maps and Posters

[Poison]

I think a Mercator should come close to the dimensions you need? It distorts pretty badly towards the poles, but unless you have anything significant going on there it shouldn't matter too much.
Alternatively, you could use a 2x1 (or other non-30x24) type map, but fill the remaining space with decorative or informative graphics. A lot of antique maps do this, see for instance here and here. It might help add some flavour, and solve the problem of the dimensions. Two birds, one stone?

[Gidde]

I've been struggling with the same issue, since a watercolor sheet is 22x 30. I particularly like Mercator for both the aspect issue and the particular qualities of the projection (preserves shape) since I love nautical chart-type maps and that's Mercator's great strength. Its big weakness is scale distortion, so if you can handle that it's really great for "looking pretty" -- especially for a fantasy-histprical map since the truly realistic projections (ie the winkle triple that natgeo uses) end up looking too modern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Veldehar]

I'm doing my map at 300 DPI.

[heffnerc1]

(condensed)If you want something a bit more archaic looking, you could try Mercator or a hemisphere map, probably in Stereographic. As I said earlier, the hemisphere map can fit in a 2:1 rectangle, or a lower aspect ratio that would look nicer and fit typical paper better if you add polar insets. The others all have lower aspect ratios, and likewise can be adjusted with insets titles and other bits.

I think a Mercator should come close to the dimensions you need? It distorts pretty badly towards the poles, but unless you have anything significant going on there it shouldn't matter too much.
Alternatively, you could use a 2x1 (or other non-30x24) type map, but fill the remaining space with decorative or informative graphics. A lot of antique maps do this, see for instance here and here. It might help add some flavour, and solve the problem of the dimensions. Two birds, one stone?

Yes, agreed with both of you, and after checking out all the options, I'm going with a non-stereographic Mercator map at 36x18. Once I add 6" to the bottom for non-map data, it'll be print friendly at 36x24. Plus, it'll be "rhumb line" friendly: http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel/m103/.../mercator.html Thank you very much for helping me learn more about the various map styles.

I'm doing my map at 300 DPI.

Thank you, I decided to go that route too since it's a lot easier to remove ppi than to add them. :-)

[heffnerc1]

I've been struggling with the same issue, since a watercolor sheet is 22x 30. I particularly like Mercator for both the aspect issue and the particular qualities of the projection (preserves shape) since I love nautical chart-type maps and that's Mercator's great strength. Its big weakness is scale distortion, so if you can handle that it's really great for "looking pretty" -- especially for a fantasy-histprical map since the truly realistic projections (ie the winkle triple that natgeo uses) end up looking too modern.

Yep, especially about the Winkle Tripel maps - I checked them out for a few days but really liked the Mercator style maps a lot more. As for the watercolor sheets, they're also 30x22. Are you interested in creating something on them as an end result, or as a middle stage towards transposing them onto a 36x24 print?

[Gidde]

The watercolor sheets are for their own maps; they'll be end results. And yeah, that should have been 30x22

[HBrown]

It's simply not true that all map projections project a sphere to a 2x1 rectangle. Many do, it's true, particularly the pseudocylindrical projections. An equirectangular (plate caree) projection will do so as well, but many other cylindrical projections do not.

Someone mentioned the Mercator projection. To map the entire sphere using a Mercator projection you need a map that's infinitely tall. In the real world, you pick your cutoff latitudes, and that choice determines the proportions of your rectangle. No one seems to notice that the Mercator projection omits the poles, because in our world the poles are not overly significant in world events. How important are they in your world?

Azimuthal projections project to a circle. Many of these are incapable of projecting a whole sphere, and most are so distorted beyond a certain radius it's unprofitable to go there. That's how you end up with two circles side-by-side.

The height-to-width proportions of a cylindrical projection depend heavily on which standard parallel(s) you pick. Cylindrical projections are considered more suitable for regional maps than for global ones, but the choice depends on the region you're mapping and what you want to emphasize.

Do you need to map the whole world? The Mercator map that hung on the wall at my grade school omitted the poles but was considered good enough for its purposes. A map that omitted a swath of the Pacific Ocean might be appropriate for some purposes (but not if you're a Pacific Islander).

What is the tale you're trying to tell with your map? What parts of the world do you need for that tale? Is it more important to preserve shape, or proportional area, or compass direction (that's what the Mercator projection does). Pick the projection that best serves your purpose and let the proportions fall where they may.