Quote Originally Posted by waldronate View Post
If you're after accuracy, don't forget that the Earth is about 20km shorter in radius through the poles than it is through the equator (it's roughly 1 part in 300 flattening through the poles). That pretty much swamps the 6km altitude of Kilimanjaro at the equator. SJS also forgot to mention that 90+% of the Earth's surface is less than 1000 meters is elevation (assuming that you want sea level to be roughly flat). That's very approximately 1/400 of an inch; I've always found 400 grit sandpaper (1/400 inch particles) to be delightfully smooth to the touch.

The biggest problem that I've always had with paper is that it changes size with humidity (typically a few percent). I live in a desert that has lots of indoor humidity in summer and almost none in winter, so I've watched quite a few projects crack or wrinkle over the years...
Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
I was coming back to mention the bulge, but waldronate beat me to the punch... in some respects, the equatorial bulge is the biggest "mountain" on the planet, since one could, I suppose, measure heights on the earth from the earth's center, rather than sea level. In that case, the tallest "mountain" would likely be a mountain in the Andes, near the equator.

Even the bulge is barely visible to the eye, so that, from the moon, the Earth still looks like a circle rather than a flattened circle (an "oblate spheroid").

That sandpaper analogy was excellent, waldronate.
Uh, to be honest... I thought that the sinusoidal projection would take care of the equatorial bulge....? It doesn't? :-/

Also, I'm afraid I didn't catch the sandpaper analogy. Could you explain it, please? :-)